Libya and the shattering of European illusions

John Cronin

Getting rid of Gaddhafi will probably just let the Islamoloonies into power. There are two choices of government in the Arab world: military dictatorship or Islamic dictarship. Therefore we've gotta go with military dictarship, cos (a) they keep the oil flowing and (b) torture, kill and imprison Islamists (which is what we ought to be doing here in Londonistan)

Arabs can't do democracy. A democratic vote in an Arab country will invariably mean Islamist victory. One man one vote. Once.

Algeria was the classic example: thirty -forty year of military dictatorship after the Frogs pulled out: army finally caved in to the pressure for an election: the Algerian proletariat gave the Islamists a clear victory: army decided they didnt like the result, then simply cancelled the elections and went back to dictating: 100,000 people died in the ensuing civil war, the secular middle class all left on the first flight to France, and the economy collapsed. We ought to be SUPPORTING Gaddhafi, and Assad, and the Bahraini Royal family, cos the alternative is a lot worse.

Paul O Mahony

I think its a bit ridiculous to be thinking that Obama should be intervening in serial revolutions, when he is trying handle one of the most extreme economic downturns in america history. You acknowledge this at the end of your article, but you still call his record in supporting liberation movements appalling. That's pretty disingenuous, don't you think??

John Montague

We complained, often with justice, about American policies but we did not have to pay for our own defence or fight our own wars

Quite right, Mr Cohen. As America's military reach declines, so will the dollar's status as a reserve currency and America's ability to borrow.

Just to focus on one aspect, at the moment, half of all dollar bills in circulation are held abroad. Be it in some Russian gangster's stash or some Saudi businessman's suitcase, every single one of those foreign held banknotes is an interest-free loan to the US. The total comes to some $200 billion.

Combine that with the huge trade deficit the US runs, and its position as a net importer of capital and you can see that the US is increasingly over-extended. As its military declines, so will its creditworthiness, even if the US does start to tailor its spending to fit what it actually earns.

It will indeed become necessary for Europe to start thinking about how it wishes to use its military assets and whether they are adequate to the task. Provided any new expenditure is to the benefit of European industry and technological understanding, that could be less of a burden that one might think.

The lesson being learned right now is that we could do with an Airbus version of the AC-130.

We ought to be SUPPORTING Gaddhafi, and Assad, and the Bahraini Royal family, cos the alternative is a lot worse.

In the case of Libya, you're quite wrong, Gadaffi is an unstable loony who is a bad influence in OPEC, who threatens to nationalise major Western investments when the oil price dips, who gives encouragement to Somali pirates and arms the vicious Janjaweed militias. He is far more of a menace to European interests than people realize.

JawJawWell

"The war in Libya is destroying the illusions of Europe’s liberal middle class".

What are you then? Are you not a liberal? Other than that, I agree with this. I would also add that it has been interesting to see the supporters of the Libyan intervention, especially the Lib Dem ones, to state with such confidence that they have "learnt the lessons" from Iraq, and that this is completely different. Iraq is the one issue on which they are absolutely sure they were in the right, and was arguably the party's biggest campaign message for a while. Now that we see how difficult it is to remove a dictator without "boots on the ground", perhaps it is time for just a little humility from the anti-Iraq war crowd - who have had the debate all their way for a long time now - and for other lessons to be learned from Iraq than the ones which seem to be doing no good for the people of Musrata.

Kimpatsu

"One day Europe will have to fight her own wars and defend her own borders. "
Why do you think this is inevitable, Nick? Are you so soured and cynical you don't think we can build a United States of Europe as a prelude to a global secular government, when we will be free at last?

Jerry Owen

The Arab world isn't interested in our type of 'democracy'. Leave them to their own devices. Save our money and our troops lives. Let the Middle East change or not change as the case may be of its own accord, it's been around long enough.
Cameron and co have a dilemna now, they believed their own rhetoric that Gadaffi was an unpopular tyrant and could easily be removed by the west shouting at him as if he were a naughty man, but hey! guess what forty years is a long time to build your empire and all the protection it needs from both political opponents and the kind of evil Islam the world is beginning to behold. Cameron was wetting his pants as a school boy at infants when Gaddafi took power, who does Cameron think he is? A minnow compared to a shark! It is of course clear that Gaddafi's opposition is relatively small and despite Western and American intervention he is 'winning' (or not losing anyway) the civil war.
Cameron has now to back off, or start another war ( it pretty much is now anyway ).
Where next? Iran is of course a big scalp, perhaps picking off the relatively 'easy' tyrants such as Gaddafi and Hussain are practice runs.
How many Muslims have the West and America killed in Afganistan Iraq and Libya?.
And we wonder why Muslims hate us so much, even 'our own' Muslims.
Cameron makes me ashamed of my country, damn him to hell.

Edward McLaughlin

"...the Europeans, who do indeed have the most to fear from waves of refugees arriving in the continent and building support for far-right parties."

Is that all then, that there is to fear? There is nothing awry with the waves of refugees, it's just the reaction of the rabid far-right?
This is that very liberal illusion you cite.

You are right that this illusion has begun to fray. Right also that Europe will have to fight her own war. Only, the borders might not feature prominently, as we are fully primed for the incipient horror to be carried on in our own streets and shires.

RCE

Jerry Owen @ 8:11PM
"How many Muslims have the West and America killed in Afganistan Iraq and Libya?"

A fraction of the Muslims who have been killed by other Muslims in those places. The slightest knowledge of the situation would establish this.

Gil

It's just incredible how in the 20th century at times of great crisis, providence gave us leaders such as Churchill, Reagan and Thatcher. And in the nick of time, too.

Now ask yourselves, who comes close today? Obama, Trump, Cameron? Ha ha. The Russians, Chinese, Islamists have all read history. They know that time is on their side as the West's beacon begins to dim.

And what is worse is the rise of those who hate America so much that they would ally themselves with a repressive religion thinking that they can act as a moderating force on it, not realising that they will be put up against the wall first.

Where are the new Reagans and Thatchers?

Tron

Well said Nick. The Left always talk about the "legality" of the UN and it's resolutions when in fact the UN is just a bunch of gangsters and liars.

Jerry Owen

RCE
What a peculiar post.
I am well aware of Middle East society, that is not the point. The point is the Wests continued warmongering and murder of innocent civilians.
Do you not grasp my point, or is it that if Muslims murder their own it's excusable that we do?

The Idiot

Yes, it's very easy to sneer at the confused and directionless idealism of middle-class liberal internationalists, but what does Mr Cohen actually want to see happen? Should we simply give the finger to international law like Clinton and Blair did in 1999? Or find ways to interpret it more creatively? Or set up some kind of new regime of international law and order that will allow for more purposeful intervention? Or stay out of Libya altogether?

RCE

Jerry Owen
Middle East (and Muslim) society is exactly the point. In the same way that German and Japanese foreign policy was the point in WWII.

Or do you think the West was warmongering then, too?

Sonia Mani

The problem is that Europe (or more specifically, France and Britain) got themselves into a big mess without knowing much about Libya and thinking that the Gaddafi regime was on the verge of collapse. The problem now will not be Gaddafi or even the rebels themselves but Libya's future. After Gaddafi, Libya will rearm itself to the teeth and will ally with Russia to wreck havoc in the Middle East and North Africa- doesn't really take a genius to work out Libya's future. There is also the problem that most of these rebel leaders were Gaddafi henchmen- Younis, Jalil, Jibril, etc, all worked for him and there seems to be no credible leader to take over. Saif Gaddafi (yes, even with blood on this hands) seems a far better option than any of these rebel leaders at the moment. Unfortunately, Europe has left itself with no option but to put boots on the grounds- that said, Gaddafi needs to be realistic- he can't hold on to power for much longer.

Kenny

“One day Europe will have to fight her own wars and defend her own borders. Although the liberal spokesmen and women in the Oslo and London TV have scoffed at the cowboy Yanks and neo-con aggressors for years, they may miss them when they are gone.”

Probably the truest thing you have ever written Maister Cohen.God help us all...

Kenny

John Montague.

For a fleeting second there I thoct' that Mr Cronin's sentiments were your own and nearly choked on my sandwich! Do me a favour man and use quotation marks and source citation! Especially when quoting the likes o' Mr Cronin!

Oh and there is a response for you back on the "The Arab League backs the protestors against al-Assad" thread.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6895998/the-arab-league-backs-the-protestors-against-alassad.thtml

Please forgive the double post. It wis' the Speccie Techie in the Basement Cupboard wot did it no' me! lol

Kenny

Edward McLaughlin.

Hello again.

Considering the history of Europe in the C20th I would not be so quick to describe Mr Cohen’s fear of the far-right as illusory. As I have written previously in these pages, I consider this to be a greater threat to our traditional liberal democratic way of life than Islamism per se.

RCE

Kenny @ 3:32
If by 'far right' you mean, in essence, 'racist', do you not see the advent of such being a political response to Islamism in Europe, which, in turn, owes its existence to mass immigration and multiculturalism - both policies of the left?

'Far right' is, of course, a pejorative construct to deny what really happened in the 20th century, and is antonymous to the European political parties to whom I presume you refer. Hitler was a socialist and the Soviets were communists. The nearest thing to a far right movement in the 20th century was the Reagan/Thatcher alliance. The only party to currently campaign on a 'racist' platform is the BNP, who are also Socialists.

REV

The West said the Libyan Government was going to massacre civilians.

I have never seen that stated anywhere.

The Libyan Government said to the Rebels, put down your arms and you will not be killed. They also said for those Rebels who want to leave, we will let you high tail it down the road to your brotherhood in Egypt.

If an Islamist insurgency broke out in your country, you would say the same, fight us and you will probably die, and if you don't like it here, p*ss off.

Edward McLaughlin

Kenny

Violent extremism comes from any direction. Our 20thc history was indeed visited by it, and so many of our people were lost in the struggle to vanquish it.

How silly then, to be designing its return.

Jerry Owen

RCE
Please get your facts right before you post.
The BNP does not campaign on a 'racist' platform for the very simple fact that racism is illegal and they would be proscribed. End of.
Give me an example of how the BNP campaigns racism.
Or do you consider anti-immigration policies to be 'racist'?

Kenny

RCE.

You wrote.

“If by 'far right' you mean, in essence, 'racist'...”

I do not actually. In point of fact, and insofar as “far-right” has any objective meaning, the two are not necessarily synonymous. But this is to digress.

You continue.

“...do you not see the advent of such being a political response to Islamism in Europe, which, in turn, owes its existence to mass immigration and multiculturalism - both policies of the left?”

I do indeed. As I wrote on the Coffee House Wall back on October 19th, 2010 9:05pm in response to another commenter’s counsel of despair:

“You blame Islamism for the “rise of the extreme right across Europe and beyond”. I wholeheartedly agree that this is deplorable. I consider this to be a greater threat to our traditional way of life than Islamism per se. ... But the original sin here is the overthrow of traditional western values by the hybrid Left-liberal cultural Marxist agenda.Left-liberalism gives Islamism its opportunity which in turn gives the fascist right its opportunity.

Alas, “Liberalism and tolerance” is destroying itself.”

And then again two days later, October 21st, 2010 6:45pm, on the very same Wall in response to yet another such counsel of despair:

“It is not about "them". It is about us. It is about our lack of self-confidence. And it is not "too late anyway". A tipping point will be reached and then...? Well, then you should weep for our enemies and those who would betray us.”

You can find the full context of the exchanges at

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6384278/coffeehousers-wall-18-october-24-october.thtml

Kenny

Edward McLaughlin.

You wrote.

“How silly then, to be designing its return.”

Amen.

St Bruno

Can’t get my head round what is happening in Libya since it started a couple of months ago.

I found this site and others including a CIA one linked from the site:
http://looklex.com/e.o/libya.htm
When I first read this I was surprised to learn that:

‘With a GDP per capita at US$14,200 (2008 estimate), the country is by far richest in North Africa, and 35% above world average. Unemployment is high at 14% and as many as 7% of the population are below the poverty line, the very same as in neighbouring Tunisia, which overall has a weaker economy’

And:

‘Libya is only ranked 10 among 22 MENA countries, but best among the North African. Libya does very well on certain factors, like life expectancy and number of hospital beds’

And finally:

‘There are two branches of Islam present in Libya, Sunni and Ibadi; Shi'i is not practiced’

One wonders why the rebels took to the streets or if a small minority were joined by an influx from the eastern borders. An influx of Arabs and others of all shades and nationality including native Egyptians, Palestinians and many more bringing weapons and logistics to over turn a sovereign state. Any state faced with revolution and disorder would act as colonel Mu'ammaru Gadhafi did: to endeavour to protect the country. He has a duty to protect.
It is his business not the business of the UN, NATO or the EU to interfere in the workings of another state. Libya is no different, in this respect, to our own country. The UN does not rule all the world, and judge each country by some divine laws of its own UN making.

Every conflict has two sides, and possibly more, depending on vested interests involved both sides have human rights and human needs, so why is it right for only one side to have these rights and not another?

IMHO the UN ought to send an independent delegation to talk to Colonel Mu'ammaru Gadhafi to get his view of matters, instead of treating him as a outcast and also send a delegation to talk with the rebel ‘leaders’.

On the other hand maybe there are agendas within the UN that are hidden concerning Libya and Colonel Mu'ammaru Gadhafi that would show the UN in a bad light by being selective in their condemnation of certain Arab states. Why Libya and not Egypt? Why Libya and not Bahrain or Oman or Tunisia or Saudi Arabia?

RCE

Jerry Owen @ 5:25
I used the inverted commas to purposely ascribe an imprecise quality to the word. And no, an anti-immigration platform is not racist.

But race is an explicit issue in their politics in a way it is not for other parties. The question of indigeneity is one of race; this is an inescapable fact.

This is not to denounce the BNP in any way. Their legitimacy (or otherwise) comes from the electorate, as it does for any political party.

RCE

Kenny @ 7:35PM
I agree with you 100%. I asked the question because I wondered what you thought, having not read (or recalled) your earlier posts!

But the 'far right' label is one of the greatest (and most successful) historical deceptions of our time, and we repeat it to the unqualified glee of the Marxist left/liberals to whom you refer (eg BBC).

As I said above, the fascist and totalitarian parties of the C20th were not 'far right'; they were far left, and conservatives should ceaselessly make this correction, as it is a deliberate, Orwellian re-writing of history by socialists to absolve themselves of responsibility for humanity's darkest times.

Contemporaneously, those parties on the 'rise' across Europe on the basis of anti-immigration policies are also described as 'far right' by the same people in order to keep the narrative in their favour. Be in no doubt that the Front Nationale in France, the Freedom Party in Holland, the True Finns and the BNP are all economically socialist, big-goverment, welfare-state parties; but it suits the socialist-dominated cultural elite to call them 'far-right' (and therefore like Hitler) for the same reason as above - it is a denial of the history and the true nature of socialism.

Jerry Owen

RCE
The BNP is for small government and power devolved to the lowest level possible.
It is also not in favour of a huge welfare state.
I suggest you read their manifesto before you post again on them, as clearly your knowledge is lacking somewhat, and does your posts a diservice amongst your valid points raised!

RCE

Jerry,
Sorry to disagree, but in my book a fully-funded NHS (as per BNP policy) is big government. Health provision is the single most decisive game-changer in the relationship between an individual and the state. 'Power devolved to the lowest possible level,' as you describe it, would mean individuals (the ne plus ultra of 'lowest possible level') taking responsibility for their own and their family's lives, including healthcare.

The NHS is the very embodiment of a huge welfare state; if you are in favour of the NHS you are in favour of big government. The BNP fails this test, my good sir!

Jerry Owen

RCE
In your book! Say no more.
You have changed welfare to NHS in a blink of the eye.
And calling me Sir is an indication of weakness. you have no argument, you have very slimey moveable goalposts......Sir!

john gerard

Kimpatsu's comment that started:

"One day Europe will have to fight her own wars and defend her own borders."

The only reason europe has been able to 'afford' - and it can't even do that - its disgracefully bloated entitlement programs is because it abdicated its responsibilty to defend itself to the USA. You can either have defence, or welfare - you can't afford both. Europe will never pony-up the tens of trillions of euros necessary to defend itself properly, like someone serious would. It can't even take out an idiot like gaddafi in some third-world, 7th century dump without the US to hold its hand and do all the work - utterly pathetic and a continent-wide embarrassment. And the French and British have the third and fourth highest defence spending in the world.

The Americans will no longer defend europe because THEY ARE BANKRUPT. They've got better things to do - like continue to devalue the dollar and withdraw from the world.

And Kimpatsu's comment ends with the usual ridiculous socialist utopian drivel that will never happen as long as there are humans on this planet... but meantime, of course, he's willing to give up his freedom (and everyone else's - that's the important part) in pursuit of it. And you say we'll be "free"?. Yes, "free" to be under the heel of an 'enlightened' elite who have the one true answer to everything and will have absoulute power over us. The aim of every socialist movement.

well done.

RCE

Jerry,
I have changed nothing and moved no goalposts, as can clearly be read above. I have been consistent in my argument throughout and responded to each of your points as you made them. If you believe that the NHS is not part of the welfare state then make the case, please!

You have asked several questions to which I have replied, but you have never actually come up with any counter-points or arguments of your own!