The Arab Spring, an outmoded formula. It is becoming increasingly difficult to speak of relations between the EU and the countries of the southern shore of the Mediterranean on the basis of the “Arab Spring” formula. This expression still exists and that is a very good thing, because it is both symbolic and sympathetic. But it no longer represents reality. Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, the three countries behind this spring, are following very different roads and others have joined them along the way, each with its own specific characteristics and ambitions; additionally, protagonists further afield have acquired a leading role, chief among them Turkey. The Union for the Mediterranean, a notion which has always had a theoretical and rhetorical role whilst corresponding to no reality, continues to exist through inertia and a number of its members, in particular those of the Adriatic Sea, may even have forgotten that they belong to it. The EU, including the European Parliament, is basing its attitudes and actions on the new reality.
The weight of traditions (religious and otherwise). To begin with, the EU's vision was somewhat illusory and possibly even a bit egotistical as regards the possible future developments of these countries. One of the people who know the region the best, Eneko Landaburu, the head of the EU's delegation to Morocco, pointed out that in its session of 28 June last year, the “Foreign Affairs” Council promised Europe's support to countries which “resolutely commit towards solid democracy” involving “freedom of association, expression and meeting, freedom for the press and the media, independent judiciary, democratic control and [control] of the armed forces”, and so on. In practice, the EU was asking these countries to adopt the European model of society, with the principles and beliefs this entails. And it was, to an extent, disappointed when it noted that the people of these countries had voted largely on the basis of their own beliefs and traditions, to a considerable extent their own religious beliefs and traditions.
In any case, the main thing is that in general, these countries have won back their freedom and the right to govern themselves as they wish. The elections in these countries were by and large carried out correctly and fairly. In a number of countries, political forces with ideas close to European concepts of religious freedom and equality for women took part in the election campaigns; but, it cannot be denied, with disappointing results. The main reasons behind the people's choices related to their religion and employment opportunities (see, for example, the case of the distribution of agricultural land in Morocco).
Cooperation and possible and reasonable agreements. In my opinion, the EU, and the European Parliament in particular, should not indulge in attitudes of disappointment when it notes attitudes in some or other of the countries of the other side of the Mediterranean which differ greatly from the principles held on this side. Each country should be free to decide for itself and the EU must negotiate possible and reasonable agreements with all of them, whilst at the same time continuing with the achievements bringing several, or even all, countries together, by defining common objectives in certain fields. But there should be no rhetorical excess or artificially inflated common institutions, the efficiency of which is inversely proportionate to their cost and pomp and circumstance of their ceremonies.
Bilaterally, there are many positive prospects, many of which are promising, but which also have many associated difficulties. As regards energy, I don't even need to stress the unlimited possibilities of cooperation with Algeria. With Libya, cooperation in the same area should be virtually automatic, to carry on what has existed for years; but the internal political situation in the country is currently disastrous. There is a government, but no army, and several militia continue to exist and refuse to give up their weapons, for which they have several sources. A number of ethnic entities are calling for greater autonomy which, in the case of Cyrenaica, looks a lot like a desire for independence.
With other countries, relations have made more or less progress (how many problems have there been in agricultural negotiations with Morocco!). It is clear that all of this flies in the face of the empty, rhetorical plans for global negotiations between the EU and the countries of the other side of the Mediterranean as a bloc.
The case of Tunisia. Tunisia merits a few specific comments of its own. It had grown closer to the principles of freedom and democracy. Women in particular had made progress on the road towards rights and autonomy, and they have no intention of giving up what they have gained. We need to support them as much as possible.
Most unfortunately, there is currently a plague of Salafists in Tunisia, with its branch of fanatics who declare themselves “prepared to die and to kill”. Their leaders, who have been arrested over the years, had been sentenced to long periods of imprisonment, but have been granted amnesties; right now, they are relaunching their doctrine of the single law (sharia law) and the caliphate as a political regime; and they are starting to accumulate weapons. The minister of the interior, Ali Laârayedh (who spent 14 years in prison under Bourguiba and is a member of the moderate Islamic party Ennahda), observes that the freedom which has been won back applies to everyone: the Salafists have the right to self-expression, only criminal acts and violence are punishable. In a recent conference at the European Parliament (Tunisia's Democratic Experiment), various tendencies were expressed. A former exile asked whether Ennahda would “resist the Salafist sirens”, stressed that the amnesty was mainly of benefit to dangerous people and confirmed the existence of a weapons cache. An Ennahda MP said that any illegal behaviour would be punished, whether or not the perpetrators were Salafists, and assured his audience that his party supports democracy, the fundamental freedoms and human rights: it is a "democratic Muslim party".
I believe that the real danger, for Tunisia and elsewhere, lies in cooperation between the extremists (Salafists and others) of different countries of the region: Algeria, Libya, Egypt, as far as sub-Saharan Africa. From Egypt we have heard the statement: “anyone who puts up an obstacle to sharia is not a Muslim”.
Provisional conclusion. Having supported their evolution towards democracy and freedom, Europe has no right to intervene in the internal affairs of all of these countries and must not continually change its position depending on the latest developments in any of them - particularly as these changes are broader and more profound than we can imagine: they also involve the cultural field, links with the rest of the Arab world, the growing weight of Turkey. This column will return to the issue. (FR/transl.fl)