From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli?

“At the very time that Rome burned, he mounted his private stage and, reflecting present disasters in ancient calamities, sang about the destruction of Troy”. Tacitus on Nero

Alphen, The Netherlands. 29 August. Writing in Time.com Professor Gordon Adams of the Stimson Center in Washington gave me a bit of a kicking following my blog “Well Done, NATO”. I had suggested that NATO, the EU and its member-nations endeavour to support Libya’s National Transitional Council with the stabilisation and reconstruction of Libya. Gordon rather forcibly objected, citing failures in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is nothing wrong with that. I like a good Yank-Yorkshire punch-up. It moves the debate forward.  "What on earth are we thinking?" Gordon thundered.  Here is what I am thinking.

Now, before I am deemed to have offended the entire US Marine Corps – never a good idea - my use of the first line from the Marine Hymn is not a slur on them. Indeed, I have nothing but respect for the Corps. What concerns me is the apparent loss of America’s strategic mojo. Which brings me to my main concern; America’s is catching the European disease; ignoring threat because it is too expensive. If that is the case then American leadership is over and with it NATO.  And I for one am not (yet) prepared to accept that.

Gordon paints a picture of another Iraq and/or Afghanistan with tens if not hundreds of thousands of Western troops sent to Libya to fail to rebuild yet another Arab/Muslim country. I suppose it is a natural reaction to a decade of American and European strategic incompetence and growing American and European isolationism. Frankly, Iraq/Afghanistan fatigue has wreaked havoc with our strategic self-assurance. Gordon’s Hobson choice is thus; either flood Libya with ‘our’ troops, or do nothing.

I reject that choice. First, his suggestion that we the West have learnt nothing about stabilisation and reconstruction after ten years of faking it, botching it and generally making a mess is bogus. We have indeed learnt two rather important things: 1) that the outcome will never be Switzerland (Europeans never believed in that any way); and 2) if we do use what now constitutes the world’s leading pool of military and civilian stabilisation and reconstruction expertise it should only be in support of a government in transition...and with a reasonable hope of achieving it.

And here's the crux; Libya is also neither Afghanistan nor Iraq. Libyan human leadership capital is far better than that of either Iraq or Afghanistan. There is a middle class unlike in Afghanistan where it had been destroyed by the Soviets. Sectarianism of the sort we saw in Iraq is far less of a factor. Libya’s infrastructure has suffered far less damage than that suffered by Afghanistan and Iraq and with high-grade oil Libya can afford its own future.

Nor can we dither.  There is a power vacuum developing in Tripoli and it is vital we help the moderates on the National Transitional Council prevail. Not by sending huge numbers of Western forces, although the EU’s mythical humanitarian force needs to be stood up urgently. Rather, by patient support over key areas of governance and transition. Yes, a stabilisation force is indeed needed but one drawn from all countries in the International Contact Group (and beyond) and legitimised by UN mandate.

This is the crunch moment. The residents of Tripoli, which with Benghazi is the key to power in Libya are already complaining of a lack of life essentials – food, water, power supplies. The coming battle for Sirte, the last real stronghold of Gaddafi loyalists is likely to take place only because negotiations with the National Transition Council are failing against a backdrop of the very reprisal killings I warned about a week ago. The Berber minority have walked out of talks about future governance because a relatively small number of Islamists are now pushing for Sharia Law to be the law of the land,

The West therefore needs to use its expertise cleverly. Indeed, having paid such a high price to gain such expertise it would be a shame that that our collective strategic depression is leading to failure of both nerve and vision. Much of this expertise far from being a monstrous regiment can mainly be found amongst civilians in the public and private sectors, which Gordon Adam rather peevishly calls the providers of good will, advisers of merit and profit seekers. That is simply not fair.

And, I did indeed make the point that the Libyans must always be in the lead and a partnership established early and modestly to establish key needs and advice. The British are working with the Council to achive precisely that. But then again we are not American so anything we do does not count.

The bottom line is this; the southernmost tip of NATO/EU is only 294kms/182 miles from Tripoli.

The alternative is to do nothing and fiddle whilst Libya burns. How many refugees now crowd the shores of Lampedusa on their way to the rest of Europe? Expect a few more.

“From the Halls of Montezuma, to the Shores of Tripoli?” I wonder, Gordon.

Julian Lindley-French

The Great Immigration Disaster

Alphen, The Netherlands. August 26. I have just returned from a shopping expedition to Breda, the nearest town of significance to my home. I spoke to someone in a shop who asked me a really strange question. “Are you English?” he said. To which I of course replied yes. He then asked me if I was really 100% English. Apart from finding this somewhat intrusive – not untypically Dutch, I said yes. “You are a dying breed”, he ventured. Maybe not, but the latest statistics from the UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that in 2010 hyper-immigration into Britain continued unabated.

Britain is now heading rapidly towards a population of 70 million. It is a figure the islands simply cannot sustain. As such hyper-immigration now represents an existential threat to British society, culture and social infrastructure. The Whitehall Village is again failing the British people in a critical area whilst trying to impose silence on the people by accusing anyone brave enough to raise this critical issue of racism. It is not racist to express concerns about one of the most pressing challenges of the age. Common sense can no longer be suspended. As ever, I am prepared to put my head above the parapet and I am no racist. Try me!

The BBC of course covered the news in passing, preferring not to address any comment that might threaten the multicultural wonderland the BBC clearly believes in. Indeed, the BBC’s coverage of this matter stopped being objective some time ago.

Net immigration last year rose by 21% with 239,000 more people arriving in the UK than leaving. This is in itself a dangerously misleading figure for its masks the net loss of British people to the island which means the social and cultural impact is even higher than the figures suggest. The number of those emigrating last year stood at 336,000. Indeed, the ONS put long-term immigration (those coming to settle permanently) at 575,000 last year. This makes a mockery of the government’s stated intention to reduce net immigration to ‘tens of thousands’ by 2015. “Do the math”, as the Americans would say.

Now, for the sake of balance this figure could also reflect the legacy of the last Labour Government which not only lost control of Britain’s borders, but actively promoted hyper-immigration. I am prepared to give the government one more year to bring immigration under some form of control and show it has done so before I become really concerned.

Study is also a reason for much of the immigration, with some 228,000 students entering the country last year. On the one hand this is good news for Britain’s higher education sector, but many do not leave. Attempts to then enforce deportation are then blocked by the Human Rights legislation which has to all intents and purpose removed control of Britain’s borders from Whitehall. So, what do politicians do when they cannot deal with a crisis? They take their collective heads and place them collectively in the nearest deep pool of sand.

Nor is this an issue of race. The issue is mass. As I have said before, I do not care if Britons are white, black, yellow or whatever so long as they are loyal to the United Kingdom and to the values that underpin our society. As an immigrant myself here in the Netherlands my first duty is to the Dutch state, its people and its laws. This is something I take very seriously. Evidence in the UK would suggest that the obsession with multiculturalism is leading to a new phenomenon – British citizens who are loyal to another country.

What is particularly worrying is the marked increase of the number of immigrants from the so-called A8 countries in Eastern Europe. Again, I visit these countries a lot and they are full of hard-working, great people. However, the numbers coming to live permanently in the UK has increased from 5,000 in 2009 to 39,000 in 2010. Sadly, much are going straight onto welfare dependency or doing the kinds of jobs that would start Britain’s unemployed youth on the career ladder. As of August 2011 there are some 1 million 16-24 year old NEETs in Britain – not in education, employment or training. There are also some 43,000 claimants of British social security now living in Warsaw.

Immigration Minister Damian Green gave the usual limp-wristed response that EU laws prevent the government managing reciprocal, intra-EU migration. Well, sorry, but the migration is not reciprocal – it is all one way. I am all for managed migration, but that is the point – it is not managed. If this trend continues then London must begin to consider suspending EU treaties so that it can regain control of British borders.

The British people of all colours and creeds are rightly fed up with the failure of the Whitehall Village to regain control of hyper-immigration. It is a failure of politics, a failure of will and failure of management. Above all, it is failure of leadership. This leaves me with the most profound of concerns about the future of my country. It is so, so sad.

Get a grip, London!

Julian Lindley-French

Well Done, NATO!

Alphen, the Netherlands. 25 August. NATO will soon suspend Operation Unified Protector over Libya. Nigh on ten years after 9/11 and after a gruelling decade of controversy and division the Alliance can finally chalk up an unequivocal success. The new regime in Tripoli simply would not have succeeded in toppling Gaddafi without NATO’s support and I for one wish to congratulate the Secretary-General, the North Atlantic Council and Admiral Stavridis, the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe and his team for their leadership. This is the kind of positive change that can be achieved when the Alliance simply gets on with succeeding.

Back in April I was very critical of the communique that came out of NATO’s Berlin meeting. It smacked of the diplomatic double speak that has too often been NATO’s norm of late with member nations offering full support…but. Having written extensively for the Atlantic Council of the United States on last year’s Strategic Concept I am also acutely aware of the many challenges that lie ahead for the Alliance, from anaemic or declining defence budgets, ageing militaries, a lack of strategic purpose and a bureaucracy badly in need of reform.

However, what has impressed me has been the extent to which the nations put aside their many differences after Berlin, avoided public controversy over who does what and quietly got on with the mission in hand. Of course, the usual suspects were to the fore – America, Britain and France – but that is what they do. Equally, the relationship between London, Paris and Washington was probably as close during this crisis as at any time prior to the 1956 Suez Crisis. Does this auger well for the future?

What has also been encouraging and I must say vaguely surprising has been the active support of some of the smaller countries, most notably Belgium, Denmark and Norway. They have all done their bit with combat missions as well as offering other forms of support. For once NATO planned around the problems rather than planned straight into them.

So, what now? Well, in the immediate future the political opportunity afforded by NATO’s support for the new Libyan Government must be fully exploited. If for once transition can take place successfully then all the depressing news that too often emerges from Kabul will at least be balanced.

Therefore, subject to the formal invitation of the new authorities in Tripoli, the Alliance should be preparing now to offer to the Libyans its huge expertise in stabilisation and reconstruction gained these ten years past.

If possible that support should be offered in conjunction with the European Union. If ever there was a moment for the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) to play a vital role in offering humanitarian aid and assistance it is now. No more prevarication please. Suffering must be alleviated and political reconciliation given a proper framework for action. A joint EU-NATO mission could also play a vital role in disarmament, de-mobilisation and rehabilitation (DDR) of all armed groups and militias, as well the integration of opposition groups with the former military to create a new Libyan National Army. This will require in and of itself expertise covering democratic control over armed forces (DCAF). Here again, both the Union and the Alliance preferably in partnership could provide a service of immeasurable and incalculable importance to and for Libya’s future stability.

There are wider implications. The very modesty with which NATO approached its task has been impressive. There has been little political tub-thumping. It is thus just plausible that a real opportunity now exists to offer a new model of support for transition across the Middle East. Handled with due sensitivity a wholly new pattern of relations could be established with close and important neighbours for the decade ahead. But again, modesty please.  The relationships established with both the Arab League and the African Union must be deepened.

And what of the future? Libya is living proof that the mantra of 2010 NATO Strategic Concept, “Active Engagement: Modern Defence” has meaning. However, this moment will pass soon and the political momentum and unity of effort and purpose generated by this success must thus be grasped. Indeed, Libya has demonstrated that in spite of the doom and gloom of these austerity years a NATO that gets its act together and uses its immense power intelligently affords the planet no more positive a force.

Next May NATO’s Chicago Summit will take place on the eve of an American presidential election. This entails both a problem and an opportunity. It will be a problem in that Americans will be otherwise engaged. But the political climate afforded by this success will also be an opportunity to take forward NATO’s three strategic themes for this first post-911 decade; modernised collective defence, effective crisis management and credible co-operative security.

Libya is proof of an Arab world beginning to move beyond 911 and escape the clutches of Al Qaeda's gruesome medievalism.  The next month will be one of pain for the American and other people as we all remember our victims, both civilian and military.  In time maybe just maybe what is happening today in Libya might just move all of us towards a more hopeful future and NATO played its role in that. 

As Churchill once said about a battle not so very far from Libya.  This may not be the end, or even the beginning of the end, but it is at least the end of the beginning.

Well done, NATO!

Julian Lindley-French