Category Archives: Libya

Extending your influence.

Posted on by
2

Anna Raccoon and Not Applicable (the name that Ian Parker Joseph has given himself via deed poll in preparation for the census*) have been ruminating on the EU’s intentions regarding Libya and it makes interesting reading.

What I’ve found interesting is the sudden keenness of the French to get involved in this, especially when you consider that they were lukewarm on Afghanistan and downright hostile to the idea of going into Iraq. What is the motivation here?

In the comments on this post, I think Call Me Infidel hit a nail on the head when he said:

‘it may be as simple as oil contracts for Total.’

But I also think it goes deeper than that. Without doubt the French are ultra-protectionist about their state owned businesses, both inside the EU and without. There is also little doubt that like all good bullies, the EU has an area outside its direct control which it considers as its ‘sphere of influence’. Just like the USSR with Poland and all the other Eastern Bloc countries, they are countries which are independent and sovereign, as long as they do what they are told, even though they’re not members. Well, the EU’s ‘sphere of influence’ is that strip of land which stretches from the Atlantic coast of Morocco right up to the Egyptian – Israeli/Palestinian border and down into the top of sub-Sahran Africa.

Gaddafi has been a naughty boy, it isn’t that he’s been oppressing his population, after all he’s been doing that for 40 years, the problem is he’s now drawing attention to himself. The EU couldn’t care less that there isn’t a shred of democratic credibility about him, how could they care? The Mandarins of the EU and the Commission have inveigled themselves into the big chair without recourse to anything as grubby as democracy, and just like Gaddafi, they know what is best for their people, it would all be better if everyone just shut up and did what they were told.

Of course the EU will eventually creep over the Med, it’s only a matter of time before one of the north African states is conned, bribed or strongarmed into joining. Cathy Ashton, a woman so ugly that when she comes on TV the Daleks hide behind the sofa, has referred to North Africa as the EU’s ‘southern neighbourhood’ on more than one occasion. Once the EU gets a toe hold it will all be trumpets and poetry, a unifying force and so forth. Gaddafi was going to need sorting sooner or later, there was no way he was going to bend to the will of Brussels, so we may as well take advantage of the situation. I’m betting the EU apparatchiks are falling over themselves to offer ‘assistance and advice’ to Tunisia and Egypt as well, it is simply too good an opportunity to miss.

Have we considered why Sarko has been so keen to get involved in this? The French were the first out of the blocks, according to Sky News, hitting an armoured column with jets before the Libyan air defence systems were taken out of commission. The meeting was held in Paris. The French rep to the UN was agitating for a no-fly zone before even the US, let alone the UK. When the deed was done, Sarko addressed the French nation before O’Blimey had done the same to the Americans.

Make no mistake, the Americans are perfectly happy to ride along on the coat tails of this one. But why is Sarko so damned keen?

Some accuse Sarkozy of being an EU placeman. Someone who will meekly do the EU’s bidding. Not a bit of it. Being a placeman suggests that one has the status of a puppet, and Sarko is no puppet, he is one of the driving forces behind the EUro project, he will sell France’s national identity and independence without a second’s thought. (As an aside, if the EU doesn’t die bankrupt and is torn to shreds from within, I fully expect the Benghzai moment to happen in France. When the centime drops, they’ll be furious, and the French do so love a good tear-up.)

This is all part of a process. The trappings of state have been picked up one by one, we’ve had the flag, the anthem, the parliament and the currency, we’ve recently seen the constitution, the President and the Foreign Minister, the police force isn’t far behind, nor is the army. But what’s the point of having the army if you’re not going to do anything with it? This UNSC resolution is an EU resolution, the only annoying thing from the EU’s point of view is that the EU isn’t recognised as a country by the UN. Yet. But their own UN resolution? Chalk another item up on the list of the trappings of state.

The only thing they’ll need then is their first war. Well, the Americans seem happy to take a back seat. The Chinese response to the whole affair has been ‘meh’, well, is there a great difference between China and Libya? The Russians have their own oil and gas, so don’t really care. The Norwegians steadfastly and selfishly refuse to accept that it isn’t their oil, it is European oil, and won’t join the club. So why not Libya?

This isn’t protection of the vulnerable, this is colonialism and opportunistic asset grabbing by the EU.

I’m annoyed it has taken me so long to figure it out.

Unfortunately, I have a bad, bad feeling about this. Will the USSR’s Afghanistan be reflected in the EU’s Libya?

* – I love that idea, Not. (That is to say your name, Not, that was not an indication I didn’t like the idea in a 90′s US teen movie style, Not. Oh bugger, I’ve done it again.) I like the idea of putting down your name on the census as Not Applicable, Not. (Bollocks there I go again).

Where the lines blur.

Posted on by
3

I do not agree with the death penalty. I think taking life is wrong, and I see no difference between someone being shot on the street by an individual or someone being hanged/electrocuted/injected with a lethal cocktail by the State. The fact that the person being hanged/electrocuted/injected with a lethal cocktail took another’s life is irrelevant, your life belongs to you, and it is my belief that nobody has the right to take it unless in self defence. For me, a State execution is no different to a calculated murder, with one exception. The murderer with the gun on the street is not killing in my name or on my behalf.

So it is with this belief in mind that I struggle with the no-fly zone over Libya. Anna Raccoon has blogged on this subject herself this evening – one line in particular has given me food for thought:

Even some Libertarians are now saying it is perfectly OK to kill Libyans, so long as they are the right sort of wrong thinking Libyans.

That’s a line that makes me uncomfortable.

It is all about where the lines blur between different states of mind. Does my model government follow an isolationist policy? No, it doesn’t. To cut yourself off from the outside world makes no sense. What about non-interventionist? Well, history has shown us that Vietnam was a disaster, and we should be grateful that we didn’t go steaming in with the Americans there. Korea was hardly a shining success either, we’re still seeing the fall-out fifty years later. So from that angle, non-interventionism seems like a no brainer.

But wait, were we wrong to get involved when Germany invaded Poland? The Nazi regime did for millions of non-combatants, even when you discount the collateral damage of civilians in a theatre of war. Would it have been the right thing to stand aside and do nothing then? Even if the full horror of the Holocaust wasn’t apparent in 1939, we had a good idea of what was going on. Would it have been right to have not got involved in the face of genocide?

No, I maintain that in the face of that alone, the Second World War was a justified campaign.

So where does the line blur between non-interventionist and interventionist? Iraq was obviously well over that line. Afghanistan slightly less so, but still over. Where does the no-fly zone in Libya come?

If Gaddafi chooses to probe, test or ignore the UN, are we justified in enforcing it? Make no mistake, for a no-fly zone to be enforced, people will have to die, be they pilots, ground crew, AA batteries, someone will die.

Is it our crisis to be involved in? I want everyone to be free, but we cannot give freedom. It is not a gift that can be given, it is a condition which can only be taken. We cannot simply hand it over. So from that point of view I do not agree with intervention in Libya.

OK, so, what’s happening in Libya isn’t a fair fight. There’s no way we can make it fair, even if Tunisia or Egypt allowed the west to pour weapons over the border, it wouldn’t be fair, we can’t give the rebels an air force to challenge the Mad Dog. We can’t give them training. And Afghanistan teaches caution, we armed the rebels against the USSR, that did not finish well. We won’t train and arm an exiled force, I don’t think the US is ready to revisit the Bay of Pigs fiasco. On that point I do not agree with intervention in Libya.

Following on from that, whether we arm the rebels or whether we go steaming in on their behalf, do we know what or who will replace Gaddafi? Will they be any better? One tribe will have to dominate the other, it is what happens here, it is just that our tribes are political, not ethnic. What if we preside over elections, how long will that take to bring about? Would our governments, finding themselves with significant reserves of oil under their ‘protection’ install anything beyond a puppet government? What happens when the population decide they don’t like that and turn on us? Will we be justified in doing just what Gaddafi is doing now? We too would denounce them as terrorists and extremists, and would expect our rantings to hold credibility. What if the population, in a free election, decide they want someone we don’t like? What if we have another Palestine/Hamas outcome? What then? Palestine will ride, they don’t have oil, it is merely an irritant, but in Libya? On that point I do not agree with intervention.

It is clear that Gaddafi is killing his own people with impunity. Hitler did it. We intervened. Stalin, Pot, Mao and Kim (versions 1 and 2) did it, we did not intervene. It is a shocking betrayal of a people he claims to love. It comes back to the fair fight again, but also factors in abuse of power. On that point, I do agree with intervention.

However, where is the intervention in Bahrain? They have also killed their own in an unfair fight, and even called foreign armies to intervene on their behalf. What about Yemen? The same is happening there as in Libya. Zimbabwe? Sudan? Somaliland? We cannot do all of them, should we do any of them? No, can’t agree on that point either. It is neither desirable nor practical to pop up everywhere there is unrest.

I can only support intervention in one of five criteria that I can think of. The sixth criteria is because we rely on Libyan oil. Unfortunately that is why we get exercised about Libya and not Yemen, as Yemen has no oil. That is why we get exercised about Libya and not Bahrain, as Bahrain has a ‘friendly’ leader, it is obviously less bad for him to kill his people than it is for Gaddafi.

I really, really hope that Libya will be rid of Gaddafi, but for it to mean anything, they’ll have to do it for themselves. We simply cannot, and should not do it for them, for if we do, we will merely condemn them to another tyranny. At least this way, even in the face of the most difficult odds, they have a chance.

We’ve destroyed our own culture and country by thinking and acting for own citizens’ good, whether they ask for it or not, for us to do it to another culture and country would be tragic.

Duplicity? No. A bloody lie.

Posted on by
3

Guido has very kindly coralled all the relevants cuttings over at his gaff, so there’s little for me to do but to add my own comments.

August 2009:

“Gordon Brown today broke his silence on the release of the Lockerbie bomber, saying that the UK government had done no deal with Libya and that he was “angry and repulsed” at the scenes of jubilation in Tripoli.”

September 2009 (Gordon Brown): 

“On our part, there was no conspiracy, no cover-up, no double-dealing, no deal on oil, no attempt to instruct Scottish ministers, no private assurances by me to (Libyan leader) Colonel (Muammar) Gaddafi. We were absolutely clear throughout with the Libyans and everyone else that this was a decision for the Scottish government.”

Today:

“The former Labour Government did “all it could” to help Libya secure the release of the Lockerbie bomber, Britain’s most senior civil servant is to admit today”

“Policy was, therefore, progressively developed that Her Majesty’s Government should do all it could, while respecting devolved competencies, to facilitate an appeal by the Libyans to the Scottish government for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi’s release under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) or for release on compassionate grounds. Such an approach was understood across all relevant departments.”

There are serious doubts in my mind as to whether al-Megrahi was the perp here. The public were demanding that someone be locked up for it, it was perhaps politically convenient to both the UK and Libyan governments at the time that al-Megrahi should be that man.

But, for the Prime Minister to wilfully mislead the country and the House is unforgivable. Yes, we all know that politicians lie, but there are lies and there are lies. Bugger an inquest, let’s just go straight to the prosecutions, shall we?

I’m no lover of the coalition shouting match we have at the moment, but it will be a long, long time until we see a government as deceitful, arrogant, hubristic and contemptible as the one that was thrown out last year. I hope it is equally as long until anyone from the Labour party gets their hands on the lever of power again, and I wish that the last Labour government is just that, the last one.