By Lady_E
Two weeks in to the Libyan uprising events continue to unfold at breathtaking speed as opposition and Gaddafi forces engage in heated battles for control of the country. The initial opposition momentum that resulted in close to half of the country falling to opposition hands and threatening Gaddafi’s control of Tripoli has shown signs of receding as Gaddafi has successfully reinforced his control of Tripoli and now begun counter-attacks to reclaim opposition-held territories. Though opposition forces have claimed success in repulsing Gaddafi’s most recent counter-offensive, opposition forces are now debating requesting foreign intervention under a UN banner, specifically targeted air strikes against weapons compounds and military installations such as radar stations. Foreign military intervention of this type would be a major escalation of international involvement (to date limited to non-military measures by the UN Security Council, the European Union and the United States) and appears to have little support from Security Council and NATO nation state members.
Gaddafi’s brutal crackdown and the developing humanitarian crisis has led many to ask what, if anything, the international community could do. Are there other options available? The most often mentioned proposal is the imposition of a No Fly Zone (NFZ) over Libya. This article is not advocating for or against an NFZ. An NFZ may sound like a relatively simple solution and most people are probably familiar with the general concept (as it has been used before and during the Gulf Wars and in the Balkan conflicts), but there are serious concerns about a Libyan NFZ, for both the potential enforcing foreign nations and for the opposition movement within Libya.
Many serious international commentators have weighed in on a No Fly Zone, for and against. Each view deserves careful consideration and the point of this article is to provide readers with links to the varying arguments to spur debate and present a more fleshed out backdrop of the competing concerns and interests. Before we begin, however, a quick note on the actual mechanics of how an NFZ would come into being. An NFZ would have to be authorized by the UN Security Council under its Chapter VII Charter Mandate and could be enforced either by UN member states or the NATO military alliance. An NFZ is a military intervention, not a non-military measure. From a practical standpoint, Russia (a veto-holding Security Council permanent member) is currently ruling out a UN Security Council NFZ and the NATO Alliance members are similarly split on the issue. For more on this aspect, see here.
Arguments For a No Fly Zone
Britain Prime Minister David Cameron, House of Commons Address: Prime Minister Cameron has proposed taking the lead on coordinating a military no fly zone, saying “[w]e must not tolerate this regime using military force against its own people. In that context I have asked the Ministry of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff to work with our allies on plans for a military no-fly zone.”
Michael Rubin, American Enterprise Institute, USA Today: Mr. Rubin argues that American credibility is on the line and that we cannot stand by in the face of civilian “slaughter.” He suggests that “Obama should take action: First, he should order U.S. fighter jets based in Sicily and on Mediterranean aircraft carriers to enforce a no-fly zone over northern Libya. Not only would this prevent Libyan planes from again strafing civilians, but it would also enable safer evacuation of non-Libyans. If Gadhafi’s henchmen continue their slaughter, Obama might impose no-drive zones for military vehicles.”
David Cortright, University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, NY Times Room for Debate Forum: Mr. Cortright argues for a multi-lateral no fly zone authorized by the UN, but endorsed by the Arab League and one that includes Arab governments such as Egypt and Morocco. He argues “[m]ore than 200 Arab organizations and intellectuals have urged Arab League support for a no-flight zone. Gaining the league’s support in this new era of more responsive politics in the region should be possible and must be a priority. This will make it easier to convince China and other hesitant Security Council members to approve U.N. authorization and will hasten Colonel Qaddafi’s downfall.”
Marc Lynch, Foreign Policy Magazine: Mr. Lynch argues that it is time for concrete actions against Gaddafi’s regime. “It is time for the United States, NATO, the United Nations and the Arab League to act forcefully to try to prevent the already bloody situation from degenerating into something much worse. By acting, I mean a response sufficiently forceful and direct to deter or prevent the Libyan regime from using its military resources to butcher its opponents. I have already seen reports that NATO has sternly warned Libya against further violence against its people. Making that credible could mean the declaration and enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya, presumably by NATO, to prevent the use of military aircraft against the protestors.”
Arguments Against a No Fly Zone
Marc Leon Goldberg, UN Dispatch: Mr. Goldberg responds to Marc Lynch and challenges the effectiveness of an NFZ:
“There has been a sort-of coalescing around the idea that a No Fly Zone is useful way to intervene to stop the killing. I am not so sure. While it is true that some of the slaughter has been perpetrated by Libyan air force, air assets alone are not responsible for the killing. If Qaddafi and his inner circle are intent on violently suppressing this revolt, they will use their superior ground forces as well. A No Fly Zone is a humanitarian half measure. It would let the international community say that it is doing something, but there is very little a No Fly Zone can actually do to stop ongoing slaughter.”
Defense Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, General Mathis, Pentagon News Conference: Gen. Mathis points out that an NFZ would first require disabling Libya’s air defense system, a significant military exercise. Sec. Gates stated “there would be multiple consequences to military action, including to United States forces already at war in the region. “If we move additional assets, what are the consequences of that for Afghanistan, for the Persian Gulf?” and that “we also have to think about, frankly, the use of the U.S. military in another country in the Middle East.”
Edward Rees, Senior adviser to Peace Dividend Trust, The Atlantic: Mr. Rees argues “enforcing a no-fly zone (NFZ) over Libya is unlikely to do as much good as its backers hope, and could in fact backfire.” Mr. Rees highlights the practical effectiveness of an NFZ because of the size of Libya, the lack of nearby air bases from which to impose the NFZ (meaning it may have to be enforced from aircraft carriers), the risk of downing the wrong aircrafts and being drawn into a ground conflict.
Kori Schake, Hoover Institution, NY Times Room for Debate Forum: Ms. Schake presents four reasons why the US should not use military force, including the fact that “we have not had an ambassador in Libya for months, and we have evacuated our diplomats; we ought not overestimate how much we understand what is occurring in the country or the shape Libya’s rebellion will take.”
To read more views, see the New York Times Room for Debate Forum: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/03/01/should-the-us-move-against-qaddafi
