Change poses identity crisis for Middle East

WORLD VIEW:New technology has made contradiction between stability and reform more obvious

‘IT IS values versus interests. On the values side, we want democracy, freedom and human rights. On the interests side, we don’t know what we will get. We want stability – we don’t know what is stable – is it the current regime? The EU’s current answer is ‘no’.”

Finland’s foreign minister Alex Stubb admirably expressed the quandary faced by EU leaders this week in responding to the dramatic Egyptian events. He added: “There is always an element of worry when there is democratic transition. Democracy doesn’t always go right, but that’s part of the appeal of democracy.”

A lot of effort has gone into finding a balance between interests and values in the EU’s relations with Mediterranean states of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) since the 1995 Barcelona process.

An elaborate multilateral process of co-operation encouraged reform in these societies by aid programmes, financial incentives and through subsidising civil society movements. It seemed a plausible way to align interests and values, even if it never properly confronted the messy democratic transitions now under way.

It made more progress in its first than its later years. The big break came after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the failures to deliver an Israeli-Palestinian agreement.

Their effect was to reinforce the recent more hard line among MENA’s rulers against conceding reforms and to convince many civil society organisations and media in these states the regimes would not change gradually.

Mubarak’s line that external powers must choose between him and radical Islamist instability became more typical of the region. It fed into the wider clash of civilisations and war on terror perceptions stoked in Europe by centre-right governments hostile to Turkey’s EU entry and competing with populist parties opposed to Islamic immigrants.

As a result interests, stability and security realism trumped values, reform agendas and human rights in the EU’s policy. Its partners presented themselves as necessary to protect oil fields, guarantors against social collapse and mass emigration.

There was a more glaring gap between methods and goals. EU policies were aligned more closely with the US, notably through the Quartet on an Israel-Palestinian settlement and its refusal to deal with Hamas in Gaza.

The scope for influencing the societies waned as regimes tightened their grip and resisted such access. But simultaneous communications revolutions throughout the MENA region made these contradictions more visible to their more educated, youthful, social media-savvy and underemployed populations.

They are much more aware of, and sympathetic to, European norms and values than is the case in the other direction, according to research by the EuroMed’s Anna Lindh Foundation in Alexandria. Religion (but not fundamentalism) plays a much greater role in the south.

Media feel the pressure of these contradictions too. They are far more influential than before, representing greater economic development, social differentiation, the dramatic expansion of private and satellite broadcasting and lately feeding off an explosion of social media and citizen journalism.

But the impasse on political reform leaves them vulnerable to censorship and intelligence scrutiny. More indirect types of pressure like advertising boycotts or bans on covering sensitive subjects also apply. Legislation guaranteeing access to information is lacking, the rule of law and the judges’ independence is circumscribed and public space for democratic deliberation is narrower.

These constraints were aired last week at a conference of the European Neighbourhood Journalism Network in London. It brings together media from the EU, Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus and MENA.

Strikingly similar problems faced by media in the EU’s neighbouring states were emphasised by Ukrainian and Belarusian speakers, who saw the parallels with North Africa and the Middle East, especially in pushing the boundaries of existing laws. The conference called for focused EU pressure on governments and expressed solidarity with their Egyptian and Tunisian counterparts.

Egyptian journalists were appalled at the ease with which mobile phones and the internet were shut off last Friday. One of them, Shahira Amin, deputy head of the state-run English language TV channel, resigned this week and joined the protesters.

Others foresaw how their regimes can do likewise. They warned against encouraging bureaucratic or legislative regulation of professional and social media by governing elites anxious to restrict freedoms in such a period of flux.

Self-regulation is preferred, within a context of transformed public interest. It is good to report the existence of such a lively discussion and training network within the EU’s neighbourhood framework, capable of dealing with these taboo subjects, despite the narrowing official agenda.

The Middle East and North Africa are immensely diverse regions historically, politically and culturally. This explains the differential impact of the “wave” of democratic change. Different rulers variously respond to the events according to contrasting circumstances. Interests, values, stability and democracy play out through this diversity.