US president criticises Europe over failure to prevent ‘mess’ after Gaddafi and warns special relationship comes with conditions

David Cameron was distracted by domestic priorities as Libya descended into a “mess”, Barack Obama has suggested.

Obama's criticism of David Cameron borne out by Libyan insecurity Read more

In frank comments about foreign relations, the US president also revealed he warned his British counterpart that the “special relationship” would be at risk if the UK did not commit to spending 2% of its national income on defence, in line with Nato targets.

The remarks were made in a lengthy interview with the Atlantic. Obama expressed aggravation with “free riders” among world leaders who call for international action if there is a war or other humanitarian crisis but do not commit enough military resources. “You have to pay your fair share,” he said.

He made critical comments about both the UK and France for participating in military action in Libya in 2011 that removed its dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, but subsequently failing to stop it becoming a “mess”.

Downing Street has refused to comment but MPs from Britain and France have hit back, criticising Obama’s lack of leadership in north Africa and the Middle East.

In the interview, Obama said: “The way I looked at it was that it would be our problem if, in fact, complete chaos and civil war broke out in Libya. But this is not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime.

“At that point, you’ve got Europe and a number of Gulf countries who despise Gaddafi, or are concerned on a humanitarian basis, who are calling for action. But what has been a habit over the last several decades in these circumstances is people pushing us to act but then showing an unwillingness to put any skin in the game … free riders.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Libyans in Tripoli mark anniversary of the revolution against Gaddafi. Photograph: Ismail Zetouni/Reuters

There’s no such thing as imperialism-lite, Barack Obama. Libya has shown that once again | Simon Jenkins Read more

“So what I said at that point was, we should act as part of an international coalition. But because this is not at the core of our interests, we need to get a UN mandate; we need Europeans and Gulf countries to be actively involved in the coalition; we will apply the military capabilities that are unique to us, but we expect others to carry their weight.”

Obama said that the intervention “averted large-scale civilian casualties” but made clear he felt Europe had not been sufficiently committed to helping sort out the country.

“When I go back and I ask myself what went wrong, there’s room for criticism, because I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up,” he said.



Cameron became “distracted by a range of other things” and the then French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, “wanted to trumpet the flights he was taking in the air campaign, despite the fact that we had wiped out all the air defences and essentially set up the entire infrastructure”.

The US administration has sought to play down the remarks. On Friday, the US ambassador to Britain, Matthew Barzun, insisted that the transatlantic relationship remained “special”.

In a message on Twitter, he said:

Matthew Barzun (@MatthewBarzun) Our relationship is essential. It is special. True yesterday, true today & will be true tomorrow.

In a further tweet, he said: “We’ve long worked together for a more peaceful, prosperous and just world. Look at Nato, Iran deal, counter-terrorism, Ebola, trade and aid.”

On Thursday night, a US security council spokesman, Ned Price, said: “Prime minister Cameron has been as close a partner as the president has had, and we deeply value the UK’s contributions on our shared national security and foreign policy objectives which reflect our special and essential relationship.



“With respect to Libya, the president has long said that all of us – including the United States – could have done more in the aftermath of the Libyan intervention. More broadly, the UK has stepped up on a range of issues, including Mr Cameron’s leadership within Nato in terms of meeting the 2% commitment and pressing the other members of the alliance to do so at the Wales summit.”

Downing Street declined to comment on private conversations between Obama and Cameron but defended the UK’s record in trying to help Libya have a stable future.

“We would share the president of the United States’ assessment that there are some real challenges in Libya,” the prime minister’s official spokeswoman said.

Barack Obama has 'no second thoughts' about drone strikes in Middle East Read more

“That is why we are continuing to work hard with our international partners, including the US, and through the United Nations to support the process in Libya that puts in place a government that can bring stability to that country.”

Cameron refused for months before the general election to say whether the UK would continue to commit to the 2% target but George Osborne, the chancellor, eventually pledged last July that he would continue to hit the figure.

After Obama’s comments, the British social care minister Alistair Burt, who was a foreign office minister at the time of intervention in Libya, tweeted:

Alistair Burt (@AlistairBurtMP) Interesting from Obama and Libya. When I've been in the MENA region it's not the UKs retreat that's commented upon, Mr President.

Alan Duncan, the former international development minster, tweeted that Obama had no right to criticise Britain after his record in the region.

Alan Duncan (@AlanDuncanMP) Obama leaves Iraq in a mess, disengages from the Mid East, does nothing in Syria, Libya or Palestine & then blames us. Not much of a legacy.

The senior Labour MP Barry Sherman criticised Obama’s lack of leadership.

Barry Sheerman (@BarrySheerman) Truth that Obama has been a huge disappointment as a President & leader of free world @BBCNews

Herve Mariton, a French MP from Sarkozy’s Republican party, said Britain, France and the US all failed to bring stability after the overthrow of Gaddafi. “I would offer him [Obama] a mirror,” Mariton told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“There is criticism that can be expressed towards the British, the French and indeed the Americans also. After Gaddafi was overthrown our concern was not enough, our action was not enough, and it drew to the messy situation in Libya ... All were too absent, too weak, and not concerned enough with what happened afterwards.”



Alec Ross, a State Department official at the time, confirmed that Obama was frustrated by Europe’s unwillingness to do more in Libya.



But he added: “What frustrates him is obviously the current state of near mayhem in Libya. The Americans would have loved for the Europeans to do more, and the Europeans would have loved for the Americans to do more. But the God’s honest truth is that the shortcomings in Libya are not shortcomings of Americans or Europeans; ultimately it is the Libyans who have fallen short so far.”

He told Today: “The United States was spread so thin that we hoped someone would help fill the breach, but I don’t think it is so much anger or frustration as broadly felt disappointment. We thought the future, after Gaddafi, could only get better, and so far it hasn’t.”



Ross added: “In the US there is a substantial amount of fatigue in terms of our defence obligations around the world, and speaking as one friend to another, it was conveyed as, ‘Hey, help us out here, friend.’”