Bring back the Habsburg empire -my article in The Times

The Times April 25 2011

The royal wedding makes an old radical swell with pride

Bereft of real monarchs, eastern Europe is ruled by politician-kings

In my younger, radical days, I was a red-hot republican. Kings and queens were an absurd anachronism — their claim to rule because of some accident of birth an insult to reason and democracy; their insatiable appetite for yachts, palaces and personal toothpaste squeezers an expensive outrage.

I still think the Royal Family costs too much, but it’s not only the onset of middle age that makes me flush with patriotic pride when I think about the royal wedding. My reason goes deeper, too, than the knowledge that nobody does pomp and circumstance better than us. Rather, after twenty years of reporting on central and eastern Europe, I appreciate the profound importance of the monarchy in ensuring social stability, providing a symbol of healthy national identity, even safeguarding the rule of law.
The fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after the First World War destroyed Europe’s historical continuity, setting in motion a chain of disasters from which it has yet to recover. Out went Karl I, the Habsburg Emperor, in 1918 and with him went nascent democracy, political and economic stability, property rights, protection for minorities and a flourishing middle class, the best guarantee of prosperity. Bolshevik revolutions, right-wing putsches, fascism, Nazism and decades of Soviet dictatorship followed. In Russia the Romanov royal family was killed in a messy execution, the bourgeoisie was physically eradicated, property was “socialised” and 70 years of terror ensued. Russia and the world are still paying the price.
Even now, hazy memories of peace and stability under the Habsburgs endure — and not just among conservatives. The royal name still resonates across its former domains. Gyula Horn, a socialist Prime Minister of Hungary and once an ardent communist, made Gyorgy Habsburg, the grandson of Karl I, his ambassador for European integration in the 1990s.
Constitutional monarchies — politically constrained, this is the 21st century, after all — stabilise young democracies. When right-wing soldiers attempted a military coup in Spain in 1981, storming parliament and holding MPs hostage, King Juan Carlos, probably the only figure around whom the nation could unite, took control and helped to restore democracy.
Bereft of actual monarchs, much of central and eastern Europe is now ruled by politician-kings whose formative years were spent under communism, when the divine right of royalty was replaced by the divinity of dialectic. From the Baltic to the Balkans, these politicians picked up bad habits of minds. First, the authoritarian impulse is ingrained in them because the end always justified the means on the path to a just and classless society. And second, because that classless society turned out to be a cruel joke, they still have the “screw the system” mentality of those who lived under communism. There is barely any sense of public service, and these self-interested politicians ensure that they and a few lucky courtiers are enriched by crony capitalism while poverty and corruption soar.
Nor have the squabbles of empire faded. Old enmities have been reawakened: none could have been more destructive than the wars that ripped Yugoslavia apart; today Hungary and Slovakia constantly squabble. National identities are formed against imagined enemies, internal or external. Uncertain of their place in the world, new states obsess about banner and flags, languages and emblems. Hungary’s controversial new constitution, approved last week, makes much of the millennia-old Holy Crown, the centrepiece of its coronations. That has sparked accusations that the ruling party is wallowing in a nostalgia at odds with a 21st-century European democracy.
Ironically, Gyorgy Habsburg is far more modern and open-minded than most of Mitteleuropa’s leaders. Prince William and Kate Middleton have shown how a young, attractive couple can be a focal point for a national identity rooted not in ancient grievances but in simple pride in a country’s history and enjoyment of its pageantry. Perhaps it’s time for a Habsburg to be crowned again. Step forward, King George?

Nato, Libya, the rebels and the ever growing concept of 'Command Responsibility'

 In Libya, today’s rebels may be tomorrow’s war criminals

The conviction for atrocities of a former Croatian Army general shows how careful Nato must be

Adam LeBor   (The Times, April 18 2011)

Nato planners drawing up target lists in Libya are unlikely to be thinking about Ante Gotovina. But they should be. On Friday the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia sentenced the former Croatian military commander to 24 years in prison for war crimes in August 1995, when the Croatian Army recaptured the lands occupied by the Serbs. During Operation Storm, under Gotovina’s command, 200,000 Serbs fled their homes and several hundred were murdered.

Few in the West now wish to remember that, like the Libyan rebels, Ante Gotovina was our friend. Our very good friend, in fact. Throughout the summer of 1995 US satellites and CIA drones supplied imagery on Serb positions. The CIA set up listening posts and supplied encryption equipment to the Croatian Army. The US and its allies helped to bring about the biggest single act of ethnic cleansing of the Yugoslav wars.
Once again the West is fighting the most dangerous of conflicts: not in terms of casualties, but politically and, increasingly, legally, a proxy war. Whatever the politicians say, Nato is now acting, de facto, as the rebel air force. Just as in the former Yugoslavia, US and British intelligence officers and special forces in the field are gathering intelligence and liaising with local warlords.
The atrocities and mass murders committed by the Libyan government forces have been well documented. But now there are increasing reports of killings and lynchings committed by the rebels. So far, there have been no large-scale atrocities. But the gruesome accounts of vengeance meted out to some pro-Gaddafi prisoners have already led US officials to warn rebel leaders against harming civilians.
The West is now in alliance with a military force over which it has neither command nor control. But Nato commanders could yet be called to account for the rebels’ actions, especially if they commit atrocities. Many of the verdicts at the Hague are based on the doctrine of “command responsibility”: that a commander knew an atrocity would take place and took no action to prevent it; knew that one was occurring and did not stop it; or failed to punish those who carried it out.
Nato has formally assumed command of all military operations in Libya. The International Criminal Court prosecutor has promised that anyone, whether for or against Gaddafi, committing crimes against civilians will be investigated. That could yet include those who supplied the perpetrators with arms, intelligence and back-up air strikes.

Adam LeBor is the author of Complicity with Evil: the United Nations in the Age of Modern Genocide