Stiftung

Wissenschaft und
Politik
German Institute
for International and
Security Affairs

The EU in the Middle East and North Africa

Helpless Bystander Rather Than Effective Democracy Promoter or Stabilizing Force
Muriel Asseburg
In 2011, European politicians, diplomats, media, and publics enthusiastically embraced
the so-called Arab Spring. The EU pledged to generously support transformation processes initiated in the region with a 3 M approach, which would combine monetary
support, market access, and increased mobility, as well as through a reinvigorated
European Neighborhood Policy (ENP). Yet, Europeans have not lived up to these promises. Against the backdrop of the Middle East and North Africa descending into ever
greater levels of chaos and violence, the EU and its member states have been largely
reduced to being bystanders, dealing with the symptoms of crises rather than impacting let alone shaping the path of developments. Yet, in view of an increasingly reluctant US government to provide regional stability, Europe has no choice but to address
instability in its southern neighborhood. To be more effective actors, Europeans should
revisit their priorities, underlying assumptions, policy frameworks, and instruments.
The EU has had a positive, reinforcing
influence where domestic processes have
gone in the right direction. Tunisia is
definitely the one example where the EU
was able to support the institutional
process, competitive elections, and civil
society, and thus contribute to a political
transition toward a more participatory,
inclusive, and pluralist political system.
At the same time, the EU has been in no
position to lure elites in other Arab countries into processes aimed at more democratic and just orders, nor to prevent
authoritarian restoration in Egypt. It was
also not able to contribute to halting the
deterioration of political power struggles
into civil war and state failure in Syria and

Libya, entailing millions of refugees and

internally displaced people, and a strengthening of sectarian mobilization and radicalization across the region, epitomized in
the so-called Islamic State phenomenon.
Nor has it offered answers on how to contain these civil wars and prevent them from
destabilizing entire sub-regions or how to
effectively address the refugee crisis in the
Mediterranean. Last but not least, the EU
has not had any tangible impact on the one
conflict that it has prided itself on for having
progressive positions for the last 35 years
and in which it is heavily invested, i.e., the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thus, rather
than proving themselves as effective democracy promoters or a stabilizing force in the

Dr. Muriel Asseburg is a Senior Fellow in SWPs Middle East and Africa Division

SWP Comments 50
November 2014

SWP Comments

Introduction

southern Mediterranean, Europeans have

been largely reduced to ad hoc partners
in crisis interventions of multinational
alliances and to shouldering parts of the
humanitarian fallout of violence and war.

Major flaws of European approaches

Major flaws have hampered more effective
EU policies in the region. First, Europeans
have based their policies toward the region
on misled assumptions about the transformation processes unfolding in Arab Spring
countries. To name but one: In contrast to
the post-1989 experience in Central Europe,
transformations in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt
have been anything but centrally crafted
processes based on elite bargains regarding
transition to democracies and market
economies. Rather, the transformations
have been the outcomes of intense bargaining processes and power struggles among
forces for which institutional reform and
transitional justice have not been priorities,
and which have been marred by identity
politics, political and societal polarization,
and political violence. That has robbed
Europeans of central local partners for
driving transformation forward. Those
reform processes that have been initiated
and largely geared from the top, i.e., by the
monarchies of Jordan and Morocco, have
seen much less bumpy trajectories. But the
depth of change has been narrowly constricted, and the processes underway there
should not be mistaken as anything akin
to democratization or even a substantial
increase in meaningful participation or
checks and balances.
Second, the ENP as well as the EuroMediterranean Partnership and the Union
for the Mediterranean have not only failed
to achieve their objectives with regards
to fostering inclusive growth and helping
political transition, regional integration,
the cooperative engagement in lighthouse
projects, building bridges between the
shores of the Mediterranean, etc., they have
also failed to create frameworks that would
provide identity, serve as a point of refer-

SWP Comments 50
November 2014

ence, or have geopolitical relevance. Not

only did the grouping together of eastern
and southern partner countries in the ENP
framework not make any sense. Southern
Mediterranean countries have also been
characterized by their being part of several
(shifting) regional security complexes, each
with specific challenges and a specific set of
regional and international actors intervening, which have not been reflected by these
frameworks.
Third, European instruments have either
been ill-conceived, not adequate for the
challenges at hand, or suffered from a lack
of consistency and backing from EU member states. The revised ENPs more for more
approach, for example, promising more
support to good performers, has failed to
provide strong incentives that could have
impacted on crucial domestic actors costbenefit analysis. That has especially been the
case because, on the one hand, crisis-ridden
and inward-looking EU member states have
failed to back up the 3 M approach with
substance and, on the other, regional competitors that favor authoritarian upgrading,
such as the Arab Gulf states, have weighed
in with much more financial clout.
In view of increasing destabilization in
the region, Europeans have at least tacitly
endorsed authoritarian restoration in Egypt,
a regional player considered too big to
fail. They failed to come out in a strong
and united fashion against the July 2013
military coup and sent monitors to observe
the 2014 Egyptian presidential elections
thus providing legitimacy to the process,
even though it was obvious that no level
playing field existed in view of the severe
crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood and
a plethora of opposition activists, politicians, journalists, and human rights groups.
In doing so, the EU and its member states
have undermined their own consistency
and credibility.
In addition, Europeans have failed to
coax local decision-makers, even in Tunisia,
into addressing the main factors behind the
initial uprisings by making socio-economic
reform including tending to neglected pe-

ripheries much more of a priority than

before. Last but not least, new instruments such as the European Endowment
for Democracy and the Civil Society Facility
have not only been equipped with negligible
funds and been confronted with difficult
working conditions in some partner countries, they have also stuck to a line of mainly working with elitist, Western-oriented
representatives of civil society, thus robbing
themselves of a larger societal and political
impact.

Lack of a strong conflict component

Crucially, the ENP has not offered any tools
for dealing first with countries in which
the central state and the formal transformation process hardly matter anymore, as
armed non-state actors dominate the scene,
and second with phenomena, in particular
the regions overlapping refugee crises,
which cannot be attributed to a single
country. Thus, the EU has not had a central
role in mediation and diplomacy to mend
local and regional conflicts. The notable
exceptions have been the E3 (United Kingdom, France, and Germany)s involvement
in negotiations with Iran; an EU mediation
between Tunisias political forces, secondary to the domestic Quartets role; and the
failed, yet important attempts by the High
Representative and her team to bridge the
gaps between the Supreme Council of the
Armed Forces and the Muslim Brotherhood
after the July 2013 coup in Egypt. Rather,
the abolition of the EU Special Representative for the Middle East Peace Process in
early 2014 and the void with regards to the
EU Special Representative for the Mediterranean since May this year have seemed to
signal the EUs withdrawal of diplomatic
attention from the region.
The EU has also been absent in the more
robust approaches to dealing with violent
conflict and non-state actors. Military interventions or military support for specific
forces in these conflicts have been mostly
ad-hoc security fixes driven by the US or by
individual EU member states rather than

being a result of joint European strategizing

and planning, which would have taken into
account and addressed regional side effects.
On top of it, it has become clear that the
EUs Common Security and Defence Policy
(CSDP) instruments cannot have a stabilizing effect in environments of severe conflict. The European Union Border Assistance
Mission Rafah has been suspended since
mid-2007, and it is very doubtful that it will
receive a new mandate that would allow
the Europeans to effectively contribute to
ending the Gaza blockade as proposed by
an E3 initiative in the summer of 2014
unless Europeans were to revive and assume
a much more active role in negotiations
about a durable ceasefire. EUBAM Libya also
had to be put on hold this summer as the
country descended once more into civil war.
Indeed, the mission has not had a chance
to have any tangible impact on border security in a situation where the central states
reach did not extend to all its borders and
where no national security forces to speak
off existed.

Conclusions
In the face of an ever more reluctant and
intervention-averse US government, Europeans will have to assume greater responsibility for stabilization in their immediate
neighborhood not least because they are
the ones directly affected by spillover effects
of the regions violent conflicts. This also
means that Europeans do not have the
choice to only back the good performers,
as some observers have suggested. Although
it is indeed important to help make success
stories come true and Europeans should
therefore undertake an extra effort to support transition in Tunisia and inclusive
reform processes in countries such as Morocco they should not fall into the trap of
wishful thinking again when assessing the
processes at hand. In addition, support for
transition and domestic reform in the countries where political elites are willing to
cooperate with the EU will not be enough
to stabilize the region. In order to have a

SWP Comments 50
November 2014

 Stiftung Wissenschaft und

Politik, 2014
All rights reserved
These Comments reflect
solely the authors views.
SWP
Stiftung Wissenschaft und
Politik
German Institute for
International and
Security Affairs
Ludwigkirchplatz 34
10719 Berlin
Telephone +49 30 880 07-0
Fax +49 30 880 07-100
www.swp-berlin.org
[email protected]
ISSN 1861-1761

SWP Comments 50
November 2014

tangible positive impact, Europeans will

have to revisit their priorities, address the
underlying assumptions of their approaches, interlink Common Foreign and Security
Policy (CFSP) and ENP instruments, and
strengthen their diplomatic and conflictprevention capacities. More concretely,
four issues need attention.
First, policies should be based much
more on a realistic assessment of EU interests, priorities, and potential influence
than to date. In reality, even if the ENP
framework is maintained for the time
being, that would lead to a stronger differentiation between clusters of countries
in the southern Mediterranean that take
into account the objectives of local political
elites (as long as there is a central government in control) with regard to reform and
cooperation with the EU, regional security
complexes with Libya, Syria/Iraq, and the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the epicenter
of the most important ones as of today
and other third actors active in the countries or sub-regions who have to be factored
in as adversaries or potential partners. The
High Representative should have the lead
in the coordination of the different policy
fields (CFSP, trade, humanitarian aid, development cooperation, migration, etc.) and
align them strategically.
Second, although the ENP objectives of
fostering prosperity, stability, and democracy remain valid, prosperity, democracy,
and the guarantee of human rights can
hardly be achieved in an environment that
is dominated by violent conflict or (partial)
state failure. That means that, for the time
to come, stabilization will have to be at the
top of the European agenda for the region
stabilization, of course, not to be confused
with stasis and repression. This implies that
the EU must urgently strengthen its conflict prevention, management, and resolution capabilities, including the instrument
of civil and civil-military CSDP missions, so
that they can also work in a rough environment. It also means that the prevention of
spillover effects of violent conflict within the
region and the strengthening of state insti-

tutions in transition or reform countries

should be at the center of EU support,
including support for structural reforms
in administration, judiciary, and security
sectors where, and as long as, this is possible, without at the same time strengthening repressive capacities.
Third, Special Representatives for the
Middle East Peace Process and Syria should
be appointed urgently, alongside the Special Representative for Libya. At the same
time, their mandates should be tailored so
as to have much broader outreach in the
region. They should be put in a position to
offer mediation and good offices and get
involved in informal talks with a broad
range of civil societies, local actors, as well
as involved third states. In this, they would
definitely profit from a permanent presence
on the ground and a lifting of the no-contact policy toward important actors listed
as terrorist groups, such as Hamas.
Fourth, the strategic challenge of refugees in Europes southern neighborhood
and migration to Europe needs to be addressed much more systematically and
progressively than it has been to date and
should take into account refugee rights,
burden-sharing (among EU member states
and internationally), migrants potential
contributions to development, as well as
immigration needs (see SWP Comments
36/2013).
Last but not least, the intended review
of the ENP should, in contrast to the 2011
revision, start from the interests of the EU
and its neighbors and identify strategic
objectives and priorities rather than being
a bureaucratic stock-taking exercise focused
on the evaluation of ENP instruments. It
should also not be the outcome of bureaucratic procedures but rather a political
debate from the start that involves the High
Representative, the relevant commissioners, and the member states. Only then can
the political will needed to forcefully implement new approaches be achieved.