Blog 2023 Malcolm Blair-Robinson

France has recognised the anti-Gaddafi forces and their administrative structure as ‘the legitimate government of Libya’. This is premature. There is no certainty that they will prevail, nor even that they have majority support in the wider context of the whole of Libya. Certainly they are in no sense ‘governing’ Libya. It may very well be that they never do. Premature recognition of a rebelling combination in a civil war is rash, even reckless and can impede a just cause to the point where it fails. Clearly the hope of the Benghazi people is that France will now help them militarily. When it does not, which is likely, the sense of let down, even betrayal, will be profound.

Everyone who wants to see a resolution of this crisis must see that only U.N. authorised (properly, not Iraq style), military intervention by non Arab states will have any chance and even that chance is long. The Libyan people have to solve this and find a way of ridding themselves of the Gaddafi family, if that is what they want. The rest of the world can pile in humanitarian aid, freeze assets, impose sanctions and generally make it worthwhile for the Gaddafis to find a way out before it is too late.There are reports they are putting out feelers.

At the moment Gadaffi is winning the military engagements and the rebels are being pushed back. That may not last, once anger at the heavy handedness of his forces and the brutality in his prisons permeates his traumatised country. There is more to happen yet and the West needs, for the moment, to stock up its powder but keep it dry.

David Cameron’s bellicose declarations over Libya are misguided. I suspect they are at variance with the view of the foreign secretary and might account additionally to the problems described in my previous post today.

Libya is for all practical purposes in a state of civil war. Civil wars are battles between opposing factions in a country, which cross the line from argument to fighting. This happens usually, but not always, in countries where democracy is suppressed. America’s own civil war was one of the worst in  history and its death list still totals more than their country has lost in all its other wars, including the world wars, put together. What that war taught Britain was the difficulty of keeping out of their conflict. Whilst trying to remain neutral, Britain very nearly became embroiled in  a war with the Union twice. 

Unfortunately lessons of history, especially in an epoch when too few politicians study the subject (they love writing about historical political figures, which is a quite different thing), are too easily forgotten, so we have had to learn all over again with Iraq and Afghanistan, that you cannot liberate a country from itself and if you try, you become part of an ongoing civil conflict without an exit.

Cameron has made himself Gaddfi’s most powerful ally. Nothing would suit the dictator, who claims to hold no position or office so he cannot resign, more than some kind of military involvement involving foreign powers. Whatever the military situation on the ground where two sides, neither with access to much in the way of military hardware or air power but where one, Gaddafi, has the current advantage, are fighting it out, military intervention will only make matters worse. It will play into the hands of Gaddafi and his sons and make worse, not better the suffering, of the Libyan people. 

America knows this, which is why it has announced that America will not lead the demand for a no fly zone and will only take part if it is led by the United Nations. Unless Russia and China agree, which is most unlikely in present circumstances, it is a non- starter. Meanwhile we have to brace ourselves for the fact that Tripoli is not Cairo. We may recall the Prague Spring. It was not the end of  soviet communism, but it was the signal, missed by many, that sooner or later it would end. Gaddafi cannot go on for ever, but like Castro, he may go on and on. He may go on longer than Cameron even. Unless Downing Street gets a grip of itself.

There is no denying three things. The first is there is a detectable shift in foreign policy which makes it separate from and more independent of, that of the U.S.. Second, while the thrust is right, the execution has at times during the Libya crisis been ham fisted. The third is that William Hague, in his role as foreign secretary, has not appeared to have the confidence or grip of affairs we would expect of one of the Tory party’s big three.

Analysing this, this blog fully supports and has long advocated, the shift in foreign policy. The faltering delivery is, I suspect, due to over reliance on the American position over so many years that too many senior officials are used to taking orders from the State Department, rather than their own government, which happily fell into line. When told to act solo these people have been caught out. This performance will improve with practice. As for William Hague, it may be this job does not suit him. He is a star parliamentary performer, but a question hangs over his comfort in a big department. He might be very much better as Leader of the House, or in Nick Clegg’s role. Clegg would be a good foreign secretary, able to speak in their own language to the Germans, the Russians and the French. That really would put Britain out ahead.

One of the problems with a major foreign policy blunder, is that it continues to impact long after the event and over a much wider field. The interventionist agenda of Blair and Bush, with its futile, unwinnable and destructive foreign wars, is now playing into the hands of the Gaddafi family, who have been able to galvanise their supporters with the fear that Britain and America will attack them. Nothing would suit Gaddafi better, nor aid him more, than a military assault of some kind led by an Anglo-American coalition of the willing.

Fortunately the realism which now drives Pentagon thinking has ruled this out, not only privately, but in public and in dismissive terms, amounting to a diplomatic slap down for Downing Street’s enthusiasm for a no fly zone. An American rescued by a Royal Navy warship from Benghazi, declared himself astonished that he would ever be so pleased to see the Uninon Jack. This blog feels the same way about Robert Gates. We never thought we would have to look to him to restrain the hotheads in our own government.

It is my opinion that Mervyn King is the best Governor in my lifetime. His grasp of what is wrong with the banks far exceeds the grasp of most politicians. He is entirely in tune with the experience of the country, which has suffered a blow to its economy which equates to the cost of a major war. He is in tune, too, with people who run the SME businesses which are the backbone of the economy. He is possessed of a powerful intellect and has already achieved a glittering career as an academic economist. Above all he understands what is wrong with the banks. In a word it is the bankers.

Their attitude, their business model, their financial morality, their social responsibility and their mission, all fall far short of those of their pre-big bang forebears. Many do not know what they are doing. Those who do, frequently have no idea, or do not care, about its effect. All are clever, but at the same time fools. A good number are spivs. Their industry has very nearly broken the western economic structure overall. In a some cases, Ireland for example, it has ruined the  financial solvency of nations. Through all this period, the West has advanced little. Such advances as have come, have been driven by new technology, in which the banks have invested hardly at all. The balance of economic power is now shifted to the East, to whom we have to look to pay a quarter of our the monthly bills.

Through this  frittering of the endeavours of an industrious and trusting population, terrible  scars have opened in the social landscape which would have shocked even Victorian reformers and utterly dismayed the Macmillans and Wilsons of the post war social settlement. Nowhere has there been a modern politician willing to stand up the these hedonistic zealots, least of all among the ranks of New Labour. One or two lurk in the Coalition, but dithering over the banks and bankers by Osborne and Cameron has held them back. Mervyn King has now spoken.

This should give the reformers courage. If, when the IBC reports, Osborne does not implement its recommendations in timely fashion in the face of what will be near hysterical opposition from the bankers, the Tory party will be  deserted entirely by its loyalist core of middle England SMEs. Without them it will lose any election, whatever the voting system.

This result appears as a disaster for the Lib Dems. Actually it is confirmation of something already known, but by some ignored.

History shows us, from the time the proactive Liberals went with the Conservatives into the National government in 1931, that if the first past the post system prevails, an electoral pact with the Tories is a must. This is why candidates were still sometimes labeled National Liberal and Conservative even in the early fifties. The same thing happened with shades of Labour, when some of its candidates were called Labour and Co-Operative. Those Liberals who remained true to the idea of a separate and independent party, were reduced to a rump taxi load representing the farthest reaches of the British Isles, wholly detached from the mainstream and power.

The fact is quite simply this. In coalition politics, with the first past the post system, people vote for the senior coalition partner. Voting for the junior is pointless, so ballots go either to the governing party or the opposition. Arguments about influence and so forth are wholly ignored. It is quite different under AV. Then the junior partner can do quite well, as is the case all over Europe where various forms of proportional or second choice voting are common.

Nick Clegg’s task is to win the AV referendum. If he does that he will have led his party to a new dawn, when power through shared government will be frequent. If he loses he will have led his party to near oblivion. Unless he does an electoral pact with Cameron. To die hard Lib Dems, the label Lib Dem and Conservative, would be worse than oblivion anyway.

Evidently the bellicose noises coming from the Prime Minister at the beginning of the week about Libya and a no fly zone, were the result of encouragement from two neo-cons in his cabinet, George Osborne and Michael Gove. It was clear to many that this was a policy fraught with complications. Quickly scorn was poured on it by the White House first and then, in dismissive tones, by the U.S Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, who said recently in a speech that any future President who got the U.S. involved in a foreign ground war to promote foreign policy would need his head examined.

Libya is now in the opening stages of civil war, though it is possible that the resourceful and eccentric Gaddafi will find a formula to appease the protesters. The West, in particular Britain and the U.S., will have to stick within the unanimous consensus established at the U.N. and use their military assets for rescue and relief, for which there will be plenty of opportunity. Mediation will most likely work if organised by third world powers or other Arab states. Already enough has been done to seriously impede the Gaddafi family’s options, freedom and wealth, to make a resolution of this worthwhile to them.

As for our own neo-cons, the report is mixed. Osborne is doing well on cuts but badly on banks. His ideology tells him to let them get on with it and pay what they like. He was opposed to nationalising Northern Rock. He was an enthusiast for Big Bang concept and light touch regulation, until it all collapsed. He hopes for a Sid style sale of taxpayer shares in the banks sooner rather than later. He will have to be watched.

Michael Gove is doing very well on getting the curriculum back on track, examinations being made a more relevant measure of useful ability and re-empowering teachers. He is doing badly on school re-building and especially badly on ideological tinkering with school structures for what are little better than focus group or whimsical reasons. He is being watched already.

There is increasing talk of this escalation over the Libya crisis. Certainly it makes military sense to have a plan ready and move suitable carrier borne and land based aircraft and other assets into position in case such a move becomes necessary. It may also have a deterrent effect on Gaddafi, if he knows (or at least his sons) that the international community will not allow massacres, from the air, of protesters. Gaddafi claims everybody loves him, the violence is organised by Bin Laden and anyway everything is peaceful. Diplomats and generals find themselves assessing a situation which is part real and part make believe. 

There are, however, many caveats concerning a no fly zone, which make it mostly a bad idea. The first is that under no circumstances must it be another Anglo-American  dominated military action. It must be multi-national. That will be difficult. The unanimity which has made the response to the situation in Libya, both in Europe and in the U.N., so strong might well break down, with Russia and China either abstaining or voting against. That would strengthen Gaddafi.

Next Gaddaffi is isolated with probably only a minority now willing to rally under his green flag. An American led (as it would be) hostile act over the skies of their country would prove a powerful emotional pull to rally together to its defence.  Not all would join, but enough perhaps to keep the Gaddafi family going for several more years. This would be a huge mistake.

Finally armed rescue of foreign nationals is a very impressive show of determination and capability. Freezing of assets worldwide, stopping the export of arms, munitions and banknotes will create a dysfunctional state and weaken the Gaddafi grip. We have to leave it to the Libyan people to do the rest. It is their country. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown us that there is a line in the sand. We must not cross it.