Despite its best efforts, the EU is time and time again failing to perform in its role as a foreign policy actor. The other world powers – the US, the BRICs,  but also its own powerful member states are failing to take its attempts to exert its policy seriously, relying on its institutions to be the silent funds donor rather than policy maker in the international arena. And indeed, the EU, represented by its services and appointed officials, does little to abolish this perception by preferring to offer its partners financial aid over the often much more valuable political support.

The EU likes to have its cake and eat it: it continues to uphold its relationship with oppressive regimes across the world (Saudi Arabia, China and Russia are only a few examples), which provide it with numerous trade and economic benefits. All the while, it solves the clash between its purported objectives (Art. 2 of the Lisbon treaty compels it to promote human rights in its external policy) and the reality of their partners’ undemocratic and often violent treatment of their own citizens by throwing money at the problem. Thus the EU, which proudly proclaims to be the world’s biggest aid donor, can keep both its collective conscience clean and its relationships with its less-than-perfect partners intact. It’s too bad then that this arrangement fails to benefit the very people it is supposed to be aimed at – the populations living under repressive regimes.

The EU claims to have learnt a lesson from the events of the Arab Spring – it promises it will now begin to value and engage with civil society, the existence of which is the prerequisite for a genuine democracy. However, it is already failing these commitments by reverting to old practices: a notable example being the situation faced by civil society in Egypt. In 2011 the Egyptian authorities began an offensive on civil society, targeting especially human rights-oriented NGOs and human rights defenders by carrying out a smear campaign in the state media aimed at delegitimising their work and launching investigations into alleged illegal receipt of foreign funding.

The EU has, to date, failed to react unequivocally to condemn the Egyptian authorities’ actions or even issue a sufficiently strong statement in support of Egyptian civil society. Worryingly, the EEAS justifies this approach by saying the EU wishes to pull back, providing local authorities and civil society with space to work out their relationship with the transitional (and newly-elected) authorities so as not to impose its own ideas or norms. This reasoning is not only dangerous in that it has long been used by abusive regimes to reject outside interference. It is also widely refuted by civil society itself, which warns that the absence of an international reaction creates a political vacuum, providing the Egyptian authorities with carte blanche to continue repression. Most importantly, an EU call for Egypt to adhere to international human law standards is in no way interference but a reminder for it to follow up on its own commitment. This applies throughout the region: while a shift of power may have taken place in many countries in the Middle East and North Africa, this by no means implies that the new authorities are committed to treating their citizens fairly and equally.

So far, the EU’s most tangible reaction to the uprisings in the Arab world has been to provide them with more funds and more ways to access them. Two new financial instruments, the European Endowment for Democracy and the Neighbourhood Civil Society Facility have been set up for this purpose. But if the EU wants to be seen as a serious and legitimate player in foreign policy, it must demonstrate a consistency between its commitments and actual actions – providing funds while turning a blind eye is not enough. While the provision of EU aid is of course more than welcome and ensures the survival of many organisations in third countries, this cannot be done in a vacuum – the EU needs to, in this case, put its mouth where its money is and openly and unequivocally support civil society organisations in their struggle against their often hostile governments. In most cases, overt political support to forces aiming at reform can be much more valuable than any cheque.

(Each article reflects the personal views of the author)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oxfamnovib/6963967897/sizes/l/in/photostream/