The Disunited Nations - splits appear over Libya action

Cartoon / Rod Emmerson

Serious fractures emerged in the international community yesterday over the military intervention in Libya, with some nations asking such basic questions as what the endgame is and how long it will take.

And late last night the United States confirmed that it had lost a fighter jet in Iraq.

Just days after forsaking its chance to veto the United Nations resolution that authorised the air strikes, Russia offered the most jarring commentary on the action against Libya, with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin saying: "The resolution is flawed. It allows everything and is reminiscent of a medieval call for a crusade. In fact, it allows intervention in a sovereign state."

Germany, which like Russia abstained at last week's UN Security Council meeting, also repeated its misgivings and, via a state newspaper, the Chinese Government condemned "armed action against a sovereign country" and expressed its regret that "the West will not give up their jurisdiction over justice and injustice".

Even Britain, France and the United States, which together have conducted the raids aimed at destroying much of Libya's air-defence capability and neutralising Muammar Gaddafi's military advantages, manoeuvred to manage diplomatic and domestic political fallout.

Rising quickly to the top of a long list of concerns was the chance that, with most of the heavy bombardment over, the coalition may find itself drifting into a prolonged stalemate with no real change in the balance between the rebels and pro-Gaddafi forces. Asked when operations would be over, a senior French military adviser replied that it might be "a while".

Splits have also emerged within the British and US command structures on Gaddafi's legitimacy as a target.

After the British Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, asserted that killing him was a "possibility", the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, refused yesterday to rule out the option.

But a chorus of US voices dismissed that prospect out of hand. Fox's US counterpart, Robert Gates, said it was "unwise to set as specific goals things that you may or may not be able to achieve".

A British general, Sir David Richards, was adamant Gaddafi could not be targeted. Asked if it could happen, he replied: "Absolutely not. It is not allowed under the UN resolution."

Downing St later rebuffed that claim, insisting that targeting Gaddafi would indeed be lawful if he was a threat to civilians. British PM David Cameron said any military action had to be consistent with the UN mandate, but stopped short of ruling out an attack on Gaddafi under any circumstances.

Cameron made a series of telephone calls in an attempt to prevent further fractures in the coalition.

Among those he spoke to was Amr Moussa, the Secretary-General of the 22-nation Arab League, who on Monday suggested that the West had gone too far in enforcing UN Resolution 1973. After their conversation, a Downing St spokesman said both men "were on the same page". Moussa also sought to smooth over the controversy, saying: "We respect the Security Council's resolution and we have no conflict with the resolution."

Privately, ministers admit that while they had thought about the potential diplomatic fallout from concerted military action, there had been no time to "think through" all the eventualities. There are still unanswered questions about the command structure and whether this will turn into a Nato operation or remain an ad hoc coalition.

Late last night, the US African Command confirmed that a fighter jet had crash-landed into a field in northern Libya. A spokesman said indications were that the crash "was not caused by hostile action". The two crew were safe.

Earlier in the day, the Italian Government warned that it would review the use of its bases by coalition forces for air strikes unless the mission passed to Nato's command.

Such difficulties are a reflection of the haste with which operations got under way at the weekend. The UN vote was rushed through because of fears that the last big stronghold of the rebel movement, Benghazi, was within days or even hours of falling.

In Washington, the Pentagon emphasised that the pounding of targets in Libya had already grounded Gaddafi's air force.

But US officials were at pains to stress that they wanted to hand the lead in the operation to others as soon as possible. Gates said he expected to see a transfer within "days". President Barack Obama is anxious to deflect criticism that he is getting America knee-deep into another war.

DIVIDED AS ONE - THE KEY PLAYERS

ARAB LEAGUE

What was said:
The League's head Amr Moussa, caused ripples on Monday when he condemned the air strikes on Libya, saying: "What we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians."

What's the impact:
His comments were the first sign of splits in the coalition, and undermined Western assurances that the action on a Muslim nation had Arab backing.

What are the motives?
Arab leaders are walking a diplomatic tightrope over Libya, with many League members facing their own protests and keen to keep the international community on-side. But the mostly Muslim nations also have to consider domestic opinion, which has previously been vehemently against the military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

CHINA

What was said:
The Chinese Government has expressed "regret" at the air assault, and state media compared the military strikes on Libya with action in Iraq and Afghanistan, calling it "armed action against sovereign countries".

What's the impact:
Practically, not much, as it chose not to use its veto when the UN Security Council voted last week. However, as an emerging world power, developing nations look to China as an alternative voice to the West.

What are the motives?
China has a long history of staying out of what it says are other countries' internal affairs, in the hope that the nations will repay the favour when China comes under fire for its repressive political system and human rights abuses. It also relies heavily on the Middle East for oil, and has to balance its economic interests.

RUSSIA

What was said:
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was scathing yesterday, calling the UN resolution "defective and flawed", adding that it "resembles medieval calls for crusades".

What's the impact:
Like China, Russia also opted not to wield its veto at the UN, but Putin's harsh comments come as President Barack Obama tries to improve ties with Moscow.

What are the motives?
Putin said the action showed Russia is right to boost its defence capabilities, and indeed military posturing is a large factor, with Putin also keeping an eye on a presidential poll. Russia also tends to avoid getting entangled in other nations' affairs.

TURKEY

What was said:
Prime Minister Recep Erdogan said UN action must not turn into an occupation and Nato "should only enter Libya to determine that Libya belongs to Libyans and not to distribute its natural resources ... to others".

What's the impact:
Turkey has so far opposed a Nato military strategy that would allow the alliance's participation and possible lead in the intervention, throwing the operation into turmoil as European nations urged a united front.

What are the motives?
Some diplomats claim Turkey was angered by its exclusion from an emergency summit to discuss the crisis in Libya, and there have been protests in Ankara. Turkey is the only predominantly Muslim Nato member, thus its support is crucial to the alliance, keen not to alienate the Islamic world.

GERMANY

What was said:
Germany argued at the UN that the no-fly zone carried risks - Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has told Parliament that "any military operation brings civilian victims".

What's the impact:
Germany abstained at the UN Security Council, but its decision not to take an active role has more domestic impact, with some analysts saying it has isolated itself from Nato allies, France and Britain.

What are the motives?
German public opinion is firmly against military intervention of any kind, and with crucial state elections this year, commentators have suggested Chancellor Angela Merkel is looking to boost her popularity. The country is also bogged down in the war in Afghanistan, which is deeply unpopular at home.

UNITED STATES

What was said:
"Our consensus was strong and our resolve is clear," Obama has said. "In the absence of an immediate end to the violence against civilians, our coalition is prepared to act and act with urgency."

What's the impact:
There was little appetite on Capitol Hill initially for another military intervention and caution over the no-fly zone, so there was relief from Britain and France when the US finally put its weight behind the operation.

What are the motives?
Washington was determined not to be caught on the wrong side of history, watching as a dictator unleashed violence against his people, but the US has taken a back seat in the diplomacy, keen not to be seen as pushing "regime change" which battered its standing in the Muslim world after Iraq and Afghanistan.

FRANCE

What was said:
"It's a grave decision we've had to take," President Nicolas Sarkozy said at the weekend. "Along with our Arab, European and North American partners, France has decided to play its part before history."

What's the impact:
France opposed military action in Iraq, and for Britain and the US, its involvement has helped boost the operation's credentials as a global push rather than unilateral action.

What are the motives?
Sarkozy's enthusiasm is partly domestic. He is floundering in the opinion polls before the presidential election next year, and was much criticised at home for France's early stumbling response to the pro-democracy revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. Libya has been a perfect opportunity for Sarkozy to appear pro-active, energetic and statesmanlike.

BRITAIN

What was said:
"He continues to brutalise his own people and so the time for action has come," Prime Minister David Cameron has said. "We have to enforce the will of the United Nations and we cannot allow the slaughter of civilians to continue."

What's the impact:
Britain and France were the two nations spearheading the diplomatic push for a no-fly zone and strong action against Gaddafi and their armed forces are leading the operation, although the US is playing a key role in the military strategy.

What are the motives?
Britain, like the United States, has been bruised by the Iraq war, while the present Government has also suffered from revelations of the links between the establishment and the Gaddafi regime, as well as arms sales to Arab nations that are meting out heavy punishment on protesters, including Bahrain.

- INDEPENDENT