The New Battle For Libya

The curtain has been drawn over the Paris conference on Libya. Now that the time for photo-ops and ritual calls for "reconciliation and forgiveness" has passed, another 'battle for Libya' is under way, with all the main countries participating in the military operations elbowing their way towards the front of the queue for profitable energy deals with the new Libyan government.

In this regard, France is undoubtedly the early front runner. Most people in Paris have seen the fall of the Gaddafi regime as 'Sarkozy's victory'. The same people now think that France has the right to claim preferential treatment from Libya's National Transition Council (NTC). French left daily Libération - definitely not Sarko's favourite reading - yesterday suggested that France had started to pursue its chacun pour soi (every man for himself) strategy well before the end of the military operations. The paper published a letter sent by the NTC to the cabinet of the Emir of Qatar in April, explaining that the NTC had committed to granting Paris priority access to 35% of Libya's crude oil in return for France's "full and permanent support."

As usually happens in these kind of situations, the NTC immediately denied the existence of the letter. French Foreign Minister, the seasoned Alain Juppé (see picture), also said that he didn't know about the letter, but then unequivocally added,

"The NTC has said very publicly that, in the reconstruction effort, it would give preferential treatment to those who supported them...That seems quite logical and fair."

In other words, the French have been quick off the mark this time, given that a delegation of French companies will go on an official trade mission to Libya later this month. However, Foreign Secretary William Hague has guaranteed that the UK - which bore most of the military burden together with France - "will not be left behind."

Also, quite significantly, David Cameron told the BBC's Today programme this morning,

"I think there is a big danger today of people in the West taking too much credit for themselves. Frankly, this is a Libyan triumph. This is the Libyan people who have rid themselves of a dictator."

A veiled criticism of Sarkozy?

Let us not forget about Italy, which was - in all fairness - a bit reluctant on waging war on Libya, with Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi memorably saying, back in February, that he didn't want to "disturb" his friend Gaddafi. Berlusconi might have his head elsewhere these days, but Italian companies seem very focused on how best to safeguard their privileged position in Libya. Indeed, some might argue that Italian companies' priority access to Libyan oil depended heavily on the personal friendship between Il Cavaliere and the Colonel. However, as Paolo Scaroni, CEO of Italian oil giant ENI, recently made clear to the FT:

"It is not a problem of who is the prime minister, it is about the special relation between the countries, which has lasted for decades. It is in everyone’s interest to maintain it this way...[ENI will] find itself in the usual position of strength, just like in the last 20 years.”

And what about Germany? Well, the Libyan campaign will almost certainly not become one of the most memorable pages in the history of German foreign policy. However, Germany may not have pulled out of the race yet. In fact (hat-tip to Italian journalist Marco Zatterin and his Straneuropa blog), it looks like German EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger is considering proposing that in future all oil and gas agreements reached by EU member states with third countries be rubber-stamped in Brussels (a roundabout way of getting a veto on any preferential deals between Libya and EU member states). One could easily imagine a good deal of lobbying from Berlin behind these plans, although the article notes that Oettinger might eventually backtrack and leave the proposal in a drawer of his desk next Wednesday, not least to avoid exposing the Commission to a barrage of criticisms from other member states.

This is where we are at. The starting gun has just been fired and the situation already looks extremely interesting. Needless to say, this new - more subtle - battle for Libya is set to deal another blow to the 'single voice' of EU foreign policy, just as the military campaign did. However, there's something people in Brussels could actually rejoice over. European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, Commission President José Manuel Barroso and EU Foreign Minister Baroness Catherine Ashton were all invited to attend the Paris conference - which in itself is an achievement...

Klaus on the summit

Speaking about splits, here's a pretty frank and thought-provoking note from Czech President Václav Klaus, regarding today's EU summit on Libya:

Notes for the European Council on Libya

1. The Czech Republic considers today’s meeting as very important and timely. We support the measures, including sanctions, that have been introduced up till now on the side of the EU.

2. However, when we looked at the draft of the declaration, we did not find it very persuasive. There is no clear signal coming from it. Short-term and medium and also long-term goals and ambitions should be differentiated. I suppose we have met here today mainly because of the acute situation in Libya, which means we aim at a short-run. Of course, we must be able to see it in a wider and longer perspective and strategically, we have to know what to do not only today, but also tomorrow and day after tomorrow. Some of us attended the EU-Africa summit in Libya last November. I am afraid some of us did not see the crazy nature of Gaddafi’s regime and did not behave in a way which justifies our current strong words.

3. The Czech Republic is convinced that we have to try to help to stop the humanitarian tragedy in Libya now, but without intervening militarily in Libya or any other country, without picking up potential new leaders etc. In this respect we consider the recognition of the “Benghazi” Council at least premature, if not basically wrong.

4. We should be aware of the long-term consequences of our decisions. I warn – and that is the position of the Czech Republic – against talking about a no-fly zone because there is nothing like that. No-fly zone means a war because it requires to destroy both Libyan aircrafts and helicopters and Libyan air defense. It is a war. The pressure we should make is the resolute requirement for Qaddafi to step down without negotiating with him. I stress stepping down before negotiations, this sequencing is absolutely crucial. Unconditional surrender is the only possibility. We should make it very clear.

5. Several side-remarks:
- It seems to me it is necessary to warn against comparing the situation in Northern Africa now with Central and Eastern Europe 20 years ago (Buzek), at that time the “rebels” (Orban, me) had clear views about the future, I am not sure it is the case in Egypt or Libya now;

- The experience with one of the institutions which were hastily established after the fall of communism in 1989 – the EBRD – is visibly negative. It has never been a real help to the countries in my region. We are, therefore, very much against creating another similar bank, we suggest to delete the idea of the “Bank for the Mediterranean” out of the text;

- On the contrary, we suggest to include one idea into our declaration which is not there – our long-term help should be offering the North African region open markets in Europe;

- I heard, in our meeting before lunch, the term “Gaddafi’s money”. It reminds the attempts to find “communist bosses’ money” in our part of the world. Nothing like that exists.

Václav Klaus, Brussels, 11 March 2011

EU common position on Libya blown apart

Attempts to create a common EU foreign policy rest on the notion that a single, clear voice emanating from Europe would carry more weight than a shrill, discordant cacophony of individual voices from member states. This is appealing in principle, but as we've argued again and again - it cannot be achoeved artificially.

During the unrest in Egypt, we noted that when Europe does indeed “speak with one voice”, it takes a painfully long time to co-ordinate, and usually results in a bland, anodyne statement. This is because the national interests of 27 member states have to be amalgamated, so as not to prejudice any of their divergent interests in wider international affairs.

Yesterday’s unilateral decision by France to recognise the Libyan rebels in Benghazi as the legitimate representatives of the Libyan people made for some lively discussions between the EU’s foreign ministers and some enlightening press briefings.

During “an unusually candid” press briefing, German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle said he had been sitting next to his French counterpart Alain Juppe when the news broke, and that Mr. Juppe later complained that he had not been pre-notified, and that Mr Sarkozy appears to have acted "on a whim".

Italy distanced itself from the French position, with foreign minister Franco Frattini saying the UN and EU should send new fact-finding missions to Benghazi before making any decisions, while Belgian foreign minister Steven Vanackere said there is a “difference between engagement and recognition”. Sweden’s foreign minister chose a direct route of registering his bemusement at France’s circumvention of diplomatic norms by tweeting:

“Sweden recognizes states - not regimes. And most other EU countries are the same. Somewhat unclear on what France does.”

The confused state of affairs is further exacerbated by the fact the EU is trying to decide what line to take on a possible no-fly zone which might involve air strikes against Libyan military targets, which the European Parliament has urged them to do yesterday, with Labour MEP Richard Howitt warning that that EU states must “be prepared to change the current rules of engagement on whether military measures are required against colonel Muammar Gaddafi's regime”. Today, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy sent a letter to EU Council President Herman van Rompuy which took a decisive position on the Libyan position, arguing:

“the deliberate use of military force against civilians is utterly unacceptable… when the Libyan people win their fundamental rights, we should be ready to support them with the necessary assistance and cooperation”.

Meanwhile, Euobserver has reported Baroness Ashton's people are not keen to visit Libya due to the volatile security situation in the region, prompting the question “what is exactly is it that they are paid so well to do?”

The confusion over Sarkozy’s decision to recognise the Libyan opposition unilaterally, and the lead taken on the Libyan crisis by France and the UK in general have yet again highlighted the difficulty, some would say futility, of assembling a common EU foreign policy.

Let's hope that EU leaders can come up with something more coherent at today's summit.

The EU should impose sanctions on Gaddafi

Over on the Spectator's Coffee House blog, we set out the case for imposing sanctions on Gaddfi's regime (while also looking at the difficulties EU member states are facing in coming up with a common policy on Libya, in what is a painfully familar story).

We argue,

The EU spends €460 million a year in operational costs alone on its new foreign policy department, the External Action Service, headed up by Catherine Ashton. This body - created by the Lisbon Treaty - was Europe’s ‘great white hope’ for the global stage, finally allowing it to speak with one voice and therefore giving it leverage where it previously had none.

It hasn’t quite worked out that way. Caught between Cairo and Tripoli, the EU has received yet another reminder that its bureaucracies and institutions cannot magically replace 27 individual foreign policies, as EU leaders continue their bickering over what to do.

The EU’s response to the turbulence in Libya has been fragmented at best, and contradictory at worst. Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi – one of the few EU leaders with some clout in Libya – initially said that he didn’t wish to “disturb” Colonel Gaddafi since the situation was “evolving”. Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg maintained that the EU should not "get involved too much" because, "If Gaddafi falls, then there will be bigger catastrophes in the world”, though he later said he had meant something else.

In stark contrast, Finland, France – and in more careful language also Germany – have called for sanctions to be imposed on Gaddafi, including a travel ban and a freeze on his and his family’s assets, something categorically rejected by Italy and a few other countries. Still others have spoken in terms of general condemnation but proposed no concrete action, a group including Britain so far. Meanwhile, no one is paying much attention to the EU’s alleged foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton. It all feels awfully familiar.

Does the absence of a common EU stance matter? I believe it does. While it’s true that the EU’s leverage in Libya and some other parts of Northern Africa and the Middle East is very limited, when Europe does pull together it can actually exert influence in its backyard. Enlargement remains the EU’s greatest foreign policy achievement made possible through a mix of aid and trade incentives.

So what should be done?

The UK should throw its full weight behind German, French and Finnish calls for sanctions, including an EU-wide travel ban on Gaddafi and his family, as well as a freezing of their assets across the bloc. Other possible responses, such as imposing a no-fly zone over Libya, should also be explored. The Colonel’s delirious speech yesterday – and his son’s comments that the family will fight “to the last bullet” – have confirmed that Gaddafi ranks amongst the Mugabes of this world (if anyone for a second thought otherwise).

Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb put it best when he said that "How can we on one side look at what's going on in Libya, with almost 300 people shot dead, and not talk about sanctions or travel bans, and at the same time put travel bans and sanctions in Belarus?". EU-wide sanctions could hurt Gaddafi – financially and politically – but waiting for too long will lessen their impact.

In terms of responding to the challenges in the wider region, David Cameron is absolutely correct in calling for radical reform of the EU’s neighbourhood policy, which together with other European programmes (such as the European Investment Bank), has dished out billions to the region, with few strings attached. In future, no reform on the human rights front should mean no cash.

At the same time, the EU needs to use other incentives and tools to promote long-term democratic and economic transformation in the region. For example, the EU should consider opening up its markets to more goods from North African countries on the path towards democracy. This should include agricultural products, which at the moment face a patchwork of tariffs in various guises before they can enter Europe. These barriers are contributing to rural poverty in North Africa and therefore instability. The UK is in a strong position to spearhead such trade reforms.

To give with aid on the one hand and take away through trade restrictions with the other makes no sense. Alas, it’s symptomatic of the inconsistency that too often characterises the EU’s relations with the outside world.

The Libyan protesters’ push for change presents an opportunity for Europe to put this right.