Speaking at Chatham House on Friday the 24th, Ed Milliband rightly pointed out that the Western world did not give enough post-conflict assistance after the fall of the Qadhafi regime in 2011. Yet, in his rambling remarks he got the causes of the ongoing Libyan civil war totally wrong, showing that he has failed to understand both the role of Western policy in affecting the struggle for the post-Qadhafi future and how that struggle leads into the migrant crisis in the Mediterranean. Wanting to set the record straight, I ventured into the realm of electoral commentary, writing an article for The Spectator entitled, "Miliband’s position on Libya is deeply hypocritical." To read the full article click here.
What Ed Miliband lacks in charisma, he is attempting to make up for in polemic. Tragically for the UK’s future, this represents an ‘Americanization‘ of British electoral politics. In all likelihood, its origins are David Axelrod cynically taking a page out of the Republicans’ playbook. Fortunately, repeated screaming of ‘Benghazi‘, as if it were a primordial voodoo incantation, is unlikely to work on this side of the Atlantic....Instead of proposing novel solutions to the conundrum of nation-building in the Islamic world, Miliband went on the attack, asserting that ‘David Cameron was wrong to assume that Libya’s institutions could be left to evolve and transform themselves.’ To investigate this claim, I contacted a few former FCO members who were advising Cameron on Libya from both Tripoli and Whitehall between 2011-2014. They confirmed to me that no one in Number 10 made any such a naive assumption and that Labour was constantly consulted and informed of the coalition’s Libya policy. Miliband’s unwarranted potshot at Cameron is unstatesmanlike and frankly inexcusable. One of the greatest traditions of British politics, relative to its French or American counterparts, is not to politicise foreign policy decisions.To read the full article click here.