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...

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.

One challenge down, many to go

EU member states have today agreed to impose sanctions on the Gaddafi regime. The decision follows on from a UN Security Council Resolution adopted over the weekend.

Italy, who only a few days ago strongly rejected talk of sanctions, has apparently backed down with Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini saying that the Libyan crisis has reached “a point of no return”. It is “inevitable” that Gaddafi steps down, he added.

The sanctions agreed by EU leaders consist of the following:

• a ban on the supply to Libya of arms, ammunition and "equipment which might be used for internal repression".
  
• a ban on 26 individuals from entering the EU, including Gaddafi, his closest family and a handful other people associated with the regime.
  
• a freeze on the assets of Gaddafi, members of his family and ten other individuals.

EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton also said that the "complex issue" of creating a no-fly zone over Libya is being explored by EU and world leaders. UK PM David Cameron just gave a statement before the House of Commons, setting out the UK's role in the sanctions.

In other words, following a slow start EU countries are now picking up the pace. The pro-democracy protests in Libya and the subsequent violent crack-downs by Gaddafi, kicked off on 15 February. It took the EU roughly two weeks to reach a common position on some form of concrete measures.

That isn't exactly acting with the speed of lightening, but given the complexity of the situation, it could've taken them a lot longer as well (after all, EU member states are still disagreeing fundamentally on how to deal with Cuba).

What's clear is that the EU institutions themselves - such as the External Action Service - have added very little value to Europe's response to the unrests in North Africa. As ever, what was needed was political will, not institutions.

Now, a common EU policy isn't a goal in itself - a fallacy that EU federalists consistently commit (see Romano Prodi in today's Handelsblatt for an example). What matters is real policies and outcomes. And these sanctions could hurt Gaddafi in a real way if implemented in full, though we shouldn't overestimate their importance either.

Cutting off the links to what quite clearly is a Mugabe-type dictator shouldn't be that controversial (we're not talking intervention after all). A bigger challenge, however, might be around the corner if the violence in the region escalates and there are calls for something more.

A separate, but related, challenge is the growing calls for a common EU policy on immigration and asylum, in the wake of the unrest in North Africa and the potential flow of people from that region. This is an uber-controversial policy area which in the past has split Europe right down the middle.

One challenge down, many to go.

The EU's Gaddafi "memory hole"

Everyone who has read George Orwell's novel 1984 is familiar with the concept of "memory holes", which the Ministry of Truth used to get rid of inconvenient documents and photographs. Well, it seems as if the EU has picked up on the idea.

Apparently, a picture (see above) hanging in the European Council's Justus Lipsius builiding in Brussels, featuring a grinning Moammar Gaddafi (the Libyan leader) happily walking alongside a smiling Javier Solana (the former High Representative for EU foreign policy), has now been removed (hat-tip: Italian journalist Marco Zatterin and his Straneuropa blog).

We suspect that the Dictator's rambling speeches and brutal attacks on his own people made the photograph lose some of its appeal. Why in the world it was considered so appealing in the first place so as to merit a place on the wall of one of the EU's most sacred buildings is of course an interesting question in itself.

At least Solana didn't try to imitate Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who once was caught on camera kissing the Libyan Rais's hand.

We suspect that the EU might be forced to employ its memory hole again before this episode is over...