Between rhetoric and ingenuousness. There is something rhetorical, and even slightly ingenuous, in the EU's attitude towards Mediterranean third countries. At the time of the Arab Spring, everything was rose-tinted: freedom, democracy and social justice were a done deal. Then, the results of the elections cast something of a shadow, because in them, a very considerable majority of the protagonists of this Spring voted in favour of movements representing (in radical fashion, some of them) their traditional religion. And within the EU, particularly over at the European Parliament, things started to fluctuate between enthusiasm and disappointment, depending on whether the actions and decisions of the other shore fit more or less with the ideas and hopes of those speaking on this shore. The idea that free and autonomous people are the masters of their own choices does not seem to have been entirely taken on board by Europe. It is up to them to choose their way of life, even if that includes elements we may not share; especially given that this principle is also valid for the EU and that here, it is our principles that must be respected.
Political Islam in place. We therefore have to note and agree that in various countries of the Arab Spring, political Islam has taken its place, with comfortable majorities. The secular minorities, the westernised elite and a few coastal towns have been overestimated over here; those that were described as “immediate and deep wells of the collective identity” have largely come about, even though Islam and its moral order are present everywhere. Historians observed that previously, Islamism had been historically kept on the sidelines of political power: Bourguiba in Tunisia, Nasser in Egypt and a few others, followed the example of Ataturk in Turkey and of the last Shah of Iran. Nasser repressed the Muslim brotherhood. Bourguiba made Tunisian women the most emancipated in the Arab world. The Algerian powers that be refused to acknowledge the election victory of the Islamists. In Turkey and in Egypt, the military is still trying to hang onto its power, or what's left of it; and we have to acknowledge that in Ankara, the authorities reasonably respect certain principles of freedom and democracy.
Efforts and confusion. A similar effort to that made by Turkey also exists in the countries of the Arab Spring: the winners of the elections are taking pains to reassure the public, guaranteeing that they will respect freedom and democratic rules as a whole. There are, indeed, a number of indications to suggest that progress is being made in this direction. But other signs are less reassuring, and the European Parliament finds itself these days alternating between satisfaction and protest. In fact, the reactions and behaviour are not always determined by the degree of freedom and tolerance of the regime, but by other interests related more to oil or to trade. Sometimes, confusion reigns: it is not always easy to know who is the legitimate leader of a country, or to assess the degree to which the opposition is respected. In Libya, power struggles continue, worsened by the existence of forces still bearing arms of all descriptions; the end of war does not mean peace, the existence of a leader recognised internationally does not mean that the country is unified, because demands for local or regional autonomy persist. Elsewhere, conflicts between countries of the region are still going on; the possibility that the border between Algeria and Morocco may be opened up once more after years of closure was announced as a great success.
What isn't helpful. In the given context, the Euro-Mediterranean Union is an illusion or a sham, a way of wasting money, maintaining pointless bureaucracy and creating a raft of bodies and meetings. The most spectacular vital sign of this EMU was the appointment of its third secretary general in less than two years. I wonder whether the Balkan states, which are members of it, know that this Union still exists. Meanwhile, there is still no end to the plethora of Euro-Mediterranean bodies. A “non-permanent staff for interventions in the event of crisis” has just come into being within the 5 +5 Group, which consists of Spain, France, Italy, Portugal and Malta on the one hand; Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya and Mauritania on the other. More in-depth studies and assessments have been announced (see our bulletin 10515).
It is clear that relations between the EU and the other Mediterranean countries are vital for the survival of this sick sea, for peace, for the economy, in our mutual interests (the EU needs oil and gas from Algeria and Libya), for reasons of principal (support to women in Tunisia is a duty). But the plethora of bodies, missions by members of the European Parliament on the ground, everything that is done for reasons of façade and rhetoric is pointless and expensive.
(FR/transl.fl)