Rebels Recognised as Libyan Government; Leader Killed

The Libyan rebel commander, Abdel Fattah Younes, was killed after being arrested by his own side.

Less than a day ago, Foreign Secretary William Hague expelled all remaining diplomats of the Libyan government in favour of emissaries from the National Transitional Council. Now, an armed gang has entered the building where Abdel Fattah Younes was staying, and shot dead three people: among them, the rebel commander-in-chief himself. The leader of the armed gang has apparently been detained, and called before a judicial committee.

The assassination was initially blamed on pro-Gaddafi forces, but that explanation was quickly replaced, and the attack put down to one of a number of 'armed gangs' in rebel-held areas. However, supporters of the generals have maintained that his assailants were rebel soldiers themselves, motivated possibly by accusations of being a double agent that had dogged him for days Ugly tales of unacceptable links with the regime - in which Younes was formerly defence and interior minister - have begun to surface. This has all the hallmarks of a classic fracturing within the rebel ranks, something which could leave Britain's attempts to reshuffle its foreign policy towards Libya up in the air.

It only goes to show the turbulent nature of revolutionary politics: we are not talking about men sitting safe in their armoured cars, or secure in the marble halls of a presidential palace. We are talking about men on the frontline, where every member of their court could be an assassin, for whom being captured or killed in war is a real possibility. It was premature and foolish of David Cameron's governance to announce that the Libyan rebels were now the official government. You don't need 20/20 hindsight to see this, either: Younes had in fact been arrested by rebel soldiers earlier in the day over allegations of connections with the ruling regime. When William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, announced triumphantly that the Libyan rebel council had 'sole government authority,' the wheels were already set in motion for the dismissal or impeachment of their leader.

This will certainly stall the rebel's advance, which is somewhat hyped in the media, and will possibly lead to a return of the stalemate that prevailed throughout April - something that will surely be a massive blow for the NTC, given that they are running out of money fast, and can no longer afford to actually govern the parts of the country that they rule (virtually all of the eastern half and some mountainous areas south of Tripoli). I highly doubt that the rebel council will collapse instantaneously, but this could well cost them all their recent gains, and could even restore them to pre-Misuratah borders. If that happens, then a fair proportion of senior ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will have rightly been shown up, and Britain's foreign policy regarding Libya would be in a right mess. That situation would have been easily avoidable, if the government had simply listened to the prevailing winds in Benghazi.

I suggest that a new policy be implemented: if a government wants to throw its weight behind a foreign cause that has absolutely nothing to do with us, it should find out what is going on on the ground first and use that as the basis of all decisions, rather than chasing media headlines and 'NATO commitments?' Of course, if such a policy were implemented, I doubt we'd be involved in any foreign wars at all...

*****************************************************************************

This is the second blog update today; I posted one on Islamists preventing foreign aid from reaching the impoverished people of Somalia. Blogging will be light over the next two weeks as I'm off to Scotland, where my Internet access will be sporadic, at best. I shall still be able to do one or two updates in that time (one of which should be a post about how environmentalist policies ruin the lives and livelihoods of rural people in the northwest), however, and will pen a large article on the future of Euroscepticism in the UK, which will hopefully be worth the wait.

Somalia's Famine is not Caused by Western Hands

Someone - but necessarily us - must oust the Islamists before prosperity can return

I can't work out who has the worse job: Maryan Qasim, the Somalian government's former women's minister, or Farah Ahmed Qare, the commander of their navy. The government, I should add, controls barely a few square miles in central Mogadishu. It has no access to the sea and whatever control it has over the ports is sporadic at best. Most of the women have long since fled into refugee camps, and those that remain do not venture outdoors. There isn't much that the provisional government - or its embattled ministers - can really do to assist the impoverished, war-torn people of Somalia, other than write articles for the Guardian.

'I believe the international community has failed to tackle this crisis and thus we must do more now, before it's too late,' she writes, before setting out an ambitious programme. 'What is needed right now is for the international community to act immediately to save the millions who are starving. Food, water, medicine and shelter are all urgently needed. Aid needs to be delivered strategically to minimise the distance people are travelling in search of food and water.' She is not the only one calling for the west to do more - Somalia's Prime Minister, who perhaps has the worst job of all, insists that the United Nations is 'holding back aid.' They're either not distributing it or simply not sending it, according to him, and that's why it's not reaching the people on the ground who desperately need it.

But there is another explanation, according to Al-Jazeera. One of the most authoritative sources on the subject, they have reported what Sheikh Ali Mohamud Rage, a Al-Shabaab spokesman, said on Islamist radio (there's a contradiction in terms if ever I saw one). It pretty much explains why aid isn't getting through - it's been banned. 'The declaration of famine is political and is a lie with hidden agendas,' the Islamist rebels have decreed. They insist that the famine is merely a 'lack of rain,' and have forced all agencies out of their 'area of control' - pretty much the whole of southern Somalia.

This may be due to ideological reasons - aid is too 'western,' a claim which has some basis in reality seeing as the oil-rich billionaire monarchs of Arabia don't seem to be sending any - or it may be their attempt at punishing the west for the killing of their leader, Ibrahim Haji Jama Mee'aad, on the 25th June. But, either way, it's their fault the supplies aren't getting through. Not ours. So, with all due respect to Maryan Qasim, her attempted lecturing of the west falls on deaf ears: as long as local players are opposed to the presence of western aid agencies and NGOs, there's nothing us westerners can do to alleviate the situation.

********************************************************************************

Blogging will be light over the next two weeks as I'm off to Scotland, where my Internet access will be sporadic, at best. I shall still be able to do one or two updates in that time (one of which should be a post about how environmentalist policies ruin the lives and livelihoods of rural people in the northwest), however, and will pen a large article on the future of Euroscepticism in the UK, which will hopefully be worth the wait.

Lithuanian Euroscepticism Can Never Prosper With Paksas at its Head

Rolandas Paksas: tainted by his presidency.

If there's one man in Europe who's bounced around the political spectrum more than anyone else, it's Rolandas Paksas. Barroso may have came a long way since the Maoist revolutionary days, when he expounded the virtues of populism and anti-imperialism on the historic cobbled squares of Portugal. Now, he stands in the press room of his eight hundred million euro head office and speaks of building empires. But he still can't match the erratic career of the former Lithuanian Prime Minister and President

Rolandas Paksas was a member of the Communist Party - which, to be fair, was the only legal political party for a considerable part of his career - and its post-Soviet successor, the Democratic Labour Party, before joining the centre-right free-market Homeland Union. He then joined the Liberal Union of Lithuania, and then founded the Liberal Democratic Party. He holds a seat for the Liberal Democrats - or Order and Justice as they call themselves - now, although it is now as an MEP, rather than as a member of the Lithuanian legislature.

His party, Order and Justice (TT), were one of the most successful anti-establishment parties. Combining liberal conservatism, national conservatism, Euroscepticism, and, to some extend, classic liberalism, the party was the very definition of populism: it achieved a major electoral success less than one year after its foundation. The leader's experience as the former president of his own construction company and a distinguished aerobatics champion back in Soviet days - not to mention Prime Minister of the country - won over the Lithuanian people. Rolandas Paksas took the presidency after a run-off with Valdas Adamkus.

So, what, then, could possibly be holding the Eurosceptics in Lithuania back? Their leader is more eminently qualified than any other in Europe; he perhaps has a better CV than most heads of state. He has served in both of the senior positions in his country, has economics experience, is a former sportsman, and appeals to every faction of the Lithuanian political spectrum. Eurosceptics here seem to have it made. Their popularity is also rising steadily, as it is in other European countries; so what could be wrong?

The answer, unfortunately, is that their successes and their failures are inextricably linked. Rolandas may have been President, something which should, ideally, give him a massive electoral advantage over all of his opponents. It is certainly something that no other Eurosceptic and few other party leaders can boast. However, it is precisely because he was president that he faces his biggest disadvantage now.

This isn't on the orders of the European Union or some strikingly illiberal figure within the Lithuanian parliament: this is owing to his own actions in 2004, less than one year after he took power. He he was found to have rewarded a major political ally - an aviation tycoon who had poured four hundred thousand pounds into Mr. Paksas's campaign - with Lithuanian citizenship. He was forced from office, and put on trial: he remains the only European head of state ever to have been impeached. One of the terms of that impeachment was his banning from the Seimas: another was him being forbidden from running for the presidency for five years.

In January of this year, the European Court of Human Rights (which has nothing to do with the European Union) ruled that the lifetime ban on him running for parliament was contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, but the stench of the impeachment still lingers over the aerobatics champion. And, for as long as that stench lingers, Lithuanian Euroscepticism will have its wings clipped.

Bringing Home the Bacon

In the EU, all bacon will look like this.

Nothing like a bit of blatant populism. The EU is getting quite good at it. Having seen the advantages that come with doing what the people want, it is now introducing new legislation - to improve the taste of bacon. The new measures, which will be introduced within four years, will aim to prevent the taste of the classic breakfast favourite from being diluted by imposing strict limitations on its water content: existing legislation holds that it must have no more than ten per cent. The EU's new directive will bring this down to five.

This is liable to cause just as much of a laughing stock - no pun intended - as the curvy banana rules (which did exist, by the way - EC Commission Regulation No 2257/94). The press is currently fawning over the European Union as the saviours of breakfast: 'Bacon could be tastier – and frying pan froth eliminated' reads the Telegraph. 'Good news! EU to make bacon tastier' says Yahoo! Now, I love bacon as much as the next guy, but there's a problem with this law that people won't necessarily pick up on in all their fry-up fan euphoria - it's source.

None of the media outlets that have so far reported on the subject have seen fit to disclose where the idea for this new law came from. But, as the European Commission - the EU executive - has the sole right of initiative - the ability to pass and repeal laws, exclusively - it's likely that it has come from them. The European Commission has never faced a popular ballot. No member of the public has ever cast his or her vote for them. The EU chief executive, Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso, was only elected by the European Parliament as his was the only name on the ballot sheet. I'm all for bacon regulation - no, really - but the fact that laws are now being passed by unaccountable individuals rather than our elected representatives leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

Especially so, when you consider that the EU's involvement is not strictly necessary. This law could well have been passed by our own elected parliament, or agreed multilaterally by elected ministers and officials from European countries. There is no need whatsoever for the involvement of unaccountable supra-national institutions and the unelected individuals that reside within them. Although this may be a law that you agree with, there are one hundred and seventy thousand pages of EU law that concern themselves with far greater, more important things than what's on your breakfast table: and they are all passed and repealed by individuals entirely outside of the democratic process, that no elected government - no matter the public opposition - can repeal.

The next time you have to choose between 'bacon' and 'bacon with added water,' spare a thought for all the democratic processes that have been harmed in the making of your product.

Euroscepticism On The Rise in Latvia

Andrius Kubilius, Prime Minister of Lithuania, left.

How unpopular does a government have to be before almost all registed voters - on a turnout of 45% - decide that enough's enough and sack the lot of them? I don't know, but President Valdas Zatlers does. The now-former head of state of the Latvian Republic dismissed the parliament in May, over widespread corruption fears, and accusations that oligarchs - with close personal connections to the legislature's one hundred members. He later lost his re-election bid, although the referendum that his actions led to has just finished, and 94% of voters have decided to take the radical step of dismissing parliament, leading to snap elections in September.

For years, Latvia has been dominated, like so many other European countries, by a contest between two establishment parties; one on the centre-right, one on the centre-left. Vienotība (Unity) and Saskaņas Centrs (Harmony Centre), respectively. Together, they picked up 57.26% of the national vote in the 2010 election: not a monopoly to be trifled with. Yet here, like so many other countries, there are disturbances in the established order of things. That comes in the form of the LNNK - the unfortunately-named For Fatherland and Freedom party.

Previously a party in their own right, the LNNK joined with the (genuinely) far-right All For Latvia! in July, and now the allied parties boast eight seats in parliament. And that looks set to rise. They were formerly competing for fourth place with the Par Labu Latviju! alliance, a centre-right group of parties that are widely seen as the oligarch's wing of Latvian politics, but following the corruption scandal that led to the dismissal of parliament, it seems unlikely that they will prosper at the polls. A lot of their former votes, being on the centre-right of politics, will instead turn to the LNNK.

Unlike Par Labu Latviju!, the LNNK has the ability to enter into debate without being suspected of being a front for rich business interests, something which will help its credibility in the eyes of voters to not end. It is also considerably more radical; the blend of traditional conservatism, liberal conservatism, and nationalism will prove an attractive combination to a variety of people than the reactionary, capitalistic politics of Par Labu Latviju! could ever reach - which, again, have been tainted by the corruption scandal. And part of this radicalism is more staunch Euroscepticism; and, given that Latvia is one of the member states where the EU is most unpopular, that is surely a vote-winner.

LNNK has a long way to go before it can think of taking over even a slice of the government - all the parties combined received seventy-four thousand votes at the last election, and came in fourth overall. The Union of Greens and Farmers (ZUZS) came in third - with one hundred and ninety thousand. But Euroscepticism is once again on the rise in Latvia, and, coupled with the public mistrust of the oligarchs, the conditions could be ripe for the LNNK to emerge as a top contendor in national elections. I shouldn't be too surprised to see them enter the government at some point in the near-future: one more country with 'right-wing populists' in government to add to the map.

*********************************************************************************

I apologise for the lack of blog coverage over the last two days. The European media has been dominated by events unfolding in Norway. On the day that the terrorist attacks occured, Cecilia Malmstrom had made a speech about why Europe needed more immigrants - this was originally what I planned to write about. By the time I completed it it would have been too insensitive to publish it. Normal service has been resumed.

We'll Make No Money from the Bailouts

These loans are beginning to look suspiciously like grants. Picture by the European People's Party.

Cast your minds back one year. The original bailout for Greece - what was supposed to be the final one - was just being signed off, and European leaders were celebrating, convinced that they'd nipped the eurozone crisis in the bud. National leaders went back to their electorates after 'secret, dark debates' telling tales of how they'd profit from the return on the loans. More sceptical warnings that the loans would not be paid back - that restructuring or default would ruin them, or that they were not commercially viable, hence the involvement of states, rather than banks - were roundly ignored.

As it turns out, the sceptics now stand vindicated: Ireland and Portugal's interest rates were slashed on Thursday, to between three and a half to four per cent, with the deadlines by which they have to repay the loans increased from seven and a half to fifteen or thirty years. Greece's interest rate and repayment time was similarly reduced and increased, respectively, as part of a new bailout. The move may well be beneficial to the recipients of the bailout funds, and both the Portuguese and Irish premiers have saluted the eurozone's decision, welcoming it with warm words and appraisal. But for the countries - including Britain - that have had to stump up the cash? Hardly.

What they expected to receive is now even smaller, and will take a lot longer than they thought before they make a profit. Whether they actually make a profit or not is dependent on there being no major debt restructuring or default, as is already being discussed in Greece. As Enda Kenny, the Irish Taoiseach, said of the move: 'ultimately it reduces the cost of our debt.' Which means that it also reduces the total amount that the creditors - i.e. you - will receive. Ireland's decrease alone is estimated to be worth £800,000,000 every single year, according to calculations by Irish officials. And the chances that we'll receive any profit at all could be drastically cut if there is continued talk of restructuring or default: Greece now looks almost certain to default on a least part of its debt, and if Ireland and Portugal follow suit then the money we could make from our 'loans' will be reduced further.

It may appear somewhat ruthless to talk of helping indebted countries in terms of what we can get in return, but we ought to remember that these aren't small sums we're talking about. Britons have spent well over twenty billion pounds so far on the bailouts - the equivalent of several hundred pounds per person, taken out of public funds. If we aren't getting something in return, then it's perfectly right to ask 'what is the point?' Why should Britons pay up massive sums of money when there is practically no benefit to them? We've all heard how a eurozone collapse would be disastrous to the UK economy, and it would be wrong-headed to say that it would not have an impact. But why should British taxpayers be involved in that, when the eurozone countries can handle it themselves?

And - lest we forget - our help is not strictly necessary. As the second Greek bailout - in which we did not participate - proves, we are not needed to help prevent a eurozone collapse. We are wanted. We should ask, as the people from whom the money ultimately comes from, what we get in return. And if the answer is 'nothing,' or, more accurately, 'very little - none of it guaranteed,' we should cease to involve ourselves in the affairs of the eurozone bailout scheme.

Hague Scuppers EU Militarisation Plans

William Hague: is this a line in the sand?

That's the one thing I enjoy the most of writing about the European Union; the way in which they attempt to conceal their actions behind closed doors. It makes it impossible to know precisely what they're up to, but, thanks to the largely free media and activists, there are enough small snippets of information on their actions for the keen eye to be able to put the pieces in the right places come up with a larger picture.

I have previosly written about the possible resurrection of an old Weimar Triangle idea about increased European Union military centralisation that - it appeared - was quietly put on the backburner when Baroness Ashton, a major figure in the new plans, was distracted by the Arab Spring and renewed controversy over her position and rank. Well, there is yet more evidence that the plan has indeed been resurrected; an article has appeared in EUObserver about possible plans to centralise command of all EU missions into a single headquarters.

The two things look completely unrelated at first: one talked about pooling of resources and the creation of new EU battlegroups, and one talks about the creation of a single, central HQ. However, the connection is not tenuous; at the bottom of the article, almost as a footnote, is a quote from Alain Juppe, who says that a 'very large majority was in favour' of the proposal of an EU headquarters, 'pushed by the Weimar countries.' This appears to have been another part of the French-German-Polish militarisation policy. However, there is no need to panic: William Hague has done something quite impressive, more than making up for this.

In an area where unaminity is still required, Britain - in which one of the five EU command centres is located - has vetoed the proposals. He didn't do it for Britain - he did it for NATO. But it was nonetheless quite a bold move. France and Germany are not to be trifled with; with the added power of the Polish rotating presidency, and the EU's foreign policy and defence chief, it takes a brave man indeed to resist their will. This effectively means that the EU's attempts to create a single headquarters for its armed forces have been blocked permanently.