The EU-Tunisia Migration Pact: A Fragile Partnership Under Strain

Photo: flags of EU and Tunisia

 

The European Union’s (EU) migration policies have long sought to balance control with cooperation, aiming to curb irregular migration while fostering diplomatic ties with transit countries. In July 2023, the EU and Tunisia signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) designed to achieve precisely that: providing financial assistance to Tunisia in exchange for tighter border controls. However, nearly two years on, the pact has revealed more tensions than solutions. From financial disputes to human rights concerns and political instability, the deal’s implementation has been fraught with challenges. Is this a case of the EU outsourcing its migration problems without ensuring long-term sustainability? Or does it expose the deeper fragilities in European migration policy? Now, as we approach the two-year mark, it is essential to evaluate what has worked, what has failed, and what the future holds for this contentious agreement.

Financial Disputes: Aid as a Political Weapon?

At the heart of the current rift between Tunisia and the EU is a deep disagreement over financial aid. The EU initially pledged €260 million, with €60 million intended for immediate support. However, by October 2023, Tunisia had unexpectedly rejected the funds, with President Kais Saied dismissing the financial package as inadequate and insulting. This move highlighted a fundamental issue: while the EU sees financial aid as a tool for cooperation, Tunisia views it as insufficient compensation for the political and logistical burden it carries.

Two years in, the financial aspect of the agreement remains uncertain. Tunisia continues to demand greater economic assistance, arguing that the EU has not fully honored its commitments. Meanwhile, European policymakers, wary of Tunisia’s increasing authoritarianism, have hesitated to expand financial support. The result is a growing impasse, with Tunisia signalling that it may scale back cooperation if additional funding is not secured. This uncertainty raises concerns about whether financial aid alone can ever be a sustainable foundation for such a critical agreement.

Further complicating matters, Tunisia has begun seeking alternative financial partnerships outside the EU, engaging more actively with Gulf states and China. This diversification strategy indicates that Tunisia does not see the EU as its only viable partner, further weakening the EU’s leverage in negotiations.

The Human Cost: A Convenient Blind Eye?

Beyond financial disputes, the EU-Tunisia pact has also drawn attention for its ethical implications. Reports from human rights organizations highlight concerns about the treatment of migrants in Tunisia, including allegations of harassment, expulsions, and abandonment in remote areas. Critics argue that the agreement enables the EU to manage migration externally without directly addressing the humanitarian consequences.

Despite these reports, the EU’s response has been cautious. European officials acknowledge the concerns but have yet to take substantial action. This reflects an ongoing challenge in the EU’s migration policy: balancing human rights commitments with external partnerships on migration control.

After nearly two years, conditions for migrants in Tunisia remain difficult. Some evidence suggests an increase in migrant detentions, particularly affecting sub-Saharan migrants, who face significant hardship. Civil society organizations caution that Tunisia has become an increasingly challenging environment for migrants, raising questions about the broader implications of EU cooperation in this area.

Adding to the complexity is the EU’s varied approach to similar migration issues in different countries. This inconsistency has led to debates about the credibility of the EU’s stance on human rights in migration agreements, influencing discussions on future partnerships.

Tunisia’s Political Shift: A Risky Partner?

Tunisia’s internal political dynamics have further complicated the migration agreement. Since 2021, President Kais Saied has consolidated power, sidelining opposition voices and restricting civil liberties. His increasingly authoritarian grip on the country raises concerns about the long-term stability of the EU-Tunisia partnership. The EU’s continued engagement with Saied’s government suggests a trade-off: political repression is tolerated so long as migration flows remain under control.

Tunisia’s 2024 elections have added another layer of complexity to an already fragile political landscape. While Saied retained power, concerns over electoral legitimacy and voter suppression have fuelled ongoing unrest. These developments have exacerbated existing tensions, as the EU now faces the challenge of navigating a relationship with a leader whose hold on power is increasingly questioned. Should the EU continue aligning itself with a controversial government, or is it time to recalibrate its policy approach?

Compounding these concerns, Tunisia’s political situation remains volatile as of early 2025. Saied has further marginalized political opposition, leading to increased protests and growing dissent. The economic stagnation and Tunisia’s declining international standing further complicate the EU’s position. With these mounting challenges, the EU must assess whether its partnership with Tunisia remains sustainable or if continued engagement risks undermining its own credibility on human rights and governance issues.

Has the EU Achieved Its Goals?

Looking at the broader picture, the EU-Tunisia migration pact serves as a case study in the limits of outsourcing migration control. Two years after its signing, several key lessons have emerged:

1. Short-Term Gains Do Not Guarantee Long-Term Success: While migration numbers initially dropped, the lack of a sustainable financial and political framework means that the deal’s future is uncertain.
2. Financial Incentives Alone Are Not Enough: Tunisia has repeatedly signalled dissatisfaction with EU funding, raising doubts about whether monetary aid can truly secure lasting cooperation.
3. Ignoring Human Rights Undermines Credibility: The EU’s reluctance to address Tunisia’s mistreatment of migrants has damaged its reputation, both internally and internationally.
4. Political Stability Matters: Working with an authoritarian leader like Kais Saied has proven risky, as Tunisia’s internal instability threatens the continuity of agreements.

Given these realities, the EU must now decide whether to double down on its current approach or to seek a revised, more sustainable migration partnership. One possibility is to shift towards a broader, development-oriented strategy that addresses economic and governance challenges in Tunisia, rather than merely focusing on border control.

Conclusion: A Fragile Balance

The EU-Tunisia migration pact reflects a wider pattern in European migration policy – securing cooperation through financial incentives while turning a blind eye to deeper, structural issues. While the deal has temporarily reduced migration flows, its sustainability is far from guaranteed. Tunisia’s rejection of funds, human rights concerns, and political instability all suggest that this partnership is built on shaky ground.

Now, with two years of hindsight, the EU must reassess whether its reliance on third-country agreements is a viable long-term strategy. Is it time for Europe to invest in a more holistic approach, one that prioritizes economic development and democratic governance rather than just short-term migration containment? Unless the EU is willing to confront these difficult questions, its migration policies will continue to be reactive rather than strategic.

For now, the EU-Tunisia migration pact stands as a warning: partnerships built solely on financial incentives and political expediency may not withstand the pressures of shifting political landscapes and ethical concerns. Without meaningful changes, the EU risks repeating the same mistakes elsewhere, with equally uncertain outcomes.