Libya: US bid to hand control to Nato halted by infighting
Turkey accuses Sarkozy amid fractious talks over command structure for next phase, which Obama insists he will not lead
Nicholas Watt, Ian Traynor in Brussels, Nick Hopkins and Kim Willsher in Paris guardian.co.uk,
Tuesday 22 March 2011
Diplomats in Brussels are trying to overcome a messy and often fractious start to establish a command structure for the Libyan operation that would meet Barack Obama's demand to relieve Washington of operational control.
Obama, who wants to avoid a repeat of the US-led "shock and awe" tactics of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, has made clear that Washington would command the campaign only in its early stages.
A clear message was sent across the Atlantic: Nato or a combination of its members with the support of Arab nations would have to take command of the no-fly zone to show the world the US had no wish to impose its will on a Muslim country.
US, European and Arab leaders pose for a family photo on March 19, 2011 at the Elysee Palace in Paris after a Libya crisis summit. An ultimatum sent by France, Britain, the United States and Arab countries to Kadhafi yesterday warned Moamer Kadhafi to 'immediately' cease all attacks on his people or face the consequences. (LtoR, foreground, British Prime minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, European Union president Herman Van Rompuy, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, France's Prime minister Francois Fillon, President Nicolas Sarkozy, Foreign minister Alain Juppe, Arab League chief Amr Mussa, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Denmark Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen. Background : Belgian Prime minister Yves Leterme, Canadian Prime minister Stehphen Harper, Morocco's Foreign minister Taib Fassi Fihri, Iraqi's Foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari, UAE foreign minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, Italian Prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou
Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, is keen to establish an Anglo-French command to run the military campaign. Britain is wary of the proposal, however, and is pushing hard for a clearly defined Nato operation, possibly along the lines of the International Security and Assistance Force which runs the campaign in Afghanistan.
"The French want to run this jointly with Britain," said a senior Whitehall source. "That is their preference. It is not our preference. We want Nato to deal with this because Nato has the right experience in dealing with multi-national teams."
The attempts to broker an agreement on the structure for the first major military action initiated under Obama's presidency started in a scratchy way on Monday when Nato ambassadors in Brussels held what was described as a "truly awful" and "emotional" meeting.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Nato secretary general, prompted a walkout by the French and German ambassadors after suggesting Paris was blocking the alliance and that Berlin was dragging its feet. One observer said: "There were a range of issues related to people's egos."
Tensions were running high even before the meeting opened. Britain and the US were said to be irritated that Sarkozy acted with characteristic impetuosity by launching the first strikes shortly after a summit of decision-makers in Paris on Saturday without properly briefing allies.
France then set itself against a Nato-led operation, along the lines of the bombing of Serbian targets during the 1999 Kosovo intervention on the grounds that this could alienate Arab and Muslim allies.
Alain Juppé, the French foreign minister, intensified efforts to set up a structure outside Nato when he announced a meeting of foreign ministers from countries taking part in the military action on Libya in the next few days and mentioned Paris, Brussels and London as possible venues.
Germany, which abstained in the vote at the UN last week, agreed that Nato should have no more than a supporting role. This view is shared by Turkey, Nato's third largest member and a crucial voice in the alliance because of its predominantly Muslim population.
But Sarkozy has managed to upset Ankara. Egemen Bagis, Turkey's Europe minister, accused Sarkozy of exploiting Libya for his own electoral needs.
"A European leader began his election campaign by organising a meeting that led to a process of air strikes against Libya. He acted before a Nato decision and his act was based on his subjective evaluation of a United Nations resolution," said Bagis.
The Turkish prime minister, Tayyip Recep Erdogan, also delivered strong criticism of the no-fly zone , despite a phone call from Obama late on Monday reportedly trying to dilute Ankara's resistance to Nato taking charge. The alliance's supreme commander, Admiral James Stavridis, is to go to Turkey on Wednesday.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan addresses his lawmakers in the parliament in Ankara on March 22, 2011. Turkey on Tuesday slammed Western-led air strikes on Libya as potentially counter-productive and ruled out any combat mission in the conflict-torn country.'We will not participate with our fighting forces. It is impossible for us to think that our fighters drop bombs over Libyan people,' he said.
The Nato envoys met againto try to patch over their differences. Rasmussen announced Nato would take charge of the naval flotilla assembled in the Mediterranean to police a UN arms embargo against Libya. The ships "will conduct operations to monitor, report and, if needed, interdict vessels suspected of carrying illegal arms or mercenaries. This will be done in close co-ordination with commercial shipping and regional organisations," he said.
But this merely rubber-stamped an agreement at the weekend for Nato to patrol the arms embargo and masked the much deeper divisions over whether the alliance should take the lead on the no-fly-zone, as pushed by the Obama and Cameron governments.
One observer of Anglo-American military adventures over the last 20 years tried to make light of the impasse over the way forward for the operation. "It's a bit like a barn dance," the source said of the efforts to decide whether and how Nato would run the operation. "Half of the people can't dance, a couple are drunk and then there's always the characters at the back with their hands up various skirts."
The Rasmussen statement said: "Nato has completed plans to help enforce the no-fly zone - to bring our contribution, if needed, in a clearly defined manner, to the broad international effort to protect the people of Libya from the violence of the Gaddafi regime."
Amid the disarray over who should run the air campaign, Norway said it was keeping its aircraft grounded on Crete until it knew who was in charge. Italy, close geographically to Libya, has made seven air bases available for the "coalition of the willing" campaign, but warned that it would put them back under national control if Nato did not take charge.
British officials said the mood at Nato headquarters was more "positive" than on Monday. "We are continuing to push for what the prime minister set out – Nato command of the operation," said a UK diplomat.
Britain believes progress is being made towards a command structure not led by Nato but using what Cameron called its "machinery". One source said: "We are making progress. The atmospherics are much better than they were on Monday. There are tried and tested ways of using the Nato machinery. It does not have to be a Nato badge operation. It is plausible to use a Nato operation room and the IT and all the things you need."
Comparisons are being drawn with the Nato-led ISAF mission in Afghanistan. "There are always a lot of options with Nato," a British source said.
As the debates continued, France started to mend fences. Laurent Tessiere, spokesman for the French ministry of defence, admitted the discussions at Nato on Monday had been "very vivid" but denied that France had failed to consult allies over the timing of air strikes. France's chief of military staff had negotiated for days, "and sometimes whole nights", with his opposite numbers in Britain and the US.
