THE EUROPEAN UNION S INTERNAL DISCOURSE ON DEMOCRACY PROMOTION IN THE MIDDLE EAST ESRC PROJECT RES-061-25-0075, Egypt Workshop II. Organised by the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, at the DAAD (GERMAN ACADEMIC EXCHANGE SERVICE) Seminar Hall, Cairo Office, Zamalek, Egypt Presentation by Dr Michelle Pace, Principal Investigator, University of Birmingham 11 October 2009 Report on the Proceedings Prepared by Michelle Pace, Principal Investigator, ESRC Project on Paradoxes and Contradictions in EU Democracy Promotion Efforts in the Middle East, University of Birmingham, www.eumena.bham.ac.uk 1
Dr Michelle Pace welcomed all the participants and thanked them for their interest in her project findings. She also thanked DAAD for offering support for the workshop in terms of the location and logistics required as well as the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung in Cairo also for its support, especially its Resident Representative Dr Andreas Jacob. Michelle started her presentation by stating that all her findings were based on two weeks (between March and April 2009) of intensive interviews with EU officials in Brussels at the European Commission, Council of the European Union, European Parliament and Permanent Representative Offices of key Member States of the EU. She also stipulated that she was very keen to hear views from the audience, composed mainly of Europeans based in Cairo, on whether they thought the Middle East hears the EU s discourse in the way EU actors based in Brussels think they do and therefore emphasised that participants had a very important role in this workshop. She also mentioned that she had had a similar workshop for a mainly Egyptian audience the previous day and it would help her to compare and contrast the diverse audiences views from these two workshops. Her aim was to present the key findings from these workshops to EU officials during a final project conference to be held in Brussels towards the end of the project s period. In terms of methodology, Dr Pace stipulated how her project has also been carrying out a discourse analysis of EU documentation on the EU s so-called democracy promotion agenda in the Middle East since the 1990s to date. She argued that interestingly, there is no working definition of democracy in European Union documents: the meaning of democracy can be inferred from some policy documents. Moreover, there is clearly a mix of policy areas ranging from Human Rights / Development / Democracy Promotion / Security / Trade / Stability / Good Governance / Rule of Law, to mention just a few. In 2006 the Council of the EU acknowledged that a clearly defined general strategy on democracy promotion was called for. This discussion came to a standstill and was not taken up again until 2009 with the Czech Presidency, followed by the Swedish Presidency of the Council of the European Union in the second half of the same year. She claimed that some clarity was expected from the Presidency Conclusions of November 2009. She further insisted that EU actors interviewed have a strong belief in democracy growing from within societies and that it cannot be imposed from outside. Most interviewees, Dr Pace stated, insist that since the EU itself stands for democracy, they (EU actors) believe it is only natural for the EU to promote this system of governance. Moreover, the EU has various instruments at hand to promote political liberalisation in the Middle East. However, it is clear from her findings, that the issue of Democratisation and Human Rights is not a priority in EU foreign policy / external relations vis-à-vis neighbouring countries especially those not eligible for EU membership: Security always comes first in the EU s priority lists. Dr Pace further highlighted how in the Middle East arena, the EU acts as a hesitant spectator, waiting for the US to give the green light. Furthermore, the EU seems to be more interested in the promotion of liberalisation rather than democratisation in the Middle East. Having said all the above, Dr Pace emphasised that it has to be acknowledged that there are severe limits on the EU s role in the Middle East, not least that the Council, which is the key decision-making body of the EU, is made up of 27 different member states. This results in fragmented approaches. Another limit is the EU s actual capacities in comparison to its declared ambitions and despite any positive intentions for change in the Middle East. However, she added, there is clearly a problem if democracy in the Middle East is reduced to a concern with periodic elections, as the case of Palestine 2
shows. Moreover, there is nothing inherent in the EU s focus on civil society, as the shakers and movers for political reform in the Middle East, that attaches it to a democratising project. Actors of civil society are often part of the elites of those societies and remain split from the marginalised groups. Dr Pace concluded her presentation by arguing that there are several lessons that the EU has learnt from the Palestinian experience. There now seems to be an understanding that, following a reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas, the EU will show much more flexibility and adaptability, as well as pragmatism, this time round. EU actors tend to link democracy promotion in the Middle East with a successful outcome for the Middle East Peace Process. Yet, the EU is not consistent in terms of Human Rights/Democratic issues: there are some strong reactions by way of statements at times in case of violations of Human Rights but not in a consistent manner. Moreover, the EU s pressure on selective democracy/human rights concerns and the expressed desire to assist MENA regimes in furthering the process of political liberalisation, do not translate into a proactive programme of reform-oriented assistance. Thus, she argued, if any democratisation process in the contemporary Middle East is to have authenticity and legitimacy, the involvement of external actors is problematic. EU actors across the board (Members of the European Parliament, Council officials and Commission representatives) acknowledge the limits of what the EU can do. Hence, the EU s role in terms of democratisation in the ME is / can only be limited. However, the leverage of Trade and Cooperation Agreements offer an enabling factor for the EU to begin and continue, in a consistent fashion, a formal Democracy/Human Rights dialogue with governments in the MENA region. It is also important for the EU to acknowledge that Euros cannot produce the bravery or love of freedom and justice that individuals in MENA need to make possible the transition necessary in their countries. She therefore posed the question to the audience: Should the EU rethink its financial assistance programmes in the MENA? MENA democratic movements do not need foreign handouts; they need the moral support of the international community and condemnation of their regimes for systematic violation of Human Rights, etc. EU actors recognise these facts but ask what is their alternative? This is another core question that Dr Pace stipulated would best be left for discussion and in concluding she thanked all those present for their attention and said that she really looked forward to the following session for comments, questions, suggestions from the audience. Mr Kristian Bonnici, Charge d'affaires a.i., at the Embassy of Malta in Cairo, kicked off the discussion session by informing all those present that Malta has played a determining role in constructing a dialogue between the EU and the Arab World. Mr Bonnici cited as an example the fact that Malta has been the Special Rapporteur at the UN for the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People since the 1970s to date. The Maltese Charge d'affaires a.i. also added that thanks to the efforts of Malta, most notably its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, an office was to be established in Malta to facilitate the much sought after dialogue between the EU and Arab World. Mr Bonnici further noted that this office, to be entitled - European Commission League of Arab States Liaison Office, which Malta had been chosen to host, would officially be opened on Wednesday 14 October, 2009. Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the then European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy, as well as Amr Moussa, Secretary General of the League of Arab States, was to attend the opening ceremony. Both officials were to have meetings with the Maltese Prime Minister, Deputy 3
Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr Tonio Borg and the Foreign and European Affairs Standing Committee of the Maltese Parliament. Mr Bonnici also mentioned that experts from the European Commission and the Arab League, along with Maltese experts were to work closely at the liaison office. Mr Bonnici thus emphasised that EU-Arab relations do not miss any symbolic initiatives. He then turned to Dr Pace s presentation and argued that he agreed with her that economic development (an area where the EU could have some success) in the Arab world does not necessarily lead to democracy. He referred to the Arab world s culture of victimisation and said that there is a tendency in the region for people to refer to their colonial past as an apology for what the region is experiencing today. It is not a matter of the EU s fault alone as to why democratisation is still lacking in the Middle East. He also referred to Edward Said s seminal work on Orientalism in this respect. He then turned to the EU s member states who he argued decide on policy from a realist perspective. Liberalism lies at the core of the EU s foreign policy, he argued. Arab countries still struggle to have a united voice and with subregional initiatives. There are many commonalities they can build on but often Middle East governments are afraid of losing their grip on power. Ambassador Hussein Elkamel, former Egyptian Ambassador to the EU, now International Cooperation Senior Advisor at the Information & Decision Support Center, a Think Tank of the Egyptian Cabinet, then turned to the notion of democracy and said that in principle everyone agrees on this concept. One can speak of how far a country has gone in terms of its path towards democracy. One could argue that the Eastern Mediterranean is on the way to democracy but there remain differences in the way democracy is implemented. The US formula for democratisation in the Middle East has failed and what we have today is a cosmetic dialogue on democracy. In terms of development towards democracy, Egypt has achieved some remarkable steps towards democracy but faces challenges still. What is needed is a balanced and equal dialogue between the various think tanks in Europe and the Middle East to not only include government voices. He referred to the UN s training programmes on democracy and human rights in Egypt and specifically to the training for police on human rights. Ambassador Elkamel argued that the EU should establish similar training programmes targeted at specific groups in the Middle East. He also encouraged more EU twinning programmes, workshops, etc. He concluded his intervention by discussing the implications of the Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International. Professor Dr Francesca Longo, from the University of Catania, who was a visiting professor at Cairo University during the time of the workshop, noted the shift mentioned by Dr Pace from an EU discourse on democracy to one on stability as well as the decrease in relevance of the Middle East in the EU s political agenda. She argued that the Middle East tops the EU s security agenda especially in the areas of immigration, terrorism and environmental hazards. The discourse is no longer one on values, principles and shared perceptions. 4
Dr Andreas Jacob, Resident Representative of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung in Cairo, shifted the discussion to perceptions in the region of high politics issues. He argued that the EU has many democracy instruments in Egypt for example MEDA funds and European Development Cooperation funds. The question is how is this money spent in Egypt on the ground? The EU works a lot on women s rights issues here in Egypt. The US has similar instruments and works with similar partners in Egypt as the EU does. He noted the US s professional approach in its programs and lamented the lack of coordination between external actors activities in Egypt. Ms Svenja Tidau, a student at Cairo University, gave the example of an Egyptian NGO working on the environment as a case of the complexity of applying for EU funding, of handling a proposal and argued that many NGOs found the EU s system of funding far too complex and its reporting/monitoring/financial and administrative systems too bureaucratic. These vary from the set ups of individual member states funding structures and programs especially those focusing on women s rights issues or on the improvement of government systems in the Middle East. She asked whether the EU could improve capabilities of NGOs to prepare for such funding applications and if so how could the EU go about doing this. Dr Patricia Bauer, DAAD Visiting Professor and staff member at the Euro-Mediterranean Studies centre, Faculty of Economics and Political Science, Cairo University agreed with Svenja that the application procedures were quite complicated for NGOs in the Middle East. This results in much frustration across the region as there is a clear lack of expertise in this field (particularly of EU procedures) as well as a lack of knowledge on the region from the EU s part. Professor Hoda Awad, Professor of Political Science at the American University in Cairo and at the Misr International University referred to Samuel Huntington s work on the three waves of democratisation and especially his focus on the key actors in this process: the elite, civil society and the middle class. Professor Awad referred to other specific categories in the case of Egypt: the role of the secular movement as well as the important role of bloggers in what she referred to as the path towards an electronic democracy in Egypt. Dr Pace concluded the workshop by thanking all the participants for their fascinating interventions and invited them all to continue the discussion at a reception in the DAAD s gardens. 5