Libya ? “Of course, we will do nothing”

It was the sentence of Claude Cheysson, then French Minister of Foreign Affairs, a bit cynical, about the proclamation of martial law (the state of war) in Poland in December 1981. “ Of course we won't do anything ". This sentence, Maciej Popowski, who was in commissioned service, did not have the good fortune to pronounce it in the European Parliament on Tuesday (read: “Frustrated” MEPs desperately demand (re)active High Representative). But it was just like. The diplomatic service and the High Representative, Cathy Ashton, had no intention of acting and even less of reacting to the Libyan conflict with the instruments of the CFSP. The lack of ambition is obvious. Because if the divisions of the Member States are real, an action would not have been less possible. But there is worse...

No political impetus

The words " careful planning do not conceal a lack of preparation and above all of political impetus. As summarized by Arnaud Danjean, the MEP and chairman of the defense sub-committee, and explained by several MEPs, " there is no careful planning. There is careful planning and decisionss”. According to our information, several options were given to the High Representative. They are still on his desk, or on another, and await a political decision. The High Representative did not therefore ask for detailed planning on one or more options, as is customary. She didn't really ask the various floor work groups anymore.

Europe has the capabilities

The sacrosanct formula " Avoid duplication » hides badly the desire not to act on the missions which found the Europe of defense: the maintenance of peace, the intervention, the observation… And the difference « the number of planners » invoked — Europe only has a dozen there there are « several thousand at Shape hides badly that there is an absence of political orientation in this planning. Europe has proven in the past that it can plan an operation - be it the EUNAVFOR Atalanta anti-piracy operation or the EUMM Georgia observation mission.

It is obvious that when it comes to Defense Europe, you always have to play with room for manoeuvre, circumvent sticking points, force consensus. The files of the PeSDC are full of these blocking points — the neutral countries for the operation in Chad, the Baltic countries for the operation in Georgia, the United Kingdom for the operation Atalanta, Germany for the operation EUTM Somalia... — which have been skillfully resolved.

Finding Consensus Action

The Member States are therefore today divided whether it is on the need for military action or a 'No Fly Zone'. It is a fact. But it's not the first time. And it is useless to try to find a consensus where it does not exist. On the other hand, we can force consensus on other grounds. It is thus astonishing to see that we have not sought an action which can precisely mask these divisions, an option that unites rather than divides.

It is therefore bizarre to see that none of the military options for humanitarian purposes – secure areas, humanitarian corridors (as the UNHCR has just requested) – are mentioned. Similarly, no option of supporting an Arab League operation is mentioned or the deployment of an observation mission. Even limited action, in support of Niger's forces, such as a small airlift between Niger's border with Libya and the capital, Niamey, to repatriate refugees is not mentioned. Let's not talk about the maritime option which could have been further explored. The EU has the means for this. And, on the spot, off Libya were present several ships of the anti-piracy operation Atalanta, starting with the Dutch ship Tromp.

The reality: Lady Ashton wants to bury the Europe of defense

It is useless now to hide behind her little finger (of the Arab League, of the UN resolution, of the necessary unanimity of the Member States...), the High Representative does not intend and does not does not want to use the European defense instrument. It's not that Cathy Ahhton is "null", "incompetent"... as we often hear. It is an insult to the intelligence and the political talent which she knew how to play in the past. No, Cathy Ashton doesn't want to do anything. And if European defense goes down, that's the least of its worries. She believes that if there is a peacekeeping or interposition operation, it is the role of NATO or the member states. But not from the European Union. This is a serious strategic and political mistake. Because in the Libyan affair, NATO is just as much, if not more, paralyzed than the European Union, quite simply because two "heavy" states of the Alliance (the United States and Turkey) do not want such a commitment. Europe has precisely in the Libyan affair a card to play that NATO cannot fulfill.

In doing so, the High Representative is at odds with her mandate, which gives her all the tools " to conduct a security policy ". It is neither in the letter nor in the spirit of the Lisbon Treaty. The role of the High Representative, President of the Foreign Affairs Council, Vice-President of the European Commission is no longer that of a goodwill ambassador. This was perhaps the case in 1999 or 1991, it is no longer possible today. The reality is there, raw: Cathy Ashton missed a major opportunity to prove her worth.