On the day Tunisia’s democracy died, it fell to US Department of State spokesman Ned Price to deliver the Biden administration’s mealy-mouthed pieties.
Asked about the July 25 constitutional referendum that allowed Tunisian President Kais Saied to institutionalize one-man rule in the North African nation, Price offered the following observations:
“Well, we note the outcome that has been reported by the Independent High Authority for Elections and civil society election observers,” he said. “The referendum has been marked by low turnout. That is something we do note. A broad range of Tunisia’s civil society, media and political parties have expressed deep concerns regarding the referendum. And in particular, we note the widespread concerns among many Tunisians regarding the lack of an inclusive and transparent process and limited scope for genuine public debate during the drafting of the new constitution. We also note concerns that the new constitution includes weakened checks and balances that could compromise the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.”
Note the absence of direct criticism of the man who has garroted the Arab world’s most promising democracy. Instead of calling out Saied for his appropriation of near-absolute authority, the administration of US President Joe Biden again failed to live up to its own billing as a defender of democracy.
There would have been plenty to criticize. Saied seized control of the election commission ahead of the vote, in addition to muzzling the media, jerry-rigging the judiciary and jailing political opponents. The overwhelming majority of Tunisians chose not to vote, undermining the autocrat’s attempt to legitimize his power grab by refusing to participate in the stage-managed exercise.
Even taking at face value the election commission’s claim of a 30.4 percent turnout, it was an abysmal showing for Saied. By contrast, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi managed a 38.6 percent turnout for his 2014 constitutional referendum.
The Tunisian president offered the lamest of excuses: More people would have voted if they had had two days instead of one, Saied said.
In the days ahead, Saied’s opponents are likely to make the most they can of the poor turnout to question the lawfulness of the new constitution — and by extension, the president’s right to rule.
Like autocrats everywhere, Saied could seek alternative sources of legitimacy. Expect government-supported rallies celebrating the constitution in Tunis and expressions of fealty from the armed forces. The president could also draw legitimacy from the willingness of foreign leaders — and especially leaders of democratic states — to do business with him. He would be reassured by a reluctance of democracy’s defenders to even criticize, much less condemn, his sham of a referendum.
Saied is likely to hope that the Biden administration does for him what the administration of former US president Barack Obama did for al-Sisi: Accept the new constitution as a fait accompli and look the other way as the Tunisian president uses it to tighten his grip over all levers of the state.
Biden should deny Saied that satisfaction. Instead, the US president can start making up for his failure to protect Tunisia’s democracy by making it clear that his administration has done more than “note” Saied’s attempt to institutionalize authoritarianism.
Biden is no slouch at using strong language in situations such as this. Only last November, he condemned Nicaraguan President Manuel Noriega for staging a “pantomime” election. Saied should get similar treatment.
Presidential rhetoric aside, the official US position should be that the referendum was too flawed for the results to hold any validity. Any move by Saied to exercise the powers arrogated to the presidency in the new constitution should be met by full-throated condemnation and, where possible, economic sanctions.
Biden should demand that Saied restore the independence of Tunisia’s judiciary as well as the freedom of its media, and work with opposition parties toward a power-sharing arrangement and fresh elections.
If Saied refuses, the US should withhold all aid for Tunisia and encourage its European partners to do likewise. The Biden administration should also be prepared to exercise the US veto on any IMF assistance for Tunisia.
That would hit Saied where it hurts the most. He desperately needs foreign funding and the IMF’s help to start repairing Tunisia’s crumbling economy. Failure to deliver on that front would swiftly remove even the limited support he enjoys, and put paid to any claims to legitimacy.
Biden has much to answer for in his failure to live up to his professed values. In Tunisia, he could to do something of note.
Bobby Ghosh is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering foreign affairs. Previously he was editor-in-chief at the Hindustan Times, managing editor at Quartz and international editor at Time. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS