Brussels, 01/10/2013 (Agence Europe) - The European position with regard to the Arab revolutions raises questions and also doubts - and these criticisms are now openly expressed within the European institutions themselves. Internal reports already warn against the weakening of the EU's influence in the region and of how it is perceived against the backdrop of the current trouble. Questions focus, on the one hand, on the attitude to voices laying claim to Islam, and on the other hand, on the reality of the aid which, despite the promises, remains weak. EUROPE has been listening to the reactions and feelings inside and outside the institutions and has put together an outline.
In short, the European attitude, which is considered somewhat cautious, is perceived - particularly within the “services” - as fraternising too much with Islamist governments. It is not only High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton who is singled out, but also her Special Representative for the Southern Mediterranean Bernardino Léon. While representatives from the European institutions would like relations to be limited for classic diplomatic use which would better preserve the EU's position, Léon is sometimes criticised for going beyond his mandate and for creating a delicate situation by short-circuiting the “services” like the member state ambassadors on the ground. According to carefully checked sources, member state ambassadors have already protested about Léon's weak propensity for consultation. In Tunis and Cairo, his visits tend to cause intrigue as they are so frequent and void of concrete objective. In Algiers, the doors are closed to him and Rabat reportedly tries to stop his visits, as Algeria and Morocco prefer to deal with the “normal structure”. According to various credible sources, lively debate has opposed Léon and Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy Stefan Füle - who is convinced that if Muslims can be democratic Islamism would be discouraged from practice because Islamism is incompatible with democracy.
Supporting the dialogue for civilisations promoted jointly by Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayepp Erdogan and former prime minister of Spain José Luis Zapatero (who is close to the former minister Miguel Moratinos who is currently adviser to Qatar), Léon argues for “democratising” the “Islamists” and correcting their perception of the West. His credo is avoiding “polarisation” between these partisans of superior divine laws and modernist voices that are often pro-European. It is not his line that meets with disapproval but rather his method - and the blunders. An example of this is that neither Léon nor Füle have once had the initiative, during their visits to Tunis, to lay wreaths on the tombs of the two members of the Tunisian parliament who were murdered in Tunis for refusing to commit political murders. A badly targeted message like this could strengthen the impression of too great a proximity and words of caution have multiplied in the corridors even of the institution. “I fear that Bernardino Léon might at any time propose Morsi [from Egypt] or Ghannouchi [from Tunisia] for the Nobel Peace Prize”, rails a high level official, intentionally caricatural.
Promises not yet kept. The second, more important, theme concerns the real financial support - which is weak, despite the fantastic promises of billions (particularly during the taskforces that met in Tunis and Cairo) promoted as great turning points in the aid for these two countries (as at the Deauville partnership meetings on 26-27 May 2011). The G8 finance ministers (Marseilles, September 2011) had approved this decision and promised over $38 billion in financial aid for 2011-2013, on top of the $35 billion promised by the IMF in May and the $6 billion by the World Bank. The EBRD mission was extended to the Mediterranean with the possibility of paying around $2.5 billion annually. However, the recipients of this funding repeat at every meeting that this funding has come to nought. This is confirmed in Brussels. Only European funding has been paid, but not much, says a source in the European Commission. This picture excludes the classic cooperation, which follows its own course and is appreciated on both sides.
External agenda. A recent report from an American study centre also challenges the EU and the US. Both are criticised for lacking strategy and influence. The authors, Danya Greenfield, Amy Hawthorne and Rosa Balfour, testify to a feeling of “weariness and frustration” and “some people in Washington and Brussels even wonder if they have much to offer these transition countries”. Criticism of European policy is nothing new. During a debate on the post-crisis challenges in the Euro-Mediterranean area that was organised by the International Management Group (IMG) in Brussels last April (see EUROPE 10836), former French minister for foreign affairs, Hubert Védrine, regretted the absence of prospects at a time when the countries were in a “learning phase”. In his view, “paternalism doesn't work any more” and these countries “are no longer obliged to maintain this relationship” because “they have the choice”.
It is this fear that further feeds the criticism inside where there is concern about the latent risk of negative feelings towards the EU. “We have not been left to do our work”, regrets a specialist on the file, with the impression that the EU and the Commission might have better things to do than waste their energy in vain efforts at “mediation”. The EU has not been up to playing a determining role in either Tunis or Cairo, says a specialist on the two files, apart from the media buzz during the famous visit of the former president Morsi. “Our concern has to be not appearing to be partisan”, says a high level European official, who is convinced that the agenda that is currently applied is not totally European. During the IMG debates in April an Egyptian diplomat clearly stated what everyone is - still - only whispering. The European position “has not been discussed with us. It comes from Chatam House”, said Egyptian diplomat, Maged Mosleh.
Bafflement. In the view of former Tunisian minister and former ambassador to Brussels, Tahar Sioud, there are feelings of “bafflement”. The EU gives the impression of “stumbling around”. It does not take account of the “double language” spoken by its Islamist discussion partners. “When they speak to the EU and its member states, they sound sleek and reassuring” and “the EU seems to take them at their word”. “It's perfectly understandable”, Sioud says, “that the EU and its special representatives take care to maintain a level of relations that would not exclude the EU from the scene, but it must also take care not to appear as strong support for these voices that merrily overstep the mark of the democratic game” even if they “came to government by election”. However, “electoral legitimacy is sometimes eroded in the first 100 days and does not last for a whole mandate”. In Sioud's opinion, the EU has “the duty - through making a fair analysis and through delivering an appropriate, balanced and vigilant message - of revising or clarifying its attitude. It would otherwise be suspected of playing a double game and damaging a relationship by which we lay great store and which is in the common interest”. (FB/transl.fl)