Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron: Gaddafi must go

In a joint op-ed piece, the leaders call for regime change in Libya – but risk alienating public opi

David Cameron, Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy have stated their commitment to regime change in a joint op-ed piece published in the Times (£), the Washington Post and Le Figaro.

It is the first explicit statement from the world leaders that they are seeking regime change in Libya (though it has been hinted at before). Noting the legal constraints on them, the leaders explain their position thus:

Our duty and our mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Gaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gaddafi in power. The International Criminal Court is rightly investigating the crimes committed against civilians and the grievous violations of international law. It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government. The brave citizens of those towns that have held out against forces that have been mercilessly targeting them would face a fearful vengeance if the world accepted such an arrangement. It would be an unconscionable betrayal.

In calling for Muammar al-Gaddafi to "go and go for good", the piece draws a line under previous suggestions of an immediate ceasefire and a negotiated exit for Gaddafi, or a divided Libya.

The first point to make is that Obama's involvement confirms US commitment to the mission. Adopting a cautious approach so far, it has handed control to Nato, and US fighter planes withdrew days in to the mission. The op-ed piece signals that the US is in it for the long haul. The Times reports that the article was initially penned by Cameron and Sarkozy, who sent a copy to Obama out of courtesy. He then asked to have his name added.

Second, it demonstrates frustration with the diplomatic efforts of the international community – and a response to domestic calls in all three countries for an "endgame"; a clear strategy for where the floundering mission is going. Three days of talks in the Gulf state of Qatar have come to nothing. Diplomats are now looking at ways to step up efforts in Libya while staying within the boundaries set by the UN mandate.

The article stresses that "it will be the people of Libya, not the UN, who choose their new constitution, elect their new leaders and write the next chapter in their history". But it is important to remember that, however nuanced the position put forward by the leaders may be, this is not how it will be received by the Muslim world.

I have just returned from a trip to Pakistan, where the received viewpoint among everyone I spoke to was that this was another Iraq, the west using any excuse to interfere in the region and get rid of Gaddafi just as it got rid of Saddam. Friends in Egypt tell me of a similar attitude.

It goes without saying that there are vast and important differences in this conflict: its legality, for a start, and the request by rebels for help. But now that regime change is explicitly on the table, the allies must be very careful about how they proceed if they do not with to diminish public support in the region even further.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour will soon be forced to make clear its stance on Brexit

The Great Repeal Bill will force the party to make a choice on who has the final say on a deal withg Europe.

A Party Manifesto has many functions. But rarely is it called upon to paper over the cracks between a party and its supporters. But Labour’s was – between its Eurosceptic leadership and its pro-EU support base. Bad news for those who prefer their political parties to face at any given moment in only one direction. But a forthcoming parliamentary vote will force the party to make its position clear.

The piece of legislation that makes us members of the EU is the European Communities Act 1972. “Very soon” – says the House of Commons Library – we will see a Repeal Bill that will, according to the Queen’s Speech, “repeal the European Communities Act.” It will be repealed, says the White Paper for the Repeal Bill, “on the day we leave the EU.”

It will contain a clause stating that the bit of the bill that repeals the European Communities Act will come into force on a date of the Prime Minister's choosing. But MPs will have to choose whether to vote for that clause. And this is where Labour’s dilemma comes into play.

In her Lancaster House speech Theresa May said:

“I can confirm today that the Government will put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament, before it comes into force.”

Later that day David Davis clarified May’s position, saying, of a vote against the final deal:

“The referendum last year set in motion a circumstance where the UK is going to leave the European Union, and it won’t change that.” 

So. The choice the Tories will give to Parliament is between accepting whatever deal is negotiated or leaving without a deal. Not a meaningful choice at all given that (as even Hammond now accepts): “No deal would be a very, very bad outcome for Britain.”

But what about Labour’s position? Labour’s Manifesto says:

“Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option.”

So, it has taken that option off the table. But it also says:

“A Labour approach to Brexit also means legislating to guarantee that Parliament has a truly meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal (my emphasis).”

Most Brexit commentators would read that phrase – a meaningful vote – as drawing an implicit contrast with the meaningless vote offered by Theresa May at Lancaster House. They read it, in other words, as a vote between accepting the final deal or remaining in the EU.

But even were they wrong, the consequence of Labour taking “no deal” off the table is that there are only two options: leaving on the terms of the deal or remaining. Labour’s Manifesto explicitly guarantees that choice to Parliament. And guarantees it at a time when the final deal is known.

But here’s the thing. If Parliament chooses to allow Theresa May to repeal the European Communities Act when she wants, Parliament is depriving itself of a choice when the result of the deal is known. It is depriving itself of the vote Labour’s Manifesto promises. And not only that - by handing over to the Prime Minister the decision whether to repeal the European Communities Act, Parliament is voluntarily depriving itself of the power to supervise the Brexit negotiations. Theresa May will be able to repeat the Act whatever the outcome of those negotiations. She won’t be accountable to Parliament for the result of her negotiations – and so Parliament will have deprived itself of the ability to control them. A weakened Prime Minister, without a mandate, will have taken back control. But our elected Parliament will not.

If Labour wants to make good on its manifesto promise, if Labour wants to control the shape of Brexit, it must vote against that provision of the Repeal Bill.

That doesn’t put Labour in the position of ignoring the referendum vote. There will be ample time, from October next year when the final deal is known, for Labour to look at the Final Deal and have a meaningful vote on it.

But if Labour supports the Repeal Bill it will be breaching a clear manifesto promise.

Jolyon Maugham is a barrister who advised Ed Miliband on tax policy. He blogs at Waiting for Tax, and writes for the NS on tax and legal issues. 

0800 7318496