The affair, which has already been reported by EUobserver, concerns the British firm G4S-UK, which, contrary to expectations, won a 10 million euro contract with the European External action Service to protect EU staff and premises in Libya. Rue89 remarks that the deal raised eyebrows because, unlike its competitors in the call for tenders, the Hungarian firm Argus and the British Canadian Garda World, G4S-UK “had no track record of protecting European delegations”.

The French news website argues that the affair highlights a problem of conflict of interest in the EEAS, which is managed by Britain’s Catherine Ashton –

Some [...] suspect Great Britain of misusing its influence in the EEAS to favour the main private military companies in the UK.

The inquiry comes in the week after the US Securities and Exchange Commission opened a similar procedure. If convicted, companies could face massive fines and see their current and future contracts with the new government declared null and void. According to the Wall Street Journal, the investigation “casts a cloud on the companies' ambitions to expand their foothold in the country with the largest oil reserves in Africa”.

ENI, in particular, was the biggest operator in Libya under the rule of Muammar Gaddafi and quickly recovered its lead after the regime change, with a current output share of about 14 per cent. The company was planning to invest over $30 billion (€22.9 billion) to double that figure over the next decade.

According to the Court, the Italian "push-back" policy in operation since 2009 violates international law because it deals with migrants collectively and denies them the right to appeal in Italian courts. Roberto Maroni, the Northern League interior minister at that time, has criticised the sentence as "political", while PM Mario Monti has stated that the government will study the ruling. But Il Manifesto is sceptical –

Deals with the new Libyan government point in the same direction as those cut with Gaddafi. To change this would require a thorough legislative overhaul and a new information policy. On reading online comments about the sentence, one realizes that Europe is now seen as a threat to our national integrity. This is the product of two decades of xenophobia and institutional hostility towards immigrants.

Only two of the winners were there to receive their awards in Strasbourg: Lybian Ahmed al-Senussi, who spent 31 years in Muammar Gaddafi’s prisons, and Egyptian activist Asmaa Mahfouz of the April 6 Youth movement. Among the other laureates, Syria’s Razan Zeitouneh, a human rights lawyer and blogger, is currently living in hiding, while Syrian political satirist Ali Farzat has sought refuge in Kuwait following an attack by supporters of the Bashar al-Assad regime. The fifth prize was posthumously attributed to Mohamed Bouazizi, whose self-immolation triggered the Tunisian uprising.

"For years, Europe turned a blind eye to the Arab dictatorships" and this year’s awards "symbolise a sense of culpability," argues the Spanish daily. But notwithstanding the European parliament’s condemnation of repression in Syria, "Brussels has yet to articulate a unified response to Assad," and "much remains to be done, if the EU is to respond in an adequate manner to the process of democracy in the Arab world."

The Lisbon daily can reveal that the Portuguese state bank currently holds €1.3 billion of Libyan state assets deposited in four accounts frozen this March, after the international community clamped sanctions on the late Gaddafi’s regime. The first deposit occurred in 2008, after the Libyan leader closed his Swiss accounts in retaliation for his son's arrest and detention in the country.

For Gazeta Wyborcza editor in chief Adam Michnik, one of the leaders of Poland’s democratic opposition under communism – “Gaddafi’s death is not a cause for joy, but for reflection over the nature of the world that we live in, side by side with dictators. Gaddafi was thought to be indestructible, he blackmailed and humiliated the entire world, he also brought European governments to their knees. He believed in violence and lies but he miscalculated.” Michnik adds that Gaddafi’s death was a clear signal sent to the nations still living under tyranny that “dictatorships are not exempt from punishment, dictators are not immortal”.

Across the Channel, The Independent considers it “a visit that Cameron and Sarkozy might have delayed”. While the two European leaders indeed had every right to be the first Western leaders to visit Libya after Gaddafi and were welcomed during a walkabout, “the enthusiasm of Libyans does not let the British and French leaders off the charge that their visit was made in unseemly haste; a case of too much, too soon,” the London daily writes.

The image of two heads of government lined up for the benefit of the world's media was of far greater impact than the rhetoric, giving the impression of rich patrons swooping down to bless their successful project. This is an unhelpful impression, which risks reinforcing those who criticise Western involvement in the Libyan rebellion as little more than neo-imperialism.

Belgium's Le Soir in turn describes the visit as “a diplomatic rush to Tripoli: the speed of the duo [Sarkozy and Cameron] has even pulled the rug out from under the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who was expected in Tripoli that same Thursday, 15 September.” To be more precise: “It's probably no coincidence that these attentions come at the same time as the modest resumption of Libyan oil exports.”

There is no denying that events in Libya had the poor taste to come to a head at a time when European institutions are traditionally on holidays, with a limited number of staff to deal with current affairs. The boss of the European External Action Service (EEAS) did in fact cut short her vacation, but before speaking out on developments in the North African country, she will have to consult with the foreign ministers of Europe’s 27 member states, most of whom are not at their desks. Their next meeting is scheduled for… 12 September.

On 23 August, Ms Ashton nonetheless announced, at a press conference, which was barely reported by the media, that she had spoken with the leader of Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC) Mustafa Abdel Jalil “about ways in which the European Union, the Member States, can support the future of the Libyan people.”

The role played by European states in the Libyan crisis has demonstrated that they are capable of taking the initiative in a region –  the Mediteranean basin –   where the United States believes they should be more involved. Having shown that they can conduct a joint military campaign, they must now present a united political front, if possible, via Europe’s shared institutions. Specifically, they should come together to contribute to the reconstruction of the country, a field in which Europeans have a well recognised expertise.

Having been bizarrely absent at the outset of the “Arab spring,” the Union cannot allow itself to miss this opportunity: especially when you consider the strategic location of Libya, its economic weight and its role in the regulation of migration flows from Sub-Saharan Africa. The Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) is one instrument that Europe could use in its bid to achieve this objective: although it got off to a bad start and was subsequently sidelined, it could now be re-launched as a genuine organisation devoted to the goals of cooperation and political coordination.

In taking charge of this task, Ms Ashton could give a meaning to her role as European High Representative for Foreign Affairs – an appointment which for the moment continues to puzzle most of Europe’s citizens.

Translated from the French by Mark McGovern

"An economic war with a new adversary: ​​Italy, of course. While Rome dragged its feet before joining in the operations, Paris – with London bringing up the rear – pressed on the accelerator, dreaming of the carve-up ahead that would see Libya broken up into autonomous provinces and the “oil pie” divvied up between their national champions, Total and BP, which would be hitting the ground running. Now that the uprising is – nearly – over, the second phase of operations can begin: a business worth billions of euros, for rebuilding roads, ports, industrial plants, whole cities. Again it's Paris leading the play, with Rome trotting up behind. The Elysée is setting up a conference to lay the foundations of the new democratic Libya, and it is Paris that the new government leader of Libya, Mahmoud Jibril, visited on Aug. 25, stopping to talk to the Italians only on a stopover in Rome on the way back."

“It is easy to be clever with the benefit of hindsight,” remarks the daily, “but the agreement with Gaddafi was already scandalous when it was signed. Today Cecilia Malmström will have to provide full information about the consequences of this meeting. Was there a dialogue? Where did the money go?” In conclusion, Dagens Nyheter affirms that the entire EU should ask itself the question of how it came to sign a treaty with Gaddafi.

Handelsblatt, on the contrary, thinks Germany’s position in the race for the “treasure of the Libyan oil” is under threat. For the German economic daily, Turkey, which has proposed $300 million in aid for the rebels, is “the winner of this stage.” Italy, “which built the well heads in Libya,” is well positioned, but Nicolas Sarkozy “will not accept” that France should make way for Italian companies. German industry won’t have an easy catch-up in this race, Handelsblatt continues, for by failing to back the rebels the German government has “spoiled the start”.

The second picture, taken on the same day, shows the riots in Bari (Apulia region). Frustrated by delays in the processing of their asylum applications, African migrants, who have been held for seven months in a “filtration” camp, “chanted ‘papiers papiers,’ before rioting and blocking traffic. A total of 60 people including policemen and migrants were injured”. The protest, reports La Repubblica, spread to the Calabrian town of Crotone, where “migrants emulated the riots in Bari,” and Nardò (Apulia) where “400 North African farm labourers went on strike for better wages”.

Last year in Rosarno (Calabria), African migrants, who complained that they were “being treated like animals by Italians,” staged violent protests.

In Syria, the French embassy in Damascus has been attacked by “protesters” supporting the Bashar al-Assad regime. “A further sign that the Syrian regime is losing ground, even giving the impression of being at bay,” these ‘protests’, which the U.S. embassy also experienced, seem to be in response to the visit of U.S. and French ambassadors to opponents of the regime in the rebellious city of Hama.

"Member states were wrong to consider that the wave of migrants landing on the island of Lampedusa was strictly an internal Italian matter. And Italy’s reaction, which was to allow the new arrivals to travel to other European countries, and in particular to France, has thrown petrol on the flames,"

writes NRC Handelsblad in a report which bemoans the absence of solidarity between member states on the issue of the North African migrants. According to the Dutch newspaper, "populist measures like tighter border controls are little more than symbolic."

In fact, it would be much more efficient if member states "acknowledged their shared responsibility for Europe’s external borders by establishing a common immigration policy. But instead, they have continued to live in the world they left behind 26 years ago,” when they signed the Schengen Agreement.

In an interview published by NRC, a researcher for the Centre for European Reform, Hugo Brandy, explains that:

"the crisis surrounding the Schengen Agreement is comparable to the one faced by the single currency," because "Schengen and the euro both depend on mutual trust. Now that certain countries are betraying that trust, we are having to resort to sanctions. In both cases, we are wondering if these crises will prove to be setbacks, or if, on the contrary, they will act as a spur for integration.”

In France, Le Monde is keen to defend the benefits of Schengen at a time when the agreement has been threatened by a migration flow, which "is not as Paris claims on a ‘Biblical’ scale, but significant" nonetheless.  

"Signed in the 1980s, the Schengen Agreement, which was mainly designed to cover internal European migration, ranks, along with the euro, as one of Europe’s greatest achievements: a common currency and no more borders, two highly charged symbols!

"However, Schengen will have to be adapted in response to new migration flows, and that means additional help for states – like Italy, Greece and Spain – which are located on the EU’s external borders and tasked with regulating immigration. At the same time, if the Arab Spring is not to result in increased migration, there is a real need for an EU investment strategy to provide aid and long-term loans for its southern neighbours. All of this comes at a cost, and this is the main problem for the EU for which the issue of greater budgetary solidarity remains a taboo subject. One Franco-Italian letter to Brussels will not be enough to change this."

In La Stampa, historian Gian Enrico Rusconi notes that the current "Mediterranean-Libyan crisis" has marked the official end of "the triangle formed by Italy, France and Germany, which has had a major influence on the history of the European project."

"Germany has become increasingly inward looking, and France plays its cards with sovereign indifference, while the European Commission has emerged as a weak executive that is lacking in self-confidence, and even powerless. Although it feels that it is to some extent a victim, Italy has chosen to privilege alliances with more powerful countries, but on a fundamental level it no longer knows where it is going."

Looking back on the "long-term vision" and the "determination" of the German, French and Italian leaders of the post-war period, who engaged "their three nations in a process to construct a new Europe," Rusconi affirms that "this cycle has either come to a close, or at best, has been irredeemably altered".  

"Along with more than 20 other countries, the three nations continue to be bound to each other by institutional links that are significant and even irreversible, but these links are anything but efficient when Europe is called on to address major issues like the use of military force, or the control of borders and spheres of influence. On these matters, it seems that plain old national sovereignty is still the main priority. Differences and national interests which had pompously been written off as obsolescent have once again come to the fore."

Member states, who of course chose Ms Ashton to act exactly as she has, each follow their own agenda – the creation of a joint army by France and the UK, who together sought UN approval to take action against Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, and France’s recent military action alongside Alassane Ouattara’s troops in Ivory Coast are two recent examples among many.

Let’s face it: taxpayer money spent on the EEAS is money thrown out the window. The service’s €570 million annual budget for civil, military and humanitarian action – action yet to be seen – could be spent more effectively. Timid and voiceless, the service discreetly bows out to the Union’s national governments, which defend their own turf. This despite the fact that timidity, Lady Ashton, was not among the principles brandished by the EU’s founding fathers!

The EU can either accept this shortcoming and adapt – by abandoning its pursuit of a common foreign policy worthy of the name – or say no, and take a new approach. European diplomacy boarded a train which until now has taken it nowhere, conducted by an engineer who, lacking in courage and initiative, should hand over the controls to a more inspired candidate before the train reaches the station. Anyone?

The newspaper notes that justification for the operation has been provided by Resolution 1975, adoped by the UN Security Council at the end of March. “Although President Sarkozy is unwilling to admit it, France has taken sides and is trying to unseat Gaddafi and et Gbagbo by force,” writes Libé. The daily goes on to argue that even if these operations are motivated by humanitarian concerns, there is no denying that “Sarkozy has involved France in two dangerous missions.” It also wonders “why this desire to protect civilians was not sufficient to prevent the massacre in Duekoue, in the west of the country which was apparently perpetrated by forces loyal to Ouattara.” The left-wing daily concludes that the populations in Libya and Ivory Coast are not likely to forget the fact that “government opponents drove to power in trucks belonging to a foreign army.”

For the Parisian news website, the goal of the United States, which is providing the bulk of the resources for the Odyssey Dawn is quite simple: to overthrow Gaddafi. We are now witnessing “an all out attack on military infrastructure and political power centres” by the operation which from Thursday 31 March will be fully controlled by NATO from its headquarters in Naples.

 “The strategy of total war (which is far removed from the spirit of Resolution 1973) has prompted increasingly bitter criticism from the Arab League, as well as Turkey and Italy, which was hoping to intervene as a mediator in a bid to persuade Gaddafi to go into exile,” adds Mediapart. As a result, the news website argues that the coalition is headed straight for the quagmire it desperately wanted to avoid. Now that Gaddafi’s army is winning back territory, “the status quo will likely persist, and barring his sudden overthrow, in the long term the country may have to be divided.”

The situation is all the more problematic for the coalition in view of the increasingly heated debate about the Libyan opposition and the reality of the National Transition Council, which France recognised as the legitimate power in the country on 5 March. This is particularly the case in the United States “where some suspect that Islamists and even Al-Qaeda fighters are playing an important role in the uprising.”