Political parties in Tunisia have yet to decide their position concerning the compensation for the damages sustained by the US Embassy in Tunis after Ansar al-Sharia militants burnt it in September 2012.

Although the United States has identified the value of the embassy’s material damage, the diplomatic mission has asked to have a piece of land as compensation.

Political parties in Tunisia have yet to decide their position concerning the compensation for the damages sustained by the US Embassy in Tunis after Ansar al-Sharia militants burnt it in September 2012.

Although the United States has identified the value of the embassy’s material damage, the diplomatic mission has asked to have a piece of land as compensation.

On January 5, 2016, the Tunisian government referred to parliament a memorandum of understanding (MoU) stating that the US would be granted a plot of land with over 22,000 square meters as compensation for damages sustained in the terrorist attacks.

With 11 articles, the MoU was signed on May 15, 2015, between former Tunisian Minister of Foreign Affairs Taïeb Baccouche and former US Ambassador Jacob Walles.

While some parties wanted the parliament to ratify the MoU in a general session, other parties – affiliated with the ruling coalition, including the Ennahda Movement – wanted to vest the government with that power.

“The compensation issue is primarily judicial and compensating the US Embassy does not require a parliamentary approval,” says Oussama Essghaier, a deputy for Ennahda.

The rest of the ruling coalition parties, including Nidaa Tounes, explicitly support giving a piece of land as compensation, even though some observers believe that this would affect national sovereignty.

“Providing the plot does not jeopardize sovereignty,” says Khaled Chouket, a leader of Nidaa Tounes and spokesman for the government. “Besides, both the American and Tunisian governments have agreed on the need for compensation, so there is no need to exaggerate things.”

Mahdi Rubai, a leader of Afek Tounes – one of the ruling coalition parties – says his party has not yet taken a stand regarding the land, arguing that the whole thing “is still unofficial.”

Nizar Ammami, an MP for the Popular Front – an opponent party with 16 MPs – says his party refuses to pass the MoU without the parliament’s approval.

Both the Tunisian government and the US Embassy have been discrete about their negotiation details. Tunisian stake holders like the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), the Ministry of State Property and the Ministry of Finance have not elaborated further.

MoFA Spokesman Mukhtar Shwashi says the value of compensation has been identified by the American side, which calls into question why the Tunisian government has not appointed any international independent expert to determine the extent of the damage.

Sceptical of American Intentions

The Tunisian government refuses to provide any reason for not giving financial compensation instead of a plot of land, especially since some are concerned that the American side would use the land for military and intelligence activities.

“We currently cannot make any statements until all necessary procedures related to the agreement are over,” read an official statement by the US Embassy. “We look forward to making decisions about compensation for the attack on the Embassy and we ask you to refer back to the Tunisian government regarding the internal discussions on the issue.”

International relations adviser and former diplomat Abdullah Ebedi believes that the MoU is merely a blackmail process by the US against Tunisia:

“Compensating with a piece of land adjacent to the Embassy is just a bargain and the Tunisian government should not accept it,” says Ebedi. “Damage should be compensated with money rather than with a piece of land, the way primitive societies used to do. This means of compensation is not in line with diplomatic norms and international law, which is a violation of the state’s sovereignty.”

Professor of international law Abdulmajeed Abdali says the Tunisian government is required to compensate the United Sates because, from a legal perspective, Tunisia failed to commit to its obligations of protecting diplomatic missions according to the 1961 Vienna Convention.

He cites many examples of cases when compensation was provided for damage to embassies, including the Iran hostage crisis in 1979. The US, says Abdali, filed a case with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Tehran for the damage, and the ICJ ruled for compensation for the US in 1980.

Abdali believes that not going to the ICJ and negotiating between both sides are positive developments and that any agreement will not be effective unless the Tunisian parliament and the American president endorse it. “The Tunisian government however has made a mistake by leaving the matter of estimating the damage to the US rather than outsourcing an international expert to do so,” he says.

Abdali denies that the state will lose its sovereignty by giving up a piece of land, pointing out that the MoU’s articles provide for many controls, including using the land for one purpose, namely for use by the American school.