Correct use of hard-won freedom. The southern bank of the Mediterranean is reacting - and in a good way, using its hard-won freedom correctly. This column has criticised the tendancy of the Arab Spring to become an Islamist Spring - the tyrannical regimes that had been overturned being progressively replaced with a political Islam which did not even take part in the people's revolutions but which was legitimate because it was the result of elections that were on the whole correct (see EUROPE 10652). Indeed this political Islam seems to be taking the approach not of imposing its religious opinions but of respecting other tendencies and preferences too, sometimes even including the rights of women.
Fanatical and intolerant movements continue to exist of course, and the good intentions need to be translated into political action, but yesterday's statement that “political Islam has taken control” could, at least in certain cases, be overtaken by a less radical reality and one that is certainly more in favour of cooperation with the EU. It is significant that at the same time the French president, François Hollande, said in Paris that he intended to review the “dialogue” between the EU and the non-EU Mediterranean countries, leaving rhetorical projects aside in order to make things simple and practical (see EUROPE 10658).
This head of state of a member country has thus finally laid to one side the idea of leaving the UfM (Union for the Mediterranean) which mixed Adriatic, eastern Mediterranean and southern Mediterranean all together. Mr Hollande then veered off course by relaunching the 5+5 cooperation - France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Malta on one side, and Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya and Mauritania on the other. I don't totally share in this formula - the EU is a whole, its institutions and budgetary resources are common and the idea of separating them is absurd, while on the other side unity is inexistent and some countries are even in conflict with each other. What we need is for each country to act for itself or for groups of countries to act which are happy to cooperate just between themselves.
Development in progress. It's here where things are moving - and on two fronts. The first aspect concerns the old mistrust with regard to the Islamist dictatorships. I will quote the speech given in Paris on Monday by the Tunisian president, Moncef Marzouki, to the French parliament. His centre-Left party, the Congress for the Republic¸ governs with the Islamist party, Ennahda, and he said: “In the same way that Christian-Democrat parties exist in the West, there is and there will be in the Arab world Islamo-Democrat parties - and Ennahda is the Tunisian model of this.” He went on to describe the “spectacular rupture with the past”, quoting the freedom of the press and the de facto suppression of the death penalty.
The second aspect concerns the assets of the old Arab dictators being frozen in the banks of Western countries. The Tunisian president did not speak of European subsidies, but of support from the member states so that, with timely precaution, these assets have begun to be given back to the people from whom they had in practice been stolen. I will pick this aspect up again later.
The Tunisian president made no allusion to EU funding, which has taken different initiatives but always gives preference to subsidies to civil society and economic operators, leaving public authorities aside. This is a fundamental development.
Shared development, but nothing totally assured. I have been talking at length about Tunisia because these authorities had the chance to express themselves in the EU itself, but similar signs are coming from other countries too.
In Libya, Mahmoud Jibril is not alone in his defence of freedom. Mohammed Sawan too, who leads the Muslim Brotherhood party and underlines that Islam is a coherent way of life, has said: “We don't intend to impose force. Women will be free to cover their head or not as they please.” And he has not excluded the possibility of a government formed with Jibril's party, if Jibril agrees. Let me remind you that Mahmoud Jibril was hailed by the president of the European Parliament and that Guy Verhofstadt, the leader of the ALDE Group, said that these results “prove that in the Arab world elections can be won by non-Islamist forces” (see EUROPE 10652).
Of course, nothing is fixed in stone. The forces which oppose rights and the dignity of women are still strong and arrogant overseas, and the women themselves don't react everywhere with the determination and courage of the Tunisian women. Mohammed Sawan, whom I mentioned above, has nonetheless said that “Sharia will be the basis of the next legislation”. The Salafists are becoming increasingly arrogant, and sometimes violent. A few aspects of the past continue unchanged - France was not invited to the 50th anniversary of Algerian independence. It is true that at the moment it is a question of a new spirit in relations between the EU and Algeria (see yesterday's EUROPE). We will see what develops as time goes on.
Overall, democratic development exists - with gaps and questions marks, but it exists.
Deposited capital and old debts. Let me now return to the aspect I mentioned earlier, which deserves a closer look. I'm talking about the wealth of the Arab countries that the former dictators deposited in Western banking institutions, as well as the debts that some of the southern Mediterranean countries accumulated in Europe and elsewhere. In principle, this wealth belongs to the freed people and the debts run up by the regimes must be opened up to question.
These aspects are under discussion, and some European countries have already taken measures. Germany has decided to convert part of its credit into aid for development. France has started to analyse the problem so that it can then take action. The Belgian senate has voted on a resolution calling for the bilateral credit, considered despicable, to be cancelled.
This is an important issue because it could contribute to resolving the problem of funding the Arab countries in these times when the EU's means are limited and when most of the member states are obliged to reduce their expenditure radically and sometimes painfully.
Let me finish with a few thoughts on the case of Egypt - a country which has distanced itself from the Euro-Mediterranean politics package.
United States and Egypt - confirmed approaches and commitments. Anticipating it was easy - what Hillary Clinton told the Egyptian president, Mohammed Morsi, at their meeting in Cairo is what this column had predicted (see EUROPE 10651). In concrete terms, Egypt has been asked to: confirm and respect the Camp David agreements with Israel; uphold its commitment on border security in Sinai and Gaza; and capitalise on its good relations with Hamas in order to avoid any escalation against Israel. On these conditions, the United States would maintain its support for the Egyptian armed forces (US$1.3 billion per year). According to some sources a group of Egyptian citizens has launched a Fund for dignity and pride with the aim of replacing the American funding. It has received US$10 million.
After the American minister had talked of respect for human rights, Mohammed Morsi said that he was going to appoint a woman and a Coptic-Christian as vice-presidents of his country.
What I have said up to here does not mean that the problems are solved. A large part of Egyptian public opinion no doubt continues to advocate rupture with Israel, and uncertainties persist in the way that their internal institutions function and the way real power is shared.
I believe that Egypt's detachment will continue in the face of developments in Euro-Mediterranean relations, and that Catherine Ashton's visit there has a rather formal nature. Let's not forget that, beyond the current difficulties and uncertainties, Egypt has existed for thousands of years and has always be one of the guiding lights of world civilisation.
(FR/transl.fl)