The EU as Mediator in its Southern Neighborhood

Franziska Brantner is a member of the Bundestag and chairwoman of the Bundestag’s Subcommittee on Civilian Crisis Prevention, Conflict Management and Integrated Action. She expressed doubt over the European Union’s ability to act as mediator in North Africa. Referring to the EU’s engagement in the aftermath of the Arab Spring in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia, she noted the EU’s difficulties in establishing itself as a credible and impartial actor with no other interests but conflict resolution. Although the EU was financing various NGOs and projects to encourage dialogue among communities in the south of Libya, Brantner expressed concerns that the EU’s underlying interest in reducing the flow of refugees by closing Libyan borders could overshadow any mediation efforts. Furthermore, she explained that many parties to the conflict in Egypt – especially the Muslim Brotherhood – would not regard the EU as a credible mediator due to its initially rather modest stance toward the military government of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. Apart from such specific and contextual constraints, Brantner claimed that the EU’s internal structures and fixed long-term budgets would impede funding for mediation purposes on a rapid, flexible and case-by-case basis. For the time being, there is a lack of political will to overcome these structural constraints, which is why she emphasized the importance of independent organizations such as the European Institute of Peace (EIP).

Pol Morillas, research fellow at the Barcelona Center for International Affairs (CIDOB), argued that the EU’s stronger engagement in conflict resolution in the Southern Mediterranean was the result of initial criticism regarding the EU’s response to the Arab Spring, which was considered too technocratic and lacking political guidance and strategic outreach. At the same time, these developments ran in parallel to a series of institutional developments increasing the EU’s capacity to act as an international mediator as part of the emphasis on civilian components of crisis management within the new institutional framework of the Lisbon Treaty. In addition, Morillas pointed to a set of internal and external challenges the EU would face in its mediation activities. First, the situation on the ground was highly complex – with lines of conflict existing between old and new forces and at the same time between pro-secular and Islamic forces. EU engagement with countries and communities closer to the conflicts could help tailor mediation efforts, although the requirement of neutrality would demand distance to local actors. In addition, many countries such as Egypt would reject external interference in order to maintain their status as strong and influential powers in the region. According to Morillas, internal division and particular interests of member states were yet another barrier of the EU’s ability to mediate. The review process of the European Security Strategy could help to reflect on the lessons learned and adjust mediation as one of the instruments in the toolbox of European foreign policy making.

Dina Fakoussa, head of the DGAP’s program on the Middle East and North Africa, desccribed the EU as unsuitable to function as mediator. The longstanding history of engagement of the EU and its member states with various local powers as well as governments would make it hard to sustain an image of impartiality. The EU’s own political and economic interests on the one hand were simply incompatible with the role as a mediator, she said. Describing Syria, Libya, and Yemen as battlegrounds for third parties, Fakoussa explained that “Track-A mediation” would also need to bring major powers such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Iran to the negotiation table. But the EU and Western powers in general have no leverage, and the EU is not necessarily perceived as a powerful authoritative entity. She further stressed that a comprehensive mediation approach in different cases in the Arab region would require the EU to enter into an inclusive dialogue not only with non-violent actors but also with militant Islamist groups. Although acknowledging that negotiations with all these actors tend to be highly complicated, Fakoussa stressed that the EU lacks political will to act as a power mediator and offer incentives of real magnitude that could alter the dynamics of a conflict. In that regard, the EU should consider offering migration cooperation with the Northern African countries and allow the local younger workforce to work or study in Europe. Instead of constantly increasing the budget to fight terrorism, it would be much more effective to offer a perspective to the young generation before it becomes radicalized she concluded.

The panelists met on May 11 at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP). They were invited by the DGAP’s Alfred von Oppenheim Center for European Policy Studies as part of its Brussels Briefing series. Julian Rappold, the Center’s acting head of program, moderated the event.

Speakers:

Dr. Franziska Brantner, MP
Chairwoman of the Bundestag Subcommittee on Civilian Crisis Prevention, Conflict Management and Integrated Action

Pol Morillas
Research Fellow, Barcelona Centre for International Affairs (CIDOB), Barcelona

Dina Fakoussa
Head of Program, Middle East and North Africa, German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)

Moderator: Julian Rappold, acting head of the Alfred von Oppenheim-Center for European Policy Studies program