“Political Islam” has taken charge. According to a number of observers, the Arab Spring has swung in the direction of an Islamist Spring. Those, by and large young people, who brought about the Arab Spring, have found themselves sidelined by later developments, as their Spring is replaced by a political Islam that did not lie behind the popular uprising (and the indications from the elections in Libya show no change in this general pattern). In the main, it has been fair and proper elections that have put the power in the hands of political Islam. But it is not the turn of events hoped for and wanted by a section of the European political forces which eagerly and enthusiastically welcomed the Arab Spring.
One commentator makes the point that the pioneers of the Arab Spring, “bitter and cheated, are now beginning fresh resistance”. This, in my view, overstates things a bit, as the flame of the Arab Spring still burns. At least a section of those elected is striving to safeguard its principles. The simple fact that fair and, by and large, aboveboard, elections are taking place everywhere, in itself, represents huge progress on the past, and must never be forgotten. It is true, however, that, from the European perspective, if we look at the southern rim as a whole, the changes taking place do not always match up to hopes.
Differing and sometimes worrying situations. In Libya, regional anarchy has not disappeared. The very unity of the country would still seem in part to be a subject of controversy. In Tunisia, freedom of the press greatly concerns Community institutions (see our newsletter no 10618): seven years jail for caricatures of the prophet Mohammed certainly gives cause for puzzlement.
Overall, the differences between the aims and ambitions of each of the southern Mediterranean countries have destroyed the objective that lay at the heart of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM): Morocco is hoping to become part of the European Economic Area (see yesterday's newsletter, while, according to the Algerian authorities the revolutions that shook its brother countries (Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Mali were cited) were the work of Zionism and NATO (see newsletter no 10609). In some countries, supporters of Sharia law say all women should wear the veil and women adulterers should be whipped in public. Elsewhere Shiites take on Sunnis with the remorseless determination that we all know.
To this can be added the geographic extension of the difficulties, caused, for example, by the flight of the Touareg mercenaries who previously worked for Gaddafi and who have fled Libya, taking with them their equipment and, especially, their weapons, causing disruption in the traditionally peaceful Muslim regions of black Africa by exporting fanaticism and fundamentalism. One need only speak of what is happening in Timbuktu, one of humanity's treasures and the pride of Muslims, where, in the name of some Islamic orthodoxy, fanatics are burning secular manuscripts which sing the glory of God and are destroying the mausoleums of true Muslim saints. It is difficult to believe that these crimes are being committed in the name of religion; we prefer to view those carrying out these acts as criminals pure and simple.
Even ground-to-air missiles. The quantity of the arms they hold, and the kinds of weapons they are, raise serious concern. Spanish daily El Pais has reported that Mauritanian, Malian and Nigerian mercenaries, who formed part of Gaddafi's army and who have now returned to their own countries with their weapons, have taken with them Russian- and American-made missiles to sell on the free market in the Sahel where fanatics and local banditti can buy them with the money raised in ransoms paid by European countries to secure the release of their nationals who have been kidnapped. Still according to El Pais, a Pentagon report says that the Libyan army had 20,000 missiles, a large proportion of which still remain unaccounted for. If ground-to-air missiles now form part of the arsenal which was already known to exist, civil aeroplanes flying over the Sahel could be in danger.
European uncertainty. In the face of this Islam, “a vast river abounding with conflicting currents” - the definition is not mine but I have forgotten whose it is) - the EU institutions seem far from clear, reassuring stances. The European Parliament (EP) sometimes gives in to superficial and ineffective rhetoric; it still speaks of the huge Euro-Mediterranean free-trade area and has not given up on the brainwave of bringing together all the countries bordering on the Mediterranean in a single organisation, and this includes the countries of the Adriatic who are not even aware that they are part of it all. EP President Martin Schulz has repeated that “the ultimate ail remains the creation of a EuroMed free-trade area”. From time to time mention is made in the EU of reciprocity, Konrad Szymanski and Jan Olbrycht have called for the freedom of Christians to practise their religion in the Arab world (see newsletter no 10613). Some useful initiatives appear occasionally, when the EU is represented on the ground by people who prefer effectiveness to rhetoric: Eneko Landaburu, EU Ambassador to Morocco, has just signed a convention in Rabat (see our newsletter no 10648) under which the EU will jointly finance Moroccan plans to bring about gender equality: legal protection, women in decision-making positions, a culture of equality. Surely this is a case of European money being well spent!
Partial points which, nevertheless, should not be overlooked. The above remarks highlight points the reality of which must, in my view, be taken into account by the EU. They do not, under any circumstances, lay claim to providing an exhaustive overview of the different situations. From one country to another, the same names can mean different realities. Two movements, both inspired by religion or having similar names, can interpret reference to Sharia law completely differently; the Muslim Brotherhood may, in one country, be close to the Salafist movement and, in another, be totally opposed to it. As for attitudes towards women, I do not think that, in Tunisia, what has already been achieved can be questioned, while elsewhere unacceptable situations remain. Even the comments of some high-level political leaders are not always easy to interpret. One sometimes wonders the extent to which they are sincere and correspond to reality.
Definitive and inescapable links. Whatever the critical comments and question marks, nothing can challenge the basic reality that is the definitive and inescapable nature of the links between Europe and the southern rim of the Mediterranean. Forms of cooperation may be put up for discussion, some situations, including the EU's financial and budgetary difficulties, cannot be neglected, facile and ineffective populism serves no purpose. The key point remains, however.
This brief overview, with the uncertainties it contains and with no claim to being exhaustive, will shortly be complemented by recent positions adopted by figures who have something to say. These include, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, Algerian Foreign Minister Mourad Medelci, and Tunisian writer Tahar Ban Jelloun. They have all spoken openly and without the rhetoric that sometimes unavoidable for some. (FR/transl.rt)