Lifting the sanctions against Moussa Koussa is the right thing to do

Moussa Koussa is hardly the most beloved former government ministers in the world - as a former minister under Gaddafi, he was part of one of the nastiest regimes, and no doubt there are plenty of cases that people want to take against him. However, the move by the EU to lift sanctions against him (so he can move throughout the EU without the restrictions placed on the other Gaddafi government members, and can access his assets) is not granting him immunity from prosecution in itself.

The aim of the sanction was to penalise the regime and put pressure on it to stop its war against the rebellion. By lifting sanctions on those who defect, the EU is creating an incentive - if a soft one - to defect from the regime and weaken Gaddafi's position. It is unlikely that there will be many defections now as the stalemate in Libya means that the regime isn't likely to be ousted, so those who decided to stay probably won't jump ship now. Still, the move may pay off in the future if the situation on the ground changes. Then members of the regime may see a life boat, and take the plunge.

It can be a tough decision to ease the position of people who have participated in such regimes, but the hope is that by removing them peacefully with incentives, bloodshed would be avoided or reduced than by backing regimes that are clearly capable of great cruelty into a corner with nothing to loose.

From EU Observer the routine attitude with which the sanctions were lifted seems to indicate that this is an accepted strategy across the EU:

"The EU decision was made unanimously at ambassador-level last Thursday.

Foreign ministers rubber stamped the move without debate or public remarks at a meeting in Luxembourg on Tuesday. Koussa became legally able to once again travel inside the Union and take money from any bank accounts he has in Europe from Thursday morning onward."

Jumping ship is still a risky move for members of dictatorships: though they leave with promises of immunity or certain privileges, their legal situation has a habit of changing eventually.

Our Mission, should we choose to accept it...

Italian Foreign minister, Franco Frattini, has called for an EU mission to be sent to North African countries affected by protect movements, including Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria:

"...the EU should send a high-level "political support team" to calm tensions in Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia and other countries in the region hit by deadly civil unrest in recent days.

"The European mission ... [should] take contact with the highest levels, beginning with the authorities in Tunisia, with civil society, mayors, opposition parties, to collect information, not to give orders," he said, Italian newswires report.

"I do not think this can be dealt with by sporadic initiatives of this or that country in Europe, but only by a European initiative.""

To calm tensions, but to not give orders? The EU would have to be very clear about what it wanted to see in the region after the protests ran their course. Does it want to see a return to the status quo, or does it want to ensure a stable transition to more democracy or an accommodation of the protesters' demands? Sending in a clearly political mission without figuring out what kind of role it is to play could backfire pretty easily - what would be the reaction to the mission if the protesters failed or succeeded? Would the EU mission get some of the blame for the outcome, even if it didn't really do anything?

The EU can afford a sort of distant pro-democratic attitude from outside the region, but once it sets foot there - even if it's just dipping in its small toe - it better have a clearly thought out strategy and be able to position itself (very publically, if need be) when things change quickly. North Africa is our neighbouring region, so we should have a common position and policy regarding it, but it should be thought out at home, not created ad hoc through missions.