Never let a crisis go to waste

The BBC reports that "European Union ministers approve plans to establish naval force to combat people-smugglers operating from Libya". Never let a crisis go to waste though approving a naval force and creating one, let alone making it operational are very different things.

Furthermore, as I recall, Libya rejected the proffered assistance by the EU, calling the intention "unclear and very worrying".

Circumstances remain unclear

Here is the Guardian article that brings the story of the American ambassador's murder in Libya up to date, in so far as it is possible. The circumstances, they rightly say, remain unclear.

One witness told the Guardian on Wednesday that a mob fired at least one rocket at the US consulate building in Benghazi and then stormed it, setting everything ablaze. "I was there about an hour ago. The place (US consulate) is totally destroyed, the whole building is on fire," said Mohammed El Kish, a former press officer with the National Transitional Council, which handed power to an elected parliament last month. He added: "They stole a lot of things."

Kish, who is from Benghazi, blamed the attack on hardline jihadists. He said locals in Benghazi were upset by the activities of Islamist groups and would revolt against them. He also said the US consulate was not well protected, unlike the fortified US embassy in the capital, Tripoli. "It wasn't that much heavily guarded. In Tripoli the embassy is heavily guarded."

Will they revolt against the Islamist groups? Perhaps. Let us hope, this time round we stay out it all.

President Obama's Statement is exactly what one would expect in the circumstances. It is hard to know what else he could have said. The big question is, what will he do now, bearing in mind that there is this pesky election coming up.

UPDATE: Hotair quotes CBS news which tells us the unsurprising fact that it is more than likely that the Libyan security forces indicated to the extremely well armed militants (of course, none of the groups were disarmed after Gaddafi's capture and murder) where they were evacuating the American ambassador and other staff.

Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said the four Americans were killed when the angry mob, which gathered to protest a U.S.-made film that ridicules Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, fired guns and burned down the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

He said Stevens, 52, and other officials were moved to a second building, deemed safer, after the initial wave of protests at the consulate. According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack.

More marines have been sent to the shores of Tripoli to protect American personnel. How many were there in the first place, one would like to know.

Even worse than we thought last night

I opened my e-mails and saw the following report from the Washington Times: 

Libyan officials say the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans have been killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi by protesters angry over a film that ridiculed Islam’s Prophet Muhammad.

The officials say Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed Tuesday night when he and a group of embassy employees went to the consulate to try to evacuate staff. The protesters were firing gunshots and rocket-propelled grenades.

All of the officials — three in all — hold senior security positions in Benghazi.

They are deputy interior minister for eastern Libya Wanis al-Sharaf; Benghazi security chief Abdel-Basit Haroun; and Benghazi city council and security official Ahmed Bousinia.

This is not good news for President Obama. He ought to think about President Carter and Iran.

News from around the world - 1

Most of us probably spent some of the day remembering that fateful one in 2001. I can recall with extreme clarity what I did all day in what order. However, some people took a slightly unorthodox way of remembering.

In Cairo the anniversary was remembered by a group of, one assumes Islamist extremists and quite possibly Muslim Brotherhood supporters, storming the US embassy, tearing down the flag and burning it. It seems that they were protesting about a film that has been produced by a group of US-based Coptic Christians who, one assumes, escaped from the growing anti-Coptic violence in Egypt. It is said that the film "demeans Islam and the Prophet Mohammed". Whereas completely insane behaviour supposedly in Islam's name does not demean it, I suppose.

Many of the more Islamist-leaning protesters had answered calls by Salafist leader Wesam Abdel-Wareth – who is also the president of Egypt's ultra-conservative Al-Hekma television channel – to protest the film 'Mohammed's trial' at 5pm outside the US embassy in Cairo's Garden City district. 

Abdel-Wareth, for his part, denied that protesters had managed to breach embassy premises, claiming that the American flag had been torched in front – rather than inside – embassy grounds. 

The Al-Hekma channel's official Facebook page, meanwhile, has posted a photo of a group of young men removing the flag outside the embassy with a comment that reads: "Ultras Zamalek tear the American flag in front of the embassy." 

US embassy spokesman David Linfield, for his part, confirmed that protesters had been able to enter the embassy and remove the flag. He went on to deny rumours, however, that shots had been fired at demonstrators or that anyone had been injured or killed. 

According to one Ahram Online reporter at the scene, no one had been injured in the ongoing demonstration. Despite the tense atmosphere, security forces deployed at the scene appeared relatively relaxed, with many of them sitting on the sidewalk.

Right, that's Egypt. Then there is the other great example of the Arab Spring, Libya. Remember Libya? The country that would probably be still under Gaddafi's rule if it weren't for NATO forces, specifically American, British and French ones?

Well they had an anti-American riot as well. This one seems to have been a little more serious.

Militiamen in Libya have stormed the US consulate in Benghazi, the country's second largest city. 

Reports say they were protesting against a US-made film that is allegedly insulting to the Prophet Muhammad, and set fire to the building. 

The building is said to have burnt down. It is thought nobody was in the consulate at the time.

Reuters says that

Gunmen attacked U.S. consulate offices in Libya's eastern city of Benghazi on Tuesday, and fought with security forces in protest against a U.S. film they say is blasphemous, a security official said.

He said a fire was burning inside the consulate and that staff had been evacuated.

A Reuters reporter saw three injured members of the Libyan security forces taken away in an ambulance. A Libyan security official who declined to be named said one U.S. security guard was injured in the clashes.

AFP reports that one American was killed and one injured. The latest Reuters report confirms this adding that several staff in the Consulate have been injured.

Reuters reporters on the scene could see looters raiding the empty Benghazi compound, walking off with desks, chairs and washing machines.

Unknown gunmen were shooting at the buildings while others threw handmade bombs into the compound, setting off small explosions.

Small fires were burning around the compound.

Passersby entered the unsecured compound to take pictures with their mobile phones and watch the looting.

Never let a good riot go to waste, say I, but use it to furnish your home. 

Well, that was worth it

A friend sent me these links as it is hard to find the story in the British media. From LiveLeak: a delightful little snippet of Libyan NTC Islamists destroying British and Commonwealth war graves in Benghazi. The lads seem to think this is quite a good way of passing their time. And just in case you are about to tell me that the story is dubious here is the statement by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission:

It's now reported from Benghazi that two Commonwealth War Graves cemeteries have been damaged in attacks over the weekend - both the Benghazi War Cemetery and now the Benghazi British Military Cemetery. We are awaiting a detailed report but in both cemeteries, headstones were broken and disfigured. Both cemeteries will be restored to a standard befitting the sacrifice of those commemorated at Benghazi, but this could take some time because we will need to source replacement stones.

Mr Cameron, why exactly did we intervene in Libya? What are we getting out of the whole adventure? An ally?

Well, well, what do you know?

During yesterday's Starred Question about Lockerbie, the transitional Libyan government and HMG's activity, Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked about poor sick Mr Al Megrahi, whose imminent death seems to have been postponed sine die. [scroll down]

My Lords, can the noble Lord inform us about the state of health of Mr Al Megrahi, who was released by the Scottish authorities on the grounds that he had only six months to live?

Lord Howell of Guildford (for it is he again) replied:

We have passed a request from the devolved Administration to the Libyan chargé d'affaires in London asking that the supervision arrangements of Al Megrahi's licence are observed. Part of the investigation by the Dumfries and Galloway police will also embrace the question of his condition, but we are awaiting the precise details of his health from the Libyan Government now.

Nail-biting, isn't it?

Can't disagree with this

Whatever one may think of the manner in which Colonel Gaddafi was disposed of, one cannot disagree with this call for the UN Human Rights Council member, Jean Ziegler's resignation for founding the Moammar Kaddafi Human Rights Prize. Nor is there anything terribly wrong about calling

on UN chief Ban Ki-moon and human rights commissioner Navi Pillay to acknowledge the UN was wrong to support Gaddafi by granting him key posts on its most influential bodies.

This blog has discussed the subject from time to time, notably here and here also here and here on EUReferendum. I must admit I do not expect those acknowledgements and apologies to materialize.

Reminds me of something else

Libyan State TV has announced that ex-President Gaddafi has been killed when the last stronghold, Sirte, was captured. Other sources talk of him being captured and/or wounded. On the whole, his death in those circumstances, difficult to disentangle, would not be good news though, obviously, many problems would be solved. It reminds me too much of the hole-in-the-corner "execution" of Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife, Elena, on Christmas Day 1989, which was extremely convenient to those who took over in Romania after their deaths. No trial - no chance of inconvenient details emerging. Just a thought.

Van Rompuy lives in a parallel universe

That is news in the way dog bites man, gardener digs soil and supermodel takes drugs is news. Not at all, in other words. I do think, however, that Rumpy-Pumpy, as he is know not so affectionately, has surpassed himself this time.

According to a report on EUObserver the misguided Council President announced to the assembled members of the Toy Parliament (well, those who were no away on some jolly or other) that the Libyan enterprise was entirely the doing of the EU.

Apparently, it was all a huge success, a massive bloodbath has been avoided and the action taken by "British, French and UK strikes", which must be a misprint for British, French and US strikes, most of which were US, would not have been possible "without the "clear position" taken on Libya at an EU summit one week earlier". Indeed. I mean what could be more important than a clear position that affects nobody but two member states and the Big Guy over the Pond?

Others, of course, have taken a slightly different position and either stated or bemoaned the fact that the Common Foreign Policy has once again gone AWOL. He doesn't seem to have answered the question of what is going to happen after the Americans have gone home. The EU will rush in there and help somebody or other?

A complete muddle

Charles Krauthammer is one of the most intelligent American commentators. This piece on the Libyan imbroglio details the mess from the American point of view. It all looked so good on paper, you see

And as for the United States, who knows what American policy is. Administration officials insist we are not trying to bring down Gaddafi, even as the president insists that he must go. Although on Tuesday Obama did add “unless he changes his approach.” Approach, mind you.

In any case, for Obama, military objectives take a back seat to diplomatic appearances. The president is obsessed with pretending that we are not running the operation — a dismaying expression of Obama’s view that his country is so tainted by its various sins that it lacks the moral legitimacy to . . . what? Save Third World people from massacre?

Obama seems equally obsessed with handing off the lead role. Hand off to whom? NATO? Quarreling amid Turkish resistance (see above), NATO still can’t agree on taking over command of the airstrike campaign, which is what has kept the Libyan rebels alive.

This confusion is purely the result of Obama’s decision to get America into the war and then immediately relinquish American command. Never modest about himself, Obama is supremely modest about his country. America should be merely “one of the partners among many,” he said Monday. No primus inter pares for him. Even the Clinton administration spoke of America as the indispensable nation. And it remains so. Yet at a time when the world is hungry for America to lead — no one has anything near our capabilities, experience and resources — America is led by a man determined that it should not.

A man who dithers over parchment. Who starts a war from which he wants out right away. Good God. If you go to take Vienna, take Vienna. If you’re not prepared to do so, better then to stay home and do nothing.

And what of our own Boy-King and the embarrassments we have for Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary?

Toys, I hear you ask

Readers of this blog and of my previous postings on EURef will know that I am profoundly uninterested in toys, whether they be with wings, guns or wheels. That is the Boss's province. However, I was intrigued by two postings written by the same man Hugh Bicheno (full disclosure: he is, indeed, a good acquaintance) on the subject of the RAF, the "Save the RAF at any Cost Review (SRCR) overseen by the Boy Wonder and his hapless Defence Secretary Lame Fox" and the Libyan adventure we have so unwisely blundered into. Part 1 here and part 2 here.

Another one

Con Coughlin is unimpressed by the Libyan adventure. In particular, he points out, the Americans do not want this war but are doing the lion's share of the operations; they want to hand control over to the Europeans who are suddenly not available.

But unlike recent coalition campaigns in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya is different. This time, Mr Obama and his generals can't wait for the opportunity to hand over responsibility for the mission to someone else. As one senior US officer told me yesterday: "The Europeans wanted the no-fly zone; so the Europeans can command the no-fly zone."

The only problem with this neat solution is that, as is so often the case when dealing with a major security issue, "the Europeans" just can't agree on how the command structure should be run.

For a start, not all European leaders supported the establishment of a no-fly zone in the first place. Military intervention was very much the brainchild of David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy, rather than a dreaded EU initiative. The ineffectual Baroness Ashton, the EU's foreign affairs guru, displayed her diplomatic naivety when she sided with the Germans in opposing a no-fly zone.

Tensions have even surfaced between London and Paris after the French, with characteristic bravado, launched the first air attacks against Gaddafi's forces on Saturday afternoon without bothering to inform their Nato allies. But then the French have always had a problem with taking orders from American generals, whatever Mr Sarkozy says about overcoming France's historic ambivalence for Nato's command structures.

Right, so the French will now take over and run the whole campaign, preferably with their own and Italy's servicemen and women. After all, they are the two countries that will be most affected if chaos in Libya carries on. Sadly, that looks like another Tale of Porcine Aviation.

When one's opponents have no arguments

There are two major political discussions going on at the moment (now that we have all accepted that the world is not going to die of a Japanese nuclear "melt-down"): one rather parochial about that wretched EU referendum campaign or two, the other rather wider about our involvement in Libya. Interestingly, I am not getting good arguments on either of those issues from any of my opponents who become mildly personally abusive very quickly. Only mildly, though. I suspect it is because they (the various opponents) are not too sure about their stance. How different from the beginning of the Iraqi war when the war in Afghanistan was still the "good war" - the abuse then was virulent though the arguments just as lame. Basically, people were against the war in Iraq because they hated the idea of an American-led coalition while Bush was president. Everything in those circumstances was evil as far as they were concerned and even Saddam Hussein acquired the patina of a martyr. That alone convinced me that there were no good arguments against that war though there were many good arguments against the way the occupation of Iraq, particularly by the British, was conducted.

Let's get the referendum out of the way because that is a thoroughly boring subject and is unlikely to bother us for much longer. We are still at a stage when journalists suddenly announce that the campaign for a referendum is the best thing since sliced bread, that nothing like this has ever been thought of and that all those who are unhappy with aspects of the EU and Britain's membership of it are going to support it. After all, what kind of a eurosceptic would not support an in/out referendum on Britain in the EU? (To be fair, Kavanagh's article is not about the referendum campaign and is mentioned only in passing.)

The answer is, of course, any eurosceptic who refuses to go along with the latest slogan, does not think that the support of such luminaries as Caroline Lucas, Keith Vaz and Bob Crowe is an inducement and does not believe that the in/out referendum will be won by us as we are wasting time, money and resources on stupid campaigns. None of these problems are dealt with, mild personal insults are strewn around and the best argument we get is public opinion is bound to move our way. Brilliant strategy. Marlborough, Frederick the Great, Napoleon, Wellington and numerous World War II generals would be envious.

As to Libya, my opinion that this is not in Britain's interests but is, on the contrary, a poorly thought out emotional response, manipulated by President Sarkozy and Secretary of State Clinton for their own political purposes, is hardening. It is hardening because the supporters of this intervention can produce no arguments except Boys' Own slogans and mild, very mild, personal abuse. There are ridiculous references to the thirties from people who have no clear understanding what was happening then, let alone of the fact that the parallels are not altogether real. I have even been accused of "blimpism" though, I suspect, that was a joke. Or near it.

The reason for the accusation was my refusal to acknowledge that Libya presented a particular security risk to Britain or, even, the EU. I noted that the country that was most at risk, Italy, was merely cheering from the sidelines. If the French, I added, want to indulge in political adventurism, let them do so. What has it to do with Britain or the United States. Answer? Blimpism. I suggested another viewing of the great Powell and Pressburger film.

It is interesting to note that support for this war by any other name is patchy to put it mildly on both sides of the Pond and many of the problems stem from the ill-defined aims. The New York Times is mostly against it though, obviously as this is not Bush's war, they are ambivalent.

Pentagon officials are eager to extract the United States from a third armed conflict in a Muslim country as quickly as possible. But confusion broke out on Monday among the allies in Europe over who exactly would carry the military operation forward once the United States stepped back, and from where.

In Washington, lawmakers from both parties argued that Mr. Obama had exceeded his constitutional authority by authorizing the military’s participation without Congressional approval. The president said in a letter to Congress that he had the power to authorize the strikes, which would be limited in duration and scope, and that preventing a humanitarian disaster in Libya was in the national interest.

The countries that abstained on that UN vote are now openly speaking up against the military operation, which was bound to go beyond whatever anybody thought were the limits. That would not matter if we did not have a President in the United States and a Prime Minister in Britain who believe in the efficacy of transnational rule.

The Arab League's support, much touted before the operation started is, unsurprisingly, doubtful.

None of this is surprising any more than the fact that "Europe" does not speak with one voice is surprising. How could it? On the other hand, if the Americans are looking to hand over the operation to some other participants as soon as possible, the difficulties could become enormous.

However, there are somewhat more surprising opponents of this operation and they are not simply against it because it is led by President Obama or, possibly, Secretary of State Clinton who appears to be gambling her political future on Libya.

George Friedman on Stratfor thinks that this coalition's intentions are unclear and there are too many political complications in Libya and the whole area for a rather simplistic venture to be successful.

Victor Davis Hanson argues from an impeccably conservative (he has even been called a neo-conservative by those obsessed with that group and completely ignorant of it) point of view.

What are we left with? A mission that is part Black Hawk Down, part the twelve-year no-fly zone in Iraq, part working with insurgents as in the 2002 removal of the Taliban, and part Bill Clinton’s various air campaigns over the Balkans. So far, no one has agreed on any objective other than that Qaddafi should not be killing his opponents.

Is he to be gone? If so, how soon and replaced by whom or what? The Libyan military? Westernized intellectuals and professionals? “Secular” Muslim Brotherhood types? Former jihadists whose experience was killing Americans in Iraq? Or is American success defined by rendering Qaddafi impotent and a rebel enclave safe, in the same way that for over a decade the Kurds carved out sanctuary from a closely monitored Saddam?

Most unexpectedly, Caroline Glick (together with other writers on Jewish World Review) is critical. In fact, her argument is similar to this blog's only about the United States, not Britain.

Traditionally, states have crafted their foreign policy to expand their wealth and bolster their national security. In this context, US foreign policy in the Middle East has traditionally been directed towards advancing three goals: Guaranteeing the free flow of inexpensive petroleum products from the Middle East to global market; strengthening regimes and governments that are in a position to advance this core US goal at the expense of US enemies; and fighting against regional forces like the pan-Arabists and the jihadists that advance a political program inherently hostile to US power.

Other competing interests have periodically interfered with US Middle East policy. And these have to greater or lesser degrees impaired the US's ability to formulate and implement rational policies in the region.

These competing interests have included the desire to placate somewhat friendly Arab regimes that are stressed by or dominated by anti-US forces; a desire to foster good relations with Europe; and a desire to win the support of the US media.

Under the Obama administration, these competing interests have not merely influenced US policy in the Middle East. They have dominated it. Core American interests have been thrown to the wayside.

In other words, how are American interests advanced by this adventure? How are Western interests advanced? Has anyone thought about it beyond those, admittedly terrible, pictures on TV?

Mutatis mutandis we must ask the same questions here. I am ready to change my mind if I hear reasonable arguments on the other side.

Diplomad2.0 weighs in.

Something is missing

Don't get me wrong: I shall not be shedding any tears about Gaddafi when and if he is finally forced into a retirement home for overthrown dictators and kleptocrats, possibly on the Riviera. The man is as nasty a piece of works as ever dressed up in ludicrous costumes while organizing terrorist attacks and stealing vast amounts of money from his people. Undoubtedly, the war he has unleashed on his own people is horrendous. So yes, let's get rid of him. Except that there are many others who are the same and do the same: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, Zimbabwe, to name but a few. So which ones are we going to discipline and on what basis?

What is missing from this whole issue is the concept we must not mention: national interest. Our national interest. Is it in this country's interest to go into Libya, suppose we might have to go in, which we all hope will not happen? What do we get out of it that we would not get out of enforcing a no-fly zone over Yemen? And if, as I was and am firmly convinced, it is in our interest to support our greatest ally, the United States (and would be in our interest to support other Anglospheric countries), is it really in our interest to support France who has, clearly reverted to her nineteenth century persona?

Possibly the answer to those questions would be yes and some explanation as to why Libya and French interests are of importance. But we need to discuss them as we ought to have discussed the national interest behind the invasion of Iraq instead of that ridiculous performance over the dossiers. Until we have some clarity about what our foreign policy is or ought to be and what Britain's role in the world is or ought to be no discussion of defence and security can take place.

Common Foreign Policy goes AWOL again

So, we have France in the lead with Britain and the United States following. Of course, there is the curious problem of why it took President Obama so long to decide to do anything and the secondary question of who is in charge on the other side of the Pond. Roger Simon deals with those points on Pajamas Media.

A more interesting question for us is where, oh where is the Common Foreign Policy a.k.a. European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). Where is the wondrous Baroness Ashton? Why is Europe not speaking with one voice but leaving the problem in that shocking traditional way to individual countries to deal with?

Well you may ask. It seems that the act was not got together again. This time, the fault lies with Germany (France having some traditional interests in North Africa). Germany was one of the abstentions in the UN Security Council and was, indeed, at fault in dragging out the whole process at the UN. Here is an explanation as to why this might have happened with heavy emphasis on internal party politics.

Der Spiegel thinks this could damage Germany's international reputation. And we thought the day of those national problems and competitions has gone.

More, please

UNWatch, an estimable organization has a blog called Hall of Shame and it is uniformly good reading. Their latest entry is on a new report about to be adopted by the UN Human Rights Council that hails Libya's human rights record even though the Council finally voted to suspend the country from its ranks (though whether that was because of Gaddafi's behaviour or because he had been overthrown remains unclear).

The Summary of the proceedings of the review process states:

During the interactive dialogue, statements were made by 46 delegations. A number of delegations commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for the preparation and presentation of its national report, noting the broad consultation process with stakeholders in the preparation phase. Several delegations also noted with appreciation the country’s commitment to upholding human rights on the ground. Additional statements, which could not be delivered during the interactive dialogue owing to time constraints, will be posted on the extranet of the universal periodic review when available.

On page 14 of the report one can find all sorts of recommendations by other countries, most of them rejected by Libya as being unnecessary. Here are Libya's own official comments on the subject.

Far from wanting to abolish this sort of thing - some of the most oppressive regimes of the world belonging to the UNHRC - I want to see more of it. Anything that shows up the UN for the sick joke that it is I welcome. Unfortunately, it takes a long time between general indignation and action with a good deal of shoulder-shrugging in between. The same seems to be true about the EU, the ECHR and foreign aid.

Well, what can the EU do apart from emitting hot air?

It goes without saying that I do not agree with those who think that somehow or other the scenes from Libya (or Egypt, or Bahrain, or Tunisia) are an inspiration to us all except to start thinking a bit. No, we are not in the same situation. We elected the shower that is in government here and that is more than the people of Libya etc etc can say. Furthermore, riots are nasty things as some of the stories that have come out prove it. The story of the vicious attack on the CBS journalist has been spun by some as something that can happen only in Muslim countries. Don't you believe it.

There is no real point in my blogging about those exciting events (however they may turn out in the short or longer term) as the media is covering them fairly extensively. No, I have no idea why David Cameron has jetted off to Egypt and why he thinks it necessary to be the first European leader (if one can use such an expression) to talk to the military in charge of that country. I'd like to think that he is there to tell them that the good times are over and they'll be getting aid no more but, somehow, I doubt it. Perhaps, he is negotiating an even bigger chunk of aid.

Meanwhile, there has been a certain amount of brouhaha about some European reactions to events in Libya in this case. EU Observer reports somewhat disingenuously that Italy and Czech Republic back Gaddafi despite bloodbath. Not a particularly wise thing to do as Gaddafi seems to have fled with a very slim chance of ever coming back.

It seems that our old friend the Common Foreign Policy has once again gone AWOL.

The EU is struggling to speak with one voice following a massive loss of life in Libya over the weekend and the regime's vow to fight protesters to the "to the last bullet. EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton has spoken of her "extreme concern," while Rome does not want to "disturb" strongman Moammar Gaddafi and Prague has warned of a "catastrophe" if he falls.

One can't help suspecting that the catastrophe Italy is talking about is the possible flood of refugees from Libya.

But what of the Czech Foreign Minister, Karel Scwarzenberg? Ought he not speak up against a tyrant and for the people's desires to have freedom? It seems that what he said was something a little different. As EU Observer puts it:

"If Gaddafi falls, then there will be bigger catastrophes in the world," he told journalists in the EU capital on Sunday. "It's no use for anyone if we intervene there loudly, just to prove our own importance."

In other words, Baroness Ashton should stop sounding off on something neither she nor the rest of the EU can do anything about. With which sentiment one can heartily agree.