Blog 2023 Malcolm Blair-Robinson

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.