On July 25, 2021, Tunisian President Kais Saied announced a series of decisions, most notably the dismissal of Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi and freezing the Parliament for 30 days. Although there is widespread internal support for these decisions, both at the public level and among the political forces, the Ennahda movement has adopted a stand against them, based on a misinterpretation of the views of Western countries, particularly that of the US administration headed by Joe Biden. The Ennahda believes that Washington would reject or at least condemn President Saied's decisions. However, the US administration's official moves and statements reflect its implicit approval of Saied's decisions. This raises several questions about the nature of the Biden administration's stance and why Ennahda and liberal voices in Washington failed to force the US administration to adopt a position against those extraordinary decisions.
Washington's interests
The Biden administration's stance toward the current crisis in Tunisia is a key factor in determining its course, as the administration's announcement of its opposition to Saied's decisions would have mounted pressure on the latter. However, its tacit "conditional" approval made the situation move from speaking of an alleged "coup d'état," according to Ennahda, to attempting to focus on the democratic path and the roadmap post-July 25 phase.
Here the question still remains: Why is the Biden administration interested in the situation in Tunisia despite its focus on domestic issues, as well as other international issues that may seem more pressing? The answer may be summarized in the following aspects:
1. Preserving US interests:
Tunisia is an important country for preserving US interests in North Africa, as the US Embassy in Tunisia hosts the Libya External Office. On the other hand, there are US concerns that the exasperating events in Tunisia may lead to a state of insecurity and political chaos. This situation poses significant risks to the American interests, which explains the clear and intensive involvement of US institutions in pursuing and managing the Tunisian crisis, specifically the National Security Council and the US State Department.
2. Biden administration's pro-democracy directives:
What is happening in Tunisia comes at a peculiar stage of the Biden administration. Since Biden assumed office in January 2021, he considers issues in support of democracy and human rights a top priority within his foreign policy. Thus, preparations are under way for Leaders' Summit for Democracy called for by Biden and which is due to take place end of this year. Thus, developments in Tunisia, which some liberal and human rights communities in Washington view the situation in Tunisia as a test for Biden’s democratic agenda. Despite that the administration is aware of this trend in intellectual debates in Washington, but prefers to give the Tunisian President a chance to proceed with the political process.
3. The liberals' vision of the Tunisian experience:
Washington's liberal circles perceive the Tunisian experience as a successful model of democratic transition after the "Arab Spring." Regardless of how accurate this may be, it is striking that these liberal voices did not take into account the political, economic and health deterioration within Tunisia. They focused only on the manifestations of political democracy, without focusing on the pressing economic crisis to address the core issues challenging the Tunisian model. This explains why the Biden administration is not affected by the liberals' vision of events in Tunisia, as its strategic assessment focuses primarily on the outcome of the Tunisian experience. Biden administration also realizes that US democracy itself was at stake on January 6, 2021 during the attacks on the Congress.
The US Viewpoint
Since President Saied announced his extraordinary decisions, the Biden administration has adopted a position that does not consider this a "coup”, but has only used traditional diplomatic rhetoric to emphasize the importance of returning to the democratic path, which can be illustrated as follows:
1. The White House:
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki devoted part of the press conference on July 26 to answering reporters' questions about Tunisia. Her remarks were the first indication of the administration's official position. In response to a reporter's question regarding whether the administration considers what happened in Tunisia a coup? Psaki stressed that a defining a coup is a legal matter, and they would look to the State Department to conduct a legal analysis determining whether the situation in Tunisia constitutes a coup.
2. US Department of State:
On July 26, the US Department of State issued a press release stating, “The United States is closely monitoring developments in Tunisia. We have been in contact with Tunisian government officials to stress that solutions to Tunisia’s political and economic troubles should be based on the Tunisian constitution and the principles of democracy, human rights, and freedom. We have been clear in urging all parties to avoid taking any actions that could stifle democratic discourse or lead to violence".
Secretary Antony J. Blinken spoke with Saied on July 26, where he underscored the United States’ strong partnership and continued support for the Tunisian people as they face the dual challenges of an economic crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. He also encouraged President Saied to adhere to the principles of democracy and human rights. The Secretary also urged President Saied to maintain open dialogue with all political actors and the Tunisian people, noting that the US would continue to monitor the situation and stay engaged.
3. US National Security Council:
On July 31, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan had a phone call with President Saied, where “he conveyed President Biden’s strong support for the people of Tunisia and for Tunisian democracy based on fundamental rights, strong institutions, and a commitment to the rule of law". Sullivan's call “focused on the critical need for Tunisian leaders to outline a swift return to Tunisia’s democratic path”. He also underscored that, “this will require rapidly forming a new government, led by a capable prime minister to stabilize Tunisia’s economy and confront the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as ensuring the timely return of the elected parliament”.
All communications made by various American institutions, whether the White House, the State Department or the National Security Council, reflect the evident position of supporting the Tunisian people, underscoring the need to avoid any actions that lead to violence, the importance of returning to the democratic path by quickly forming a new government, as well as ensuring the timely return of the elected parliament. This position implies the Biden administration's approval on President Saied's decisions with no clear criticism issued.
Factors explained
A key question is why the administration preferred to implicitly and conditionally approve President Saied's decisions and not oppose them instead? This can be explained by clarifying the key determinants that helped shape the US position, including:
1. The role of the US National Security Council:
A historical reading of the failures of the "Arab Spring" in the Middle East helped guide decision-making process within the White House, as some members of the current US National Security Council team worked in Obama's first and second administration. The administration's current position on foreign crises may be determined by the National Security Council team in particular after consultation and coordination with other administration institutions, specifically the Departments of State and Defense. As the council team is now more realistic and pragmatic than it was during the previous Obama administration, waiting and giving a chance took over any trends that would push for posing pressures on the Tunisian President.
2. Legal determinants:
One of the key factors that led the Biden administration not to condemn Saied's decisions is the legal definition of a "coup". Section 508 of the Foreign Aid Act of 1961, and its amendments to Section 7008 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations act and related programs for 2013, prohibit the State Department from providing any assistance to countries whose elected leader is deposed by military coup. The legal definition here of the concept of a "coup" is an act taken against the elected Head of State in which the military plays a decisive role. It is obvious that the situation in Tunisia does not apply to this legal definition, as the legitimately elected president used his powers approved by the constitution. The allegations promoted by some that these decisions are a coup against the constitution do not legally mean that this is a military coup under which the US administration must cut off aid to Tunisia. Even if there is dispute over the constitutionality of what President Saied has done, it does not amount to a coup d'état targeting its chief official.
3. Tunisian internal determinants:
There are two determinants within Tunisia which explain the US administration's current position on President Saied's decisions. The first determinant is Ennahda's failure to achieve economic progress and confront the COVID-19, despite its prominence in recent years. Therefore, Ennahda is a key constituent of the current crisis. The second determinant pertains to the "political engineering" of President Saied's decisions, where the latter is the main player in making these decisions backed up by public support. The crisis is managed purely civilly, regardless of the possibility that the political process may face obstacles in the post-July 25 phase.
In conclusion, the Biden administration has adopted a position that implies tacit approval of President Saied's decisions, despite attempts by Ennahda and other voices in Washington to push the administration to define this as a "coup." What happened does not meet the legal requirements of the US Department of State to adopt this alleged determination.
