Source: United States Senator for Connecticut – Chris Murphy
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia and Counterterrorism, on Wednesday held a subcommittee hearing on U.S. policy towards Tunisia with Joshua Harris, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for North Africa, and Megan Doherty, Deputy Assistant Administrator for the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Bureau for the Middle East.
“You might ask why a Senate subcommittee that has jurisdiction over nearly a third of the world is holding a hearing on a country that’s just a little bit bigger than Indiana. The answer is pretty simple. Tunisia is a country that for a long time showed what was possible in the Middle East and North Africa. It was a country that had seemingly gotten it right and was able to stay on a democratic path while transitions faltered in Egypt, and Libya, and Yemen,” Murphy said. “But amidst all of this progress, institutional reforms and accountability initiatives, they really stalled and economic conditions worsened. Widespread corruption persisted, public services got worse, there was police brutality left and right, and the political elites were just squabbling. It ended up being a pretty terrible advertisement for democracy.”
Murphy recounted his meeting with President Kais Saied in August of 2021 and Tunisia’s turn toward authoritarianism: “Unfortunately, over the last 21 months, my worst fears have [been borne out]. Since that meeting, President Saied has followed a dictator’s handbook almost to the letter: disbanding parliament, writing a new constitution that consolidates his power, disbanding judicial independence and employing military tribunals, arresting members of the opposition including just recently this week – treason charges for the leader, the leader for the primary opposition. These are not the actions of a leader who intends to restore democracy just under a different model.”
Murphy highlighted the pitfalls of U.S.-Tunisia policy: “Over the last 21 months that President Saied has been steadily dismantling Tunisian democracy, the U.S. policy, unfortunately, has been hesitant. I would argue that it has been halfhearted and often naive. By failing to draw hard lines in the sand, Saied has felt confident in taking one step after another to consolidate power and ignore polite requests from American diplomats to change course.”
On competing with China in the region, Murphy said: “[I] think we have to realize that not everything is a zero sum game in our competition with China, and that we don’t have to make deeper commitments to authoritarians just because China is making a competing offer. I think the best way to compete with China is not to try to beat China in a race to the human rights bottom. If China can only do deep economic deals with countries which the IMF deems to be unbankable, that’s a pretty bad long term prospect for Chinese economic diplomacy. And so I would argue that Tunisia is a critical test case to change tack and to back up our words with actions.
Murphy has repeatedly raised his concerns with cutting aid to civil society in Tunisia while maintaining the same amount of military aid in the FY24 budget request. Murphy also recently joined Lise Grande, the President of the U.S. Institute of Peace, to discuss Tunisia’s turn towards authoritarianism and its implications for U.S. foreign policy.
A full transcript of Murphy’s opening remarks can be found below:
“We convene the subcommittee today to discuss American policy towards Tunisia. You might ask why is a Senate subcommittee that has jurisdiction over nearly a third of the world is holding a hearing on a country that’s just a little bit bigger than Indiana. The answer is pretty simple. Tunisia is a country that for a long time showed what was possible in the Middle East and North Africa. It was a country that had seemingly gotten it right and was able to stay on a democratic path while transitions faltered in Egypt, and Libya, and Yemen. Tunisia drafted a new constitution, held multiple free and fair elections. After a really high-profile series of terrorist attacks, Tunisian security forces – with the support of the United States – increased their capacity to protect the country but also balance protecting civil liberty. Civil society groups, independent media proliferated, exercising their newfound rights to hold Tunisia’s leaders accountable.
“But amidst all of this progress, institutional reforms and accountability initiatives, they really stalled and economic conditions worsened. Widespread corruption persisted, public services got worse, there was police brutality left and right, and the political elites were just squabbling. It ended up being a pretty terrible advertisement for democracy. Tunisian people saw what democracy looks like and they didn’t love it.
“It was in this context that President Kais Saied promised Tunisians he was going to fix this mess that many Tunisians had grown really tired of. When I first met President Saied in Tunisia in August of 2021, he told me and our delegation that his intent was not to get rid of democracy, but that he was just going to fix the problem of Tunisia having adopted the wrong kind of democracy, the wrong model, and he was just going to bring a model that worked. But I’m going to be honest, in that same meeting, I saw all of the trappings of a despot-in-waiting. President Saied was self-adulating, saying that only he was ‘pure’ enough to lead, everyone else was tainted and corrupt. He was conspiratorial about dark enemies he saw around every corner. He bristled at public criticism, telling me no less than three times that his seizure of power was ‘not a coup.’
“I left that meeting pretty convinced that Tunisia was likely headed in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, over the last 21 months, my worst fears have [been borne out]. Since that meeting, President Saied has followed a dictator’s handbook almost to the letter: disbanding parliament, writing a new constitution that consolidates his power, disbanding judicial independence and employing military tribunals, arresting members of the opposition including just recently this week – treason charges for the leader, the leader for the primary opposition. These are not the actions of a leader who intends to restore democracy just under a different model.
“Over the last 21 months that President Saied has been steadily dismantling Tunisian democracy, the U.S. policy, unfortunately, has been hesitant. I would argue that it has been halfhearted and often naive. By failing to draw hard lines in the sand, Saied has felt confident in taking one step after another to consolidate power and ignore polite requests from American diplomats to change course. We’re talking about Tunisia and only Tunisia today because I would argue that this is a place for the United States to correct course when it comes to our tendency to talk a tough game on human rights and democracy, but then not really lead by example. We cut deals with dictators. We sell billions of dollars of weapons to dangerous autocrats. We send regular signals that there are few consequences for your political and economic relationship with the United States if you move from democracy to repression. And so I argue that this is a hearing in which through the prism of Tunisia policy, we can also talk about how we can’t afford this duality. Talk tough, but act often too weakly on human rights and democracy.
“So we’re going to ask these questions today about how we can adjust our assistance policies so that we are supporting the Tunisian people and their ability to speak freely and to hold their leaders accountable. We’re going to ask how we can empower our diplomats to do that work inside Tunisia. But lastly, I hope that we are also going to talk about China. Because anytime that I argue that we should be reforming our partnerships with dictators in the region, whether it be Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE or Tunisia, the counter that I often hear is that, well, if we don’t extend that hand, no matter how repressive the regime is, China is going to fill the void. But I think we have to realize that not everything is a zero sum game in our competition with China, and that we don’t have to make deeper commitments to authoritarians just because China is making a competing offer.
“I think the best way to compete with China is not to try to beat China in a race to the human rights bottom. If China can only do deep economic deals with countries which the IMF deems to be unbankable, that’s a pretty bad long term prospect for Chinese economic diplomacy. And so I would argue that Tunisia is a critical test case to change tack and to back up our words with actions. And so I’m looking forward to this discussion with our very able guests today.
“And with that, I’ll turn to the Ranking Member.”
###