Transatlantic relations are being tested by the US’s refusal to lead the military mission in Libya, with figures on both sides of the ocean depicting the conflict as a wake-up call for Europe’s military and political establishments.
Britain and France are straining to fill the gap left by Washington’s decision to pull back, as Europe’s military ambitions are tested.
The Pentagon said on Tuesday that it had flown 1,600 sorties since operations began on March 19 and would no longer be involved in air strikes against Libyan targets. It would continue support missions, such as aerial refuelling, and would remain on alert for emergency strike missions, if requested by Nato.
Defence experts maintain that the US move has a longer-term significance, since it signals that Europeans cannot rely on Washington to provide security in crises in their neighbourhood.
“What we’ve seen in Libya is hugely significant,” said Lord Hutton, a former defence secretary in the last Labour government. “The US has been saying for 10 or 15 years that it wants the Europeans to share more of the security burden and we have to heed that lesson. We should be doing much more in Europe. We cannot go on expecting the US to take the leading role.”
Nicholas Burns, a former US ambassador to Nato, added that a Washington burdened with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq welcomed the Franco-British lead, even though it is the first time in Nato’s 62-year history that the US has not been in a clear leadership role in an alliance operation.
But he warned: “There’s a concern in the US that the European allies will not be able to match the intensity of air and sea operations that the Americans had in the first two weeks of operations ... The potential challenge is can they deliver an effective military response that will push Gaddafi back and can they avoid the political disunion in a fractious Nato alliance over air strikes going forward?”
A senior European diplomat put forward a different test, arguing that his country will be disappointed if the US does not re-enter the fray in Libya in the event of an emergency. Meanwhile, the rebels are already unhappy with the new Nato command, with General Abdel Fatah Younis, head of the rebel army, criticising the alliance for failing to do more to break the siege of the town of Misurata.
“Misurata is being subjected to a full extermination,” he said on Tuesday. “Nato blesses us every now and then with a bombardment here and there and is letting the people of Misurata die every day. Nato has disappointed us,” he said. Even though Libya is an exceptional case – the Obama administration insists it is not a US vital interest – the decision to leave Europe to take the lead is part of a broader trend of retrenchment in Washington, as a fiscally straitened US looks for its allies to do more.
“Lots of people are interpreting this as a very direct signal from the other side of the Atlantic that it’s high time the Europeans got their act together,” said a senior British defence official.
“The message to the French and British is that they said back in 1998, at a summit in St Malo, that they wanted to take care of their own destiny on defence. Well, where’s the beef?”
In Britain, the burden of Libya action is raising questions about whether the Conservative-led government’s decision in October to cut back defence spending should be revisited. The head of the RAF has already called for “genuine increases” to its budget.
The crisis also opens up questions on European collaboration. On one side is the close partnership forged by London and Paris. But Germany decided to abstain in the UN vote – and to play no part in the operation in spite of Berlin’s significant fixed wing capability.
“The French are spitting tacks at the Germans because of the stance they have taken on Libya,” said a British official.
By Daniel Dombey taken from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7b076c8e-5fb4-11e0-a718-00144feab49a.html#axzz1IeXk8dN1
No comments:
Post a Comment