Republicans killing Catholics? Four Lions called it.

 This is a scene from the Chris Morris film Four Lions. In it Barry - the delusional, posturing wannabe of he group (if he can be singled out by such qualities) is making the video to accompany his master plan, outlined here. His logic: attacking the very people he claims to represent, to "radicalise the moderates" and trigger the apocalyptic war he's been waiting for.

 If you watch the second video, you'll notice that his co-conspirators don't think much of his plan. Even by their moral code (and it is one that embraces terrorism and attacks on innocent people) you don't bomb the very people you claim to represent and derive legitimacy from. But the first video highlights an even more important point: the moron was about to try to claim credit for an attack on the mosque in the name of his own jihadist terror outfit. Even his none-too-bright friends can see that that is sinking to a whole new level of counter-productive stupidity.

 That the murder of Ronan Kerr was a monstrous act doesn't need saying. ConHome and the Spectator both have articles condemning this atrocity, and I'm sure a casual search will find many more. What I want to comment on is the specific, repulsive perversion of a group that claims to fight for the Catholic, Nationalist (not that they will permit distinction) population of Northern Ireland murdering Catholics. The logic behind it is similar to Barry's up there: terrorise Catholics who try to participate in common institutions; feed on the resentment created by the supposed exclusion of Catholics from those institutions; trigger massive civil unrest; United Ireland. Well, I call it logic...

 Do the terrorists never stop to question the assumptions behind their actions? Not the fundamental assumptions, like nationalism being a good thing rather than a divisive and reactionary ideological relic of the Nineteenth Century. I mean the assumption that your average Northern Irish Catholic, having heard that a republican group has murdered a Catholic police officer, will react against Britain. It wasn't the British that murdered him. It wasn't a soldier, or bigoted policemen, or loyalist hit squad, or any other group that could conceivably be portrayed by republican propagandists as a tool of the British state. All the person who hears about this sees is an innocent Catholic man, murdered by republicans who are committed to overturning the peace process and plunging the province back into civil war.

 By turning inwards, and terrorising the very communities they claim as their own, dissident republicans will do more than any hearts and minds program Britain could launch to alienate moderate Catholics from terrorism and reconcile them to the status quo. These are the actions of a movement whose certainties have been shaken. The inevitability of reunion is in doubt: unionists withstood decades of civil war; the Republic has renounced her claim to the province; and former IRA commanders now sit around the table with Democratic Unionist politicians to participate in (some) British institutions.

 Polling shows between 20-30% of Catholics support the union, and the reform of the RUC into the PSNI has, in the Spectator's words, lent it "widespread legitimacy from across the two communities in the province", symbolic of a broader process of building a new, non-sectarian Northern Ireland that Catholics can call home. The consistent discrimination and oppressive institutions that once characterised Northern Ireland - and fuelled the Republican movement - are being dismantled. Soon, there will be nothing left to hate, and the only thing repressing the Catholic communities of the province will be these fanatical vigilantes, their self-appointed 'freedom fighters'.

 A Republican volunteer was once quoted as saying:

"Maybe you can't bomb a million Protestants into a united Ireland, but you could have good fun trying."

 With both the peace and the union proving more durable than many had dared to hope, it seems the 'Legion of the Rearguard', unsettled and desperate, is having its fun with Catholics too. The Spectator quotes a man who claims that as long as there is a British presence in Northern Ireland, there will be some form of IRA. There may be grains of sad truth in that belief - but that isn't what's important.

The important fact is that, even if a small core of murderers refuses to see it, the process of peace and reconciliation cannot and will not stop. Both sides have made enormous sacrifices to create a better Northern Ireland and bring an end to the killing. Republicans have been offered the chance to disarm and engage, and to their lasting credit many have chosen to do just that. The hardcore remnant need to get the message. A new Northern Ireland is being built around them, a province of shared institutions, widespread legitimacy, new-found prosperity and peace. It can be built with them, without them or in spite of them, but it will be built. . 

The Conservatives' New Membership Drive

 ConHome carries an interesting article about the Conservative Party's new membership drive. Since David Cameron became leader in 2005, membership has fallen from 258,000 to 177,000 - although the leadership points out that there are over half a million registered 'friends and supporters' of the party (a figure which includes things like Ulster Unionist Party members, I think). After an apparent dalliance with the idea of moving away from the membership model entirely (!), they have instead decided to try to rebuild our membership base. The aim is to recruit 5% of the Conservative vote in any constituency with a Conservative MP, and 3% of the vote in any constituency without one. Nationally, the figures work out thus:

 Conservative Vote in Constituencies Won: 7300678

 Conservative Vote in Constituencies Lost: 3403076

 Membership in Constituencies Won at 5%: 365034

 Membership in Constituencies Lost at 3%: 102092

 Total Membership: 467126

 Membership Dues (at £25): £11,678,150

 Not the most inspiring figure in the world, but it'll be a considerable what we have at the moment if its achievable. For a while I was worried that Cameron might emulate Ed Miliband's policy of allowing registered 'supporters' to participate in party votes etc., at a stroke completely removing any reason to join the party other than seeking candidature, so seeing a renewed commitment to membership is encouraging. However, as touched on in the ConHome piece, the party really needs to look at why membership has continued to drop off over the years. 

 The linked article has several suggestions, including the very high membership fee (£25 compared to £10 for the Liberal Democrats and Labour), but I think the key one is the lack of benefits to being a member of the party. Local associations are gradually losing their role in candidate selection, the youth movement has been stripped of any independence, and - most symbolically, I think - the membership have no say whatsoever in policy decisions, and conference has been reduced to a trade show with speakers. 

 If membership does vanish, then the effects on our party (and more broadly the British party system as a whole) could be drastic. Membership supplies two things to a party: funding and manpower. Given the unacceptability of surviving purely on the good graces of millionaires - or unions, in a fairer world - the Conservative Party would probably have to shift to supporting state funding for political parties, with all the problems that entails that I've discussed elsewhere. State funding could be needed not only to cover the party's current costs but to hire professionals to do the work currently done by what remains of the voluntary party, including canvassing and campaigning.

 The lack of influence members have is, in my view, the key to the long-term revival of the party as a membership organisation.  A freer hand in choosing candidates and determining policy would do more to revitalise membership levels than anything else. The leadership seem to have the same idea, having recently re-launched the Conservative Policy Forum to give members a say in the direction of the party. Given my experience, it probably won't be nearly active or influential enough to reverse the membership decline by itself, and the party should continue to empower its membership before it evaporates altogether.

 It goes without saying that if you're not a member of the Conservative & Unionist Party and would like to be so, Dilettante urges this course of action upon you and directs you to the party's recruitment page. 

Coalition in Crisis? Again? Maybe.

 My perusal of the news websites this morning uncovered several interesting facts around an underlying common theme. Noticing that, and realising that this blog hasn't returned to its favourite topic of "What are the Lib Dems thinking?" in a while, I decided to dig around and take a closer look. The stories were: Chris Huhne lambasts anti-AV Conservatives over the way they're conducting the referendum campaign; Chris Huhne is rumoured to be eyeing up the leadership; the party's left-wing base is getting more vocal; Nick Clegg is considering rebranding the party and resurrecting the word 'social'; Labour are convinced a No result in May will liquidate the Coalition; and the Conservatives are working out concessions to give Clegg to stop that happening.

 Are the Liberal Democrats preparing to throw a suicidal tantrum? As I've blogged before, walking out of the Coalition just isn't a good idea - but that is seldom enough to stop any party's grassroots doing something they have their heart set on, and the signs are there that the Liberal Democrat left might be plotting to do something foolish. 

 First, lets look at Chris Huhne's attack on the anti-AV Conservatives. Before beginning, I should point out that I'm personally embarrassed by the anti-AV campaign so far, and if it continues in its present vein it is unlikely I will do anything more to support it than give it my vote in May. Instead of focusing on the fact that AV will give us more coalition governments, with all the backroom deals and excessive minor-party power that that implies, they have instead simply gone on a scaremongering rampage. There is no reason for a newborn baby to be on an AV poster, really. While you can make the case that in a time of economic stringency we shouldn't be spending millions on something like this, that isn't the argument of somebody convinced of the demerits of AV. If we beat it this time and it comes back during the boom years, what do we say then?

Embarrassing.

  However, public attacks on the Conservatives also make sense if Huhne is starting to stalk the leadership. In addition to boosting his media profile, it will fire up the party base and demonstrate that he hasn't had his 'head captured' by being in coalition. As the cuts continue to bite and the grassroots grow ever more restive, a Huhne leadership challenge could pose a real threat to Nick Clegg. Clegg certainly thinks so, as he's trying to find 'good news' to be associated with and - if the Telegraph is to be believed - even considering a wholesale rebranding of the party to try to re-establish its left-wing credentials (I'll get to that). However, I feel that he might have less to fear than he might think. 

 The risks of a Huhne leadership are obvious. Having your leader in a marginal seat is avoided because the risk of a humiliating decapitation is so great - and Eastleigh is nothing if not winnable by the Conservatives. Additionally, as I addressed at some length in my analysis of Vince Cable's 'nuclear option' comments, playing hardball with the Conservatives and risking the coalition - let alone withdrawing from it entirely - is to invite electoral decimation, not to mention the risk of permanently discrediting both the party and the concept of workable coalition government in the minds of an entire generation of voters. After all, the coalition agreement only included a referendum on AV - the LDs have no moral case for withdrawing if they lose the referendum. There is always the risk that the party grassroots won't realise this, but I can't help but feel that Huhne is probably politically savvy enough to realise the risks.

 Now, the rebranding. Honestly, I'm not convinced that Nick Clegg is that desperate or that shallow. Changing the party name will fool very few, and again probably risk alienating those voters the Liberal Democrats still have, the pro-Coalition ones. It's hard to even work out what name they'd choose. The most obvious is the Social Liberal Party, although the Electoral Commission might not permit it as I believe another party (that ended up being called the Social Liberalist Party) tried it at some point. The Social and Liberal Democrats? Uninspiring. The Social Democratic and Liberal Party? Has a nice ring, as long as it never plans to stand in Northern Ireland. Whether they like it or not, the party is currently bound up in being the Liberal Democrats. Even when making the transition from oblivion to electability, the Labour Party never changed its actual name. The Conservative Party only changed its name to Conservative & Unionist when it merged with the Unionist Party. Name changes in British politics are rare, and the memories of the electorate long. A change of logo and image could work, if handled well. Apparently Clegg is considering replacing the dove with a set of scales, to represent social justice. 

Works better than you'd think.

 In short, for all the hype about the crisis facing the coalition, I think its more durable than many suppose. Liberal Vision carry the under-reported statistic that polling indicates a majority of the country is still behind the coalition. In an unusual reversal of their usual positions, Simon Jenkins has taken a sensible line on the probable impact of Saturday's protest, leaving Nick Cohen to write the left-wing wishful thinking that its going to bring down the government. Both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat leaderships have shown themselves to be (on the whole) remarkably good at operating a coalition and keeping their back-benches in line. We just need to trust that the Liberal Democrat leadership can stay disciplined, united and not indulge dissentient fantasists amongst their grassroots...

The Right is Getting it Wrong on Student Politics

 In my last post, I touched the way that Labour Students engage with student politics. While the direction of the article led me to focus largely on the negative consequences, there is a big positive in that they engage at all. I mention this only in that the way that Labour - and the Liberal Democrats, for that matter - treat their youth organisations stands in stark contrast to the Conservative Party's abysmal approach to its own, which has left Conservative Future as an anaemic, seemingly toothless organisation compared to its rivals on the left.

 As an illustrative example, let us compare engagement with the organisations on a national level. Both Labour Students and Liberal Youth can get 300-400 people to a full-blown conference, in the Liberal's case twice a year. At these conferences the executive is held to account and motions get debated and voted on. Now, CF don't have a conference or the ability to set policy, so lets use the only figure we have for comparison which is the last executive election. If clicking links isn't your thing, I can tell you that just over 170 people voted overall, and considerably less for several of the races. 170. These people didn't need to go anywhere, they didn't need to pay for travel or accommodation, or find a free weekend in their schedules to attend a conference. They had to send off for a ballot paper, get it, and send it back with some crosses on. Such is the state of Conservative Future.

 Why are we in this position? In my opinion, its because Conservative Future is not a very exciting or empowered organisation, and the party likes it that way. After all, a large paper membership allows us to boast of being the largest political youth organisation in Europe whilst avoiding the effort and potential problems involved in an autonomous political youth organisation. The result is a culture where CF almost instinctively avoids engaging with student's unions and the NUS, leaving their vast budgets and position as the 'voice of students' uncontested in the hands of the left.

 Looking back at the history of Conservative youth movements, the reason the Conservative Party is wary of autonomous youth movements is evident - the Federation of Conservative Students. The FCS, or 'Maggie's Militant Tendency' as it was otherwise known, was an extremely autonomous, extremely active student organisation. The problem was it also provided a platform to very, very right-wing people who were then associated with the party nationally - the infamous 'Hang Nelson Mandela and Other Terrorists' t-shirt being the most famous example. Back then the Conservative Party operated parallel youth organisations (I have no idea why), and so whilst the FCS was shut down and replaced by the Conservative Collegiate Forum in 1986, it cast a long shadow over its sister organisation, the Young Conservatives.

 William Hague's amalgamation of the Young Conservatives, CCF and Conservative Graduates into Conservative Future in 1998 helped to further suck the life out of the conservative youth movement. The party never supported the efforts of its students to counter the NUS, so they stopped trying. Similarly, it showed at best very little interest in students unions and supporting candidates running for positions, so again the culture died off in a lot of places. 

 This is a shame because getting involved in student politics isn't nearly as insurmountable an obstacle as many conservative students think. In the Manchester student union elections last month, we got four councillors (up from one the year before and zero before that), and if CF had the same ethos about student campaigns as the Labour Club we'd have got seven or perhaps eight. Many Conservative Future university branches have the numerical strength to form strong campaign teams, which can deliver not only union positions but also NUS delegates, and even one or two Conservative delegates per university makes a fair bloc.

  Provided it could be prevented from indulging in FCS's excesses (and this isn't the Eighties, I imagine its doable) an autonomous student organisation would be good for the Conservative Party. Being an active presence on campus attracts more publicity and is more effective recruitment than a lonely Fresher's Fair stall, also offering more to students than a group of drinking buddies who occasionally go leafleting together. Engagement also helps to train young conservative activists, honing their communicative, presentational and political skills. Finally, it starts to challenge the left for control over the institutions that claim to speak for all students, and represents right-of-centre students to those bodies.

 The problem, perhaps, is that there isn't an independent student Conservative organisation, distinct from CF (as Labour students are from Young Labour). CF covers every Conservative member from (I think) sixteen to thirty-something, so its membership is too diverse to coalesce around student-centred goals.  Conservative Future's Wikipedia page describes its aims as "to encourage Conservative Party values and assist in local and general elections". That is all well and good, and nobody is denying that young Conservatives should be engaged in such activity. But that should not be the be-all and end-all of what the Conservative Party youth movement has to offer. If the party believes its own rhetoric about empowering ordinary people and sharing responsibility, it should practise what it preaches and place some trust in its students.

What we preach.

Initiation or Incubation? Left-Wing Leaders and Student Politics

I recommend to all of you Bagehot's excellent article about a 'Policy Forum' Ed Miliband recently attended in Nottingham. Reading it, it bears a striking resemblance to Tory Bear's infiltration of David Miliband's Movement for Change last September, and shares similarities with my own encounter with Ed Miliband's leadership campaign in January. Although the size and mood of each meeting is different, the thing to note is that in all cases the Miliband in question is insulated from contrary opinion, often by means of a discriminatory entry policy or some other artifice.

What led from that observation to this post is that this is not a practice restricted to the national leadership. Young Labour and Labour Students both have a reputation for having ferociously anti-competitive political cultures, where most elected positions are stitched up beforehand and usually uncontested. This might not be true, but given the way that Labour's current crop of leaders try to confine themselves to friendly audiences you can see why people might get the impression that they weren't acclimatised to hostility as student politicians.

It would be a grave injustice to try to single Labour out, however. Nearly all the Labour Students I know all manage to combine centre-left or left-wing politics with a distinct lack of sociopathy or aggression, and I count many of them as friends. If an anti-competitive culture does exist, they at least restrict it to their own organisation. Other elements of the university left do their best to ensure that the entire student union is completely hostile to dissension and right-of-centre ideas, as personal experience has taught me.

Such an element.

Recently, at the University of Manchester Student Union election results night a group of various hardline left-wingers formed an aggressive, chanting mob that surrounded, shouted and spat at perceived class enemies in the ranks of the students, including myself. One Labour student, who tried to intervene with the argument that it was wrong to chant about putting certain students on fires after guillotining them, got assaulted by somebody who had just won an election.

Another, much less serious example would be the 'occupation' of the Universities of Manchester Conservative Future meeting by a half-dozen such people who tried to disrupt the meeting and imprison us in the room. A more long term example would be the newspaper articles you might have seen cropping up here recently that I wrote for The Mancunion, UMSU's student paper. I've wanted to write for it since I started university, but it took me two and a half years to develop skin thick enough to do so.

In general, left-wing groups within the university often serve as a sort of ideological feedback loop, largely immune from outside influence while they reinforce and amplify the convictions of their members, and we can see these same traits in evidence when it comes to the leadership of major left-wing institutions such as the Labour Party. Contrast this with the behaviour of centre-right leaders. Cameron Direct involved David Cameron fielding questions live, from an unfiltered audience, on any manner of topics. From what I know of Ed Miliband he would struggle intensely with any similar activity.

I can contrast Miliband perhaps even more easily with Nick Clegg, who came to speak at the university when I was in my first year. He didn't have his people sift the crowd, and he answered with a remarkable degree of frankness all manner of questions. One notable example was a planted question about the then-new Liberal Democrat campaign, "Homophobia is Gay". The question was of the common sort asked by somebody itching to take offence. Rather than pandering to the prejudices of the room, as I expected, Clegg brushed it off and told the questioner to "get a sense of humour". All in all, a fine performance. It is precisely the sort of open-to-all question and answer session that Ed Miliband would pretend to hold two years later.

One is drawn to wonder about a link. In many ways, throwing something at a police officer or going on a march is a lot easier than facing off against an articulate opponent of your ideology and viewpoint. More than any other party, Labour actively engages itself in student politics, to the extent that disputes over sabbatical candidates for union elections can be settled by central office.

Beyond that, the people who go on to become the General Secretaries of trade unions, or the spokespeople for certain public- or third-sector organisations, also grow up in this environment, where decisions are often taken via a bizarre series of painstakingly inoffensive hand-gestures known as 'consensus'.

Does this lead to a leadership corps raised in a left-wing bubble-world, unused to debate and the cut-and-thrust of adversarial politics, often guilty of pandering to a party base of, to quote Bagehot, "economic flat-earthers" and highly uncomfortable outside a controlled environment? One can't help but feel that it does.

Long Live the Kings

 For Libya and other middle-eastern states emerging from the long-term rule of various strongman presidents and 'Brother Leaders', the advantages of casting their new states in the form of parliamentary democracies framed by constitutional monarchies are obvious. Obviously this is only really feasible in states that have a monarchy to restore: Egypt, Iraq, Libya and Yemen all do, whereas Tunisia does not (Algeria theoretically has the French monarchy, heh). The idea of restoring a monarchy can be hard to envision, especially from a Western perspective where it can be viewed as a step backwards. But bear with me, it makes sense.

 Flag of the former Kingdom of Libya, now adopted 

by the National Transitional Council.

 If we examine the men who have led Egypt, Libya and Yemen until now, a definite pattern emerges. Hosni Mubarak held the Presidency of Egypt for almost twenty years from October 1981 to February 2011, and he had been grooming his younger son Gamal to succeed him. In Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh has been President of Yemen since the country's foundation in 1990, and was President of the Yemen Arab Republic (North Yemen) from 1978 to 1990. He too had been planning on having his son succeed him in office. Muammar Gaddafi has served as leader of Libya (under two faintly ridiculous titles, Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council and latterly Leader and Guide of the Revolution) since 1969. As with the others, he has politically active sons that are mentioned as potential successors.

 What we see is the practise of de facto absolute or at least active monarchical rule, disguised by republican trappings. In a political culture unused to democracy and without well-established and confident institutions to operate the requisite checks and balances, presidential democracy over-concentrates power in the hands of a one-man executive. If that man is also Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, that only exacerbates things.

Flags of the former Kingdoms of Yemen (1918-62), Egypt (1922-53) and Iraq (1921-58).

  The great advantage of a constitutional monarchy is that it encourages a less personality-driven, more pluralistic democracy at the same time as de-politicising the head of state. A Prime Minister, drawn from and answerable to the elected legislature of a parliamentary democracy and at the head of a cabinet government, is far less able to accumulate personal power than a President. A legislature-focused democracy aids the development of a party system that can provide a much wider circle of people with access to ministries, as opposed to having ministerial positions subject to Presidential patronage. Making the head of state a non-political monarch also means that no party in the parliament has an interest in turning the head of state into a powerful executive position once it is held by an ally, as they might with a theoretically 'ceremonial' President.

 Constitutional monarchies can also provide a stable framework for the transition from one administration to another, one of the major hurdles faced by fledgling democracies. After the death of Francisco Franco in 1975, it was the re-established monarch that oversaw the transition to democracy, faced down an attempted military coup in 1981 and has since worked diligently to ensure the proper functioning of Spain's democratic institutions. As an institution and embodiment of a state, a monarch can command more respect than a President and provide continuity between one government and the next, whilst also serving as a check on the absolute power of any Prime Minister or government. The stability and order of a monarchy can also be attractive to conservatives who might otherwise feel threatened by reformist governments, and lessens the appeal of reactionary parties and movements.

Zahir Shah, King

of Afghanistan.

 The West's aversion to monarchy has been more of a hindrance than a help in our recent endeavours in the Middle East, especially Afghanistan. When we toppled the Taliban Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in 2001, Zahir Shah - the King deposed by Mohammed Daoud in 1973 - was still alive. He was also very popular, and attractive both to conservatives and reformists. There was a popular movement of Afghans to re-establish the monarchy (although Zahir himself was at best reluctant to resume the Crown), or at least to make Zahir Shah head of state. However, America forced him to step aside in order to ensure that Hamid Karzai was made president. 

 What we got from that arrangement is a corrupt government of dubious legitimacy and with no emotional resonance with the Afghan people, and the necessary concessions to conservative opinion ensured that Afghanistan became an Islamic Republic (it had in the past been simply the Republic of Afghanistan). Zahir Shah also had a proven record when it came to western aspirations for Afghanistan, as he oversaw the introduction of the 1964 Afghan constitution which enshrined civil and women's rights, free elections, parliamentary democracy and universal suffrage, all within the stabilising framework of an increasingly constitutional monarchical system. The fact that American turned down this heaven-sent candidate to lead post-war Afghanistan in favour of Karzai demonstrates how a blinkered aversion to monarchy can be a severe hindrance to western efforts to democratise and liberalise these states.

How do a people simply 'decide' to overthrow a regime?

Perusing the Daley Dozen led me to this post on Jim Murphy's blog. As a firm hawk when it comes to Libya I disagree with Mr Murphy and Robert Gates on a lot, but this post isn't about my approach to the war in general. Rather, it is to allow me to express my distaste and frustration at a certain attitude one often hears from anti-war sympathisers. To quote Mr Murphy:

"Gaddafi is a tyrant, but it is up to the people of Libya to decide what happens next in their country and not for any single foreign government."

This attitude of 'let the Libyans sort it out' can be read one of two ways. The first is the sort you hear from isolationists, and carries undertones of 'screw them, who cares?'. That is an understandable, if not brilliant, attitude to take. But one also hears this argument a lot from left-wing and dove sources (Mr Murphy is at least one of those), and it makes a lot less sense coming from them.

Sure, it smacks of the wonderful post-imperial world of respect for nation states and aversion to western 'imperialist' involvement in the internal affairs of foreign countries, which must seem superficially enticing to some. But think about it a little harder and you run into the realisation that, when it comes to well-armed dictatorships and effective police states, the idea that the Libyan, Iraqi or any other people can simply 'decide' what happens next in their country is palpably absurd. The mechanism by which they might make such decisions is called democracy, it is the absence of democracy that defines dictatorships, and it is dictatorships that we intervene in.

So what if Muammar Gaddafi's army does storm Benghazi, after shifting to a focus on infantry and irregulars to counter-act the effectiveness of the allied airstrikes in neutering his armour and airforce. As his troops round up the Libyan People's Army and their supporters and then murders them, does that represent the "the people of Libya deciding what happens next in their country"? If the regime is nothing more than a house of cards and the people have had the capacity to choose to replace it for the last forty years, does this transform them from its victims into its partners?

Setting aside any other consideration, the idea that the subjects of a dictatorship can simply 'choose' the destiny of their country without western help is insulting to its victims. If you want the west to play no major role in assisting the people of Libya towards fairer, more representative government then that's fine, but please don't try to make out you're doing them a favour.