Question of who's in charge threatens operation

After the adrenaline rush of striking Libya in the name of defending its citizens from their tyrant leader, Western nations have encountered the grubby reality of politics.

The belated question - who's in charge of the operation? - has split the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) so badly that the efficiency of the campaign to police Libyan airspace could be in doubt.

The United States assumed early command of the loose coalition of countries that have launched the no-fly zone, but eager not to add a third war to its list of conflicts in the Muslim world, says it wants to hand over to another entity as swiftly as possible.

What that entity should be and what it should do is the big issue. President Barack Obama on Tuesday said Nato would be involved "in a co-ordinating function" but did not say what this meant.

Britain and Italy want Nato to take the lead but are strongly opposed by Turkey, which says the strikes have gone beyond the scope mandated by the United Nations.

France, for its part, says that the 28-nation Western alliance should only provide some operational support, because Arab backing, already shaky, would evaporate if it took political control.

In Paris, the Elysee presidential palace said yesterday that French leader Nicolas Sarkozy had agreed with Obama on "how Nato's command structure will be used to support the coalition". There were no other details.

"The Arab League does not wish the operation to be entirely placed under Nato responsibility," French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said earlier, explaining his country's reticence. "It isn't Nato which has taken the initiative up to now. It's a coalition of countries leading the operation, so political control ... is exercised by this coalition, in which Arab, North American and European countries are participating."

A source close to a meeting of Nato ambassadors in Brussels yesterday described the mood there as "appalling". Failing to get agreement on the alliance's political and military role, the envoys found consensus on allotting the navies of Nato countries a job in policing a UN-backed arms embargo.

"The problem about getting Nato involved is very simple. Possibly a majority of European member nations are very dubious about this operation," said Jonathan Eyal, director of studies at the Royal United Services Institute think-tank in London.

"Germany, Turkey and almost all the new members in ex-communist eastern Europe have doubts about the efficacy of the intervention or don't see why Nato should become involved in North Africa," he said.

The rift is already starting to have an impact on shaping coalition forces in the area. Norway, which has committed six F-16 fighters, says it will keep the planes grounded on the Greek island of Crete until the chain of command is made clear, while Italy has warned of closing its seven bases unless Nato assumes leadership.

That move would have major repercussions for the operation, as aircraft would have to fly to Libya from France or Crete, extending flying time and reducing their capacity to police the zone.

Germany, which abstained in the UN vote, has withdrawn two frigates and two support ships from Nato command in the Mediterranean and would pull out up to 70 troops who help operate AWACS control and early-warning aircraft, DPA said.

"The political squabbles threaten to jeopardise the operation and undermine its legitimacy," the German-language FT Deutschland said. "The squabbling will benefit the Libyan regime - and the international community will achieve the opposite of what it actually wanted."