Among the measures envisaged by the international community against the regime of Muammar Gaddafi ended, one is hotly debated: the establishment of a "no-fly zone" over Libya. Discussions were held Monday, February 28 on this subject among members of the Security Council of the UN, but the decision is not taken.
All or part of the sky would be banned Libyan flight or to prevent Qaddafi's military planes to bomb the people (including chemical weapons), or to enforce embargoes by the international community. That restriction of sovereignty, very heavy and complex to implement, would be a strong political gesture.
But it divides. In the Security Council of UN, the Russians oppose. Who can decide that? The "no-fly zones", as the military jargon, have become a common tool to stop states or groups committing crimes against humanity. They are even the subject of exercise for air forces, notably in the framework of NATO.
In the recent past, they were used in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq. An exclusion zone was suggested by the Americans in Darfur, a proposal was not followed. In Bosnia and Kosovo is a UN resolution which defined the terms, under Article VII of the UN Charter which authorizes the use of force. The resolution then defines a geographical area, type of aircraft involved, and rules for engaging the force in case of violation.
In Iraq after the Gulf War, the United States, Britain and France had made a decision more disputed in terms of international law, as adopted outside of Chapter VII. The Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, was opposed. In order to protect the Kurds and Shiites, the three countries had decided on two successive zones in 1991 and 1992: the first north of 36th parallel, including the protected area of Mosul, the second south the 32nd parallel, included Basra.
The Iraqi government has always denied this attack on its sovereignty. And in 1996, when the United States and Great Britain have decided to extend the area south to the 33rd parallel, France dissociated itself from the operation. "These lessons have been learned and in the case of Libya, it is unthinkable that there is no UN resolution," said one military expert.
How is a no-fly zone? It must first define a geographic area over the belligerent state, it is a political issue first, difficult international discussion. Then we must establish the hardness of the measure: is it a complete exclusion or not? Applies Does the fighter jets the country's military helicopters? Does it include civil aircraft, the risk of stifling the economy of the region? In Bosnia, civilian aircraft were permitted to fly the aircraft from the coalition, exclusion zone, a very complex situation.
The difficulty is then to be understood concretely, between allies, the "rules of engagement" for violations of the zone. For airmen, these rules are graduated: dialogue radio, warning shots ... But there are many differences between armies. When Americans speak of "kill boxes" - areas in which anything that enters is killed, contrary to the principle of discrimination the law of war - the French are reluctant to accept this term.
In Bosnia, the command and control, doubled between the UN and national decision has created a mess, according to pilots who participated in the operation. For example, France has never authorized the shooting at helicopters, even though the command of the operation ordered him. In Iraq, American and British pilots could shoot a hostile aircraft with the approval of one authority, the French would have a double green light.
Why is it major surgery? Establish a no-fly zone requires considerable means, because his credibility is on his permanent night and day: she claims many fighter planes, air refueling tankers, detection systems. We need ground radar, or if it is not possible (this is the case of Libya), surveillance aircraft like AWACS.
Only three countries have mainly: the United States, the United Kingdom and France. It must then agree on systems to identify, classify aircraft ("uncertain", "suspect", "hostile") and, finally, the intercept. In Kosovo, there are six squads of five fighters who flew 24 hours over 24 for 78 days.
Without refueling U.S., French and British could not take that level of commitment. Is it effective? The disproportion of forces can make you doubt. In Kosovo, the allies showed 1,000 trips per day aircraft, against five times less for Serbian opponents. Two Serb aircraft violating the exclusion zone have been slaughtered.
Six in Bosnia. But in Iraq, the protection zone has allowed the return of Kurdish refugees in the country. In Libya, applications are part of the regime's opponents face the bombing charged into crowds of demonstrators. Nathalie Guibert 
All or part of the sky would be banned Libyan flight or to prevent Qaddafi's military planes to bomb the people (including chemical weapons), or to enforce embargoes by the international community. That restriction of sovereignty, very heavy and complex to implement, would be a strong political gesture.
But it divides. In the Security Council of UN, the Russians oppose. Who can decide that? The "no-fly zones", as the military jargon, have become a common tool to stop states or groups committing crimes against humanity. They are even the subject of exercise for air forces, notably in the framework of NATO.
In the recent past, they were used in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq. An exclusion zone was suggested by the Americans in Darfur, a proposal was not followed. In Bosnia and Kosovo is a UN resolution which defined the terms, under Article VII of the UN Charter which authorizes the use of force. The resolution then defines a geographical area, type of aircraft involved, and rules for engaging the force in case of violation.
In Iraq after the Gulf War, the United States, Britain and France had made a decision more disputed in terms of international law, as adopted outside of Chapter VII. The Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, was opposed. In order to protect the Kurds and Shiites, the three countries had decided on two successive zones in 1991 and 1992: the first north of 36th parallel, including the protected area of Mosul, the second south the 32nd parallel, included Basra.
The Iraqi government has always denied this attack on its sovereignty. And in 1996, when the United States and Great Britain have decided to extend the area south to the 33rd parallel, France dissociated itself from the operation. "These lessons have been learned and in the case of Libya, it is unthinkable that there is no UN resolution," said one military expert.
How is a no-fly zone? It must first define a geographic area over the belligerent state, it is a political issue first, difficult international discussion. Then we must establish the hardness of the measure: is it a complete exclusion or not? Applies Does the fighter jets the country's military helicopters? Does it include civil aircraft, the risk of stifling the economy of the region? In Bosnia, civilian aircraft were permitted to fly the aircraft from the coalition, exclusion zone, a very complex situation.
The difficulty is then to be understood concretely, between allies, the "rules of engagement" for violations of the zone. For airmen, these rules are graduated: dialogue radio, warning shots ... But there are many differences between armies. When Americans speak of "kill boxes" - areas in which anything that enters is killed, contrary to the principle of discrimination the law of war - the French are reluctant to accept this term.
In Bosnia, the command and control, doubled between the UN and national decision has created a mess, according to pilots who participated in the operation. For example, France has never authorized the shooting at helicopters, even though the command of the operation ordered him. In Iraq, American and British pilots could shoot a hostile aircraft with the approval of one authority, the French would have a double green light.
Why is it major surgery? Establish a no-fly zone requires considerable means, because his credibility is on his permanent night and day: she claims many fighter planes, air refueling tankers, detection systems. We need ground radar, or if it is not possible (this is the case of Libya), surveillance aircraft like AWACS.
Only three countries have mainly: the United States, the United Kingdom and France. It must then agree on systems to identify, classify aircraft ("uncertain", "suspect", "hostile") and, finally, the intercept. In Kosovo, there are six squads of five fighters who flew 24 hours over 24 for 78 days.
Without refueling U.S., French and British could not take that level of commitment. Is it effective? The disproportion of forces can make you doubt. In Kosovo, the allies showed 1,000 trips per day aircraft, against five times less for Serbian opponents. Two Serb aircraft violating the exclusion zone have been slaughtered.
Six in Bosnia. But in Iraq, the protection zone has allowed the return of Kurdish refugees in the country. In Libya, applications are part of the regime's opponents face the bombing charged into crowds of demonstrators. Nathalie Guibert
No comments:
Post a Comment