Dictators and Democracy
Civitas, 24 February 2011
Last week’s EU blog considered the limitations of the EU’s European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) in light of the recent Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. As events in North Africa have continued to deteriorate, it seems appropriate to consider the EU’s response to Libya’s revolutionary efforts. Whereas Tunisia was the benchmark of stability in the South Mediterranean, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya has never harboured sincere commitment to democratic reform. This begs the question: why has the EU compromised a catalogue of its most fundamental values – democracy, the rule of law, human rights protection – to pander to a volatile dictator?
Since 2004, when the EU lifted its sanctions against Libya and encouraged it to join the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), the EU has endeavoured to develop a solid, working relationship with Colonel Gaddafi. Bilateral Action Plans are the EU’s focal method of impressing its values on ENP member states encouraging regime reform, in return for funding and support. However, the EU was unable to agree an Action Plan with Libya and the country never progressed beyond the status of ENP ‘observer’. Nonetheless, Libya still receives funding from the European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument, particularly to tackle HIV and Aids (‘EU HIV Action Plan for Benghazi’ (BAP)), and to manage migration.
Having largely failed to instil any support for its values with Gaddafi however, why did the EU continue in its efforts to foster relations with a ruthless dictator?
Firstly, Libya is the main transit country for Africans wanting to migrate to the EU. Whereas once the West African route through Morocco and the Canary Islands was the weak link into fortress Europe, tougher policing has shifted the migration path through Libya instead. Colonel Gaddafi’s cooperation was seen as pivotal in the management of high levels of illegal immigration; however, the dictator has abused this bargaining chip. He has regularly demanded EU cash to combat illegal immigration, as recently as January when he demanded €4 billion to ‘stop Europe turning black’. And, he’s still trying to use immigration threats to gain leverage over the EU. When the EU released a statement condemning his reaction to the recent protests (Gaddafi promises to ‘fight until the last drop of blood is spilled’) his retaliation was threatening to flood the EU with immigrants unless the EU continued to support his regime.
On top of their migration-orientated partnership, Libya is the EU’s third largest supplier of crude oil accounting for some 10% of its total supply. Power over the energy supply is a sure way to see your enemies become your friends.
Furthermore, the sale of defence weapons is, although a highly divisive issue, worth mentioning as several EU member states finalised lucrative deals with the Colonel after the EU sanctions were lifted in 2004. Putting any moral debate surrounding weapon sales aside, profiting from the international deals will likely have given several EU member states more reason to ‘look the other way’, from time to time, regarding the less appealing aspects of Gaddafi’s regime.
However, as Libya’s pro-democracy revolution escalates it is obvious that the half-baked EU-Libyan partnership and generous EU funds have achieved little. The flow of migrants travelling to the EU through Libya is likely to intensify as no lasting measures have been put in place and the weapons and internet jamming devices sold for defence are likely now being used to quash the pro-democracy protesters. With the country on the brink of civil war the Libyan leader isn’t prepared to consider any reforms or negotiations as other Middle Eastern leaders have announced (consider Bahrain/Jordan/Yemen). Instead, the off-the-wall Colonel is promising ‘to cleanse Libya house by house.’
In light of the Middle-East and North African pro-democracy protests, the EU’s external policy has lost much of its coherence. Though laudable in theory, it has failed in practice to deliver its commitment to democracy and human rights in dealing with third states. It is sadly clear that the EU can be persuaded to deviate from its ideals, or, as we have heard repeatedly over the last few weeks, manipulating stability has been favoured over values, even if this meant supporting authoritarian regimes.
At least the EU is now beginning to take a less deferential stance towards the Libyan chief. Earlier this week, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton, said:
‘The European Union is extremely concerned by the events unfolding in Libya and the reported deaths of a very high number of demonstrators. We condemn the repression against peaceful demonstrators and deplore the violence and the death of civilians.’
EU leaders insist that, despite Gaddafi’s immigration threats, the EU will not be blackmailed. However, years of regrettable dallying with dictators have significantly damaged the EU’s normative rhetoric; it must take immediate and decisive action to ensure that this damage does not become irreparable.