Brussels, 08/05/2013 (Agence Europe) - In Brussels on 7 and 8 May, under the aegis of the committee on foreign affairs of the European Parliament, the Carnegie Europe foundation held two information days on the policies advocated by the “Islamist” movements in the countries of the southern neighbourhood of the EU: “Understanding Political Islam”. At these events, representatives of these movements, which are new to the Euro-Mediterranean political landscape, were given ample opportunity to speak, at least those in power in Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco. They were practically the only guests at this meeting among the representatives of the countries of the southern shore, and included several ministers. The meeting provided the opportunity to take initial stock, discussed at length during this two-day meeting, from the political as well as economic and social points of view.
Throughout the region, the EU sees a rise in “Islamism”, stressed Elkmar Brok, chairman of the parliamentary committee. The background is “complex” and we must therefore, he stressed, refrain from “being simplistic”. The EU, which has “made mistakes by supporting for too long, in the name of stability”, the now disgraced governments of Mubarak, Ben Ali and Gaddafi, must now “learn its lesson” and question whether all the parties on the scene at the moment are moving towards democracy and stability. In Brok's view, “the question is: are we on the right track? Nothing has been achieved and the transitions are not complete”. These Islamist parties will be “judged by their people” on the basis of their results and the sincerity of their commitment to respect the rule of law and freedoms as well as minority and religious rights. “An election (won) is not enough”, said Brok, who added that simply ensuring “the technique of democracy is not democracy”, going on to stress his rejection of “pessimism”.
Contributing to the debate, Pierre Vimont, the executive secretary general of the European diplomatic service (EEAS), also stressed the complexity of the situation, which calls first of all for “understanding of what the transition policies mean”. He also described the background as complicated. “What is political Islam? There is need for an explanation”, but “not for arrogance, not for lecturing, but speaking about our experiences” and “conferring entitlement to debate”, Vimont stressed. As things stand, he feels that Europe is facing uncertainty and instability, he summed up, questioning whether the situation is not also the effect of external factors, which are also affecting Europe against a backdrop of financial crisis and calling the rules of democracy into question. The EU has, Vimont added, no choice but to get involved in the changes in the Mediterranean area, “even if it sometimes has its doubts”.
“What have we done badly, and what have we done well?”, José Ignacio Salafranca, MEP (EPP, Spain), asked. He concluded his presentation of the situation by stressing the virtues of dialogue. He called for “resistance rather than rejection”.
Overall, almost all of the “Islamist” participants questioned the EU's attitude, without giving any ground in stressing the difficulties in entering into dialogue so far: “you cannot reduce (the background) to cliches”, said Elhabib Choubani, a Moroccan minister, who feels that the region only sees “the return to a normal situation of reclaiming the public good”. Abdel Mawgoud Dardery, a member of the Egyptian parliament, welcomed this “beginning of dialogue between the EU and the Islamists”. He called on his audience to “move away from the kind of mentality that led to the Crusades and colonialism” and to “get over the Arab inferiority complex”. “We ask Europe for its help to set in place the new structures of our countries, not for charity”. The Tunisian minister, who is of the same religious persuasion, criticised the weakness of this help, or at least the unkept promises: nothing of what was promised in Deauville (8 to 10 billion US dollars) has been mobilised, he said. Said Ferjani, who is also Tunisian, said that “everything is going in the right direction” and the new governments are simply looking for a “balance specific to Muslims”, but are coming up against “corrupt magistrates”. Veronique de Keyser, (S&D, Belgium) took exception to this vision: “you speak of judges who need to be corrected, but who is going to judge them?”. The representative of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Gehad Al-Haddad, took issue with the media, the majority of which he described as “not credible” (only “15% of what they write is the truth”), calling on the MEPs no longer to believe them and to speak directly to their “Islamist” counterparts. He stressed his desire to “speak frankly”, dismissing all of the concerns brought about by their ideology, which has long been “demonised”, adding that it is “entirely to be expected that the legal system complies with Sharia”, concluding: “the West has no desire to understand it”. A representative of the Nour party (Salafist, legal in Egypt), Mr Marzouk, criticised the EU for the fact that veils and minarets have been banned in certain countries of the continent. In another contribution, Tunisia's Agriculture Minister, Ben Salem, ridiculed those who, having spoken of an “Arab Spring”, are now talking about an “Islamist winter”. “Winter is a good time for us, it brings us the rain our agriculture needs”. The afternoon debates, which focused on economic issues, brought just one clarification worthy of note: “there is no 'Islamist' economic model”, there is nothing more than a different management mode, they said, recognising only the existence of “Islamic finance”. (FB/transl.fl)