EU-lidstaten Duitsland en Malta verantwoorden afzijdige houding bij ingrijpen in Libië (en)
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Germany and Malta over the weekend gave fresh reasons for staying out of the EU-US-Arab attack on Colonel Gaddafi.
Speaking in Der Spiegel on Sunday (20 March), German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle said he acted in a national tradition of military restraint and that Germany would have had to send soldiers to Libya if it had backed a UN resolution on the no-fly zone.
"We have considered this very carefully and made an important decision," he explained. "Why does the West have primary responsibility instead of the countries in the region, the Arab League in particular?"
He added that the US can use German bases for anti-Gaddafi operations and that Germany will redeploy Awacs radar planes in Afghanistan to free-up US assets. He also noted that Germany has paid €5 million in aid for Libyan refugees.
The Westerwelle remarks came after criticism from commentators and the Social Democrat opposition party, which said the UN vote has nothing to do with sending German soldiers.
Maltese leader Lawrence Gonzi i told the Radio 101 station the same day that he is not allowing coalition forces to use Maltese airports for security reasons.
"The prime minister reiterated that his utmost priority was the country's security and as Malta had only one airport, it could not be placed in danger," a Maltese diplomat added. "[He] said that the situation was a grievous one and [that] one had to be extremely careful what to say and to take the best decisions for the people."
Malta is situated just 350 kilometers from Libya. In 1986 two Libyan scud missiles nearly hit the Italian island of Lampedusa 620 kilometers away. Gaddafi has in recent years bought hundreds of millions of euros of new weapons, much of it from EU countries in shipments which used Maltese ports.
The African Union, China and Russia have also distanced themselves from Operation Odyssey Dawn.
Delegates from Congo, Mali, Mauritania, South Africa and Uganda at a meeting of the union's Libya committee in the Mauritanian capital, Nouakchott, over the weekend called for an "immediate stop" to attacks on Gaddafi to avoid "serious humanitarian consequences."
The People's Daily newspaper, a government mouthpiece, wrote in an editorial on Monday that: "The blood-soaked tempests that Iraq has undergone for eight years and the unspeakable suffering of its people are a mirror and a warning." It added: "Every time military means are used to address crises, that is a blow to the United Nations Charter and the rules of international relations."
Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich, said: "We believe a mandate given by the UN security council resolution - a controversial move in itself - should not be used to achieve goals outside its provisions, which only see measures necessary to protect civilian population."
For his part, Arab League head Amr Moussa also went back on his earlier support for the strikes. "What has happened in Libya differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone and what we want is the protection of civilians and not bombing other civilians," he told press in Cairo on Sunday.
The British, French and US-led operation has won important political cover from Arab country Qatar and leading Muslim power Turkey, however.
US ally Qatar is sending four Mirage 2000 fighters to take part in missions. "There must be Arab states undertaking this action, because the situation there is intolerable," Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani told Al Jazeera.
The Turkish foreign ministry said in a statement: "Turkey will make the necessary and appropriate national contribution to implementing a UN no-fly zone over Libya and measures to protect civilians."
The Arab League chief's u-turn and the Russian criticism comes after a heavier-than-expected bombardment of Gaddafi targets in Tripoli and around the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. The assault began at 18.45 Libyan time on Saturday and involved British, French and US jets, submarines and warships.
One cruise missile hit a Gaddafi bunker in the capital city, with the Libyan leader's precise whereabouts unknown on Monday morning.
Inside the coalition itself a difference of opinion emerged on Sunday between British defence minister Liam Fox and chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, Mike Mullen.
Speaking on the BBC's Politics Show on Sunday the UK's Fox indicated that the ultimate goal of the operation is regime change and that Gaddafi himself could be a legitimate military target.
"Mission accomplished would mean the Libyan people free to control their own destiny. This is very clear - the international community wants his regime to end and wants the Libyan people to control for themselves their own country," he said. "If Colonel Gaddafi went, not every eye would be wet."
"There is a difference between someone being a legitimate target and whether we go ahead and target him," he added.
In remarks later the same day to NBC, admiral Mullen voiced concern about exceeding the UN mandate on protecting civilians: "The goals of this campaign are limited. It is not about seeing him [Gaddafi] go. It is about supporting the UN resolution."
Asked if the final objective of the operation could be attained without Gaddafi leaving power, he said: "This is one outcome."