Doubts, queries and criticisms from the international community are emerging as the West-led military action against Libya continues.

The military intervention has upset the world and triggered angry reaction in many parts of the world.

MILITARY ACTION ALLEGEDLY EXCEEDS UN MANDATE

On March 17, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973 to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. The resolution authorized the use of force to protect Libyan civilians. However, going far beyond the creation of a no-fly zone, Western forces struck the Libyan forces on the ground.

Ted Carpenter, an expert with the Washington-based Cato Research Institute, has said the real goal of the initial U.S.-led military mission is to unseat Libya's long-serving leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Carpenter believed that the current military action by the United States and its NATO allies have already gone beyond the Security Council resolution and what the Arab League had expected.

"If the coalition comes out openly about overthrowing Gaddafi, then the coalition is well beyond these mandates," Carpenter told Xinhua on Tuesday.

The Russian State Duma, the lower house of parliament, on Wednesday adopted a statement, calling on Western countries to stop their military action in Libya to help bring "an immediate cease-fire and stop deaths and suffering among civilians."

The military action has revealed the desire of several states to use the UN mandate as a pretext for achieving objectives "other than the declared protection of civilian population" in Libya, said the Duma statement.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said Tuesday that Resolution 1973 had a clear framework, and that any action that goes beyond the framework "is illegal."

Li Baodong, China's permanent representative to the United Nations, on Thursday called upon all parties concerned "to cease fire immediately in order to avoid escalating the conflict and worsening the already tense situation in the region."

"The relevant Security Council resolution is aimed at humanitarian protection, rather than creating more civilian casualties and a bigger humanitarian catastrophe," Li said when speaking at the consultations of the UN Security Council on Libya.

African Union (AU) Commission Chairman Jean Ping reiterated in France on Thursday that the AU opposed foreign military intervention in Libya. He added that Western forces did not conduct sufficient consultations with the AU before launching the military attacks on Libya.

South African President Jacob Zuma on Monday warned the West against abusing the UN resolution on Libya, calling for an immediate cease-fire in Libya and no violation of Libya's sovereignty.

ATTACKS WITH HIDDEN AGENDA

This time, France, Britain and the United States aggressively advocate the use of military force to prevent the occurrence of a "humanitarian disaster" in Libya, but analysts believed that leaders of these countries have their own political and diplomatic agenda.

France was the pioneer in the military operations against Libya this time. Some European and U.S. media and analysts believe that French President Nicolas Sarkozy is primarily aimed at safeguarding France's influence and interests in the world, especially in the Mediterranean region. He was also trying to gain scores for the upcoming presidential elections at home.

On Britain's active participation in the military action against Libya, Financial Times newspaper said that the government led by Prime Minister David Cameron was making a political gamble to collect "some diplomatic assets" for his Conservative Party and demonstrate his own diplomatic talent.

"With his popularity at a record low and facing an election year, French President Nicolas Sarkozy was in desperate need of a boost to his political stature," the Los Angles Times said last Sunday, adding Gaddafi gave Sarkozy the opportunity.

The U.S. newspaper also said that France has important geopolitical and strategic interests in Libya, which borders four French-speaking countries and has rich oil resources.

The United States initially was not keen in military intervention in Libya, but later it turned to urge the UN to pass a resolution to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya.

Carpenter said U.S. President Barack Obama was forced to adjust his Libya policy as a result of pressure from U.S. allies and at home.

Spain's newspaper Intifada said that there are political and economic reasons behind West's military intervention in Libya.

The West is not only aimed at unseating Gaddafi, but also at clearing the obstacle for isolating Iran and occupying the whole Islamic market, the paper said.

According to The Guardian newspaper, France, Britain, the United States and some other countries are facing more and more criticisms in the world due to their military intervention in Libya and the latest polls show that most Britons doubted the motive of the British government.

UNCERTAIN CONSEQUENCES FEARED

The military action taken by Western forces has proceeded for nearly one week. But the international community worries that it is likely just a beginning and airstrikes might keep going on for a long time. The consequences of the military intervention, its development and huge spending may turn Libya into another mire that drags the West, like Iraq.

The New York Times said Wednesday in an article on its website said that the intervention is quite likely to bring about two possibilities -- coalition forces fail, or more spending and soldiers than expected are put into.

Many European and U.S. military experts question whether the West could topple Gaddafi merely through airstrikes. Howard McKeon, chairman of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, said that it has been proved in history that air forces are not enough to drive the enemy out of the trench.

He described the Obama administration's policy on Libya as a "stalemate strategy."

Besides the political commitment, huge expenses on the military campaign against Libya also worried the participating countries. Analysts said that the operations on last Saturday alone, the first day of the military action, cost coalition forces over 100 million U.S. dollars.

The worst-case scenario is civil war and division in the country, which will be a very bad consequence, said Jan Egeland, director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Tuesday that the current military intervention in Libya might be potentially counter- productive.

He harshly criticized the West-led airstrikes, saying such operations proved useless in the past but increased loss of lives.