Libya: NATO Selectively Enforcing No-Fly-Zone

[spanish_emperor]

Libya: NATO Selectively Enforcing No-Fly-Zone

Posted on Monday, July 18, 2011
by Micah Zenko
Canadian F-18 war planes (L) wait to refuel from a British VC-10 tanker aircraft over the Mediterranean Sea off Libya July 10, 2011. Seven countries, including Britain, have provided air tankers to sustain the NATO air mission over Libya, which is now in its fourth month. Picture taken through an aircraft window on July 10, 2011. REUTERS/David Brunnstrom (BELGIUM - Tags: MILITARY CONFLICT TRANSPORT)

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) assumed command and control over the western-led intervention in the Libyan civil war four months ago with three stated military missions: enforce an arms embargo, enforce a no-fly-zone, and protect civilians and civilian populated areas.
As I have noted often on this blog, NATO has selectively enforced the arms embargo by looking the other way when the rebels were caught red handed violating it. Furthermore, after NATO ally France was exposed by Le Figaro for violating the arms embargo by air-dropping rocket launchers, machine guns, and anti-tank grendaes to Libyan rebels, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen responded: “I don’t consider the so-called arms drop a problem.” Alliance spokesperson Oana Lungescu added, despite all public evidence to the contrary, that “the arms embargo is effective.”
Now, there is growing evidence that NATO is also selectively enforcing the no-fly-zone over Libya. The international mandate for NATO’s intervention is UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973, the latter of which establishes “a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians.”
Last Wednesday, an unnamed Financial Times reporter wrote: “Supplies to the Nafusa region have to be brought in on long road journeys from neighbouring Tunisia, although there is also an aircraft that comes from Benghazi.” Indeed, Ali Tarhouni, the Oil and Finance Minister of the rebels’ National Transitional Council, was on-hand to celebrate what was the third no-fly-zone violation from this airport (For a photograph of an Air Libya plane taking off from the Rhebat Airfield in Benghazi, see here).
On Thursday, without pointing out that the alliance was actually not enforcing a no-fly-zone, William Booth of the Washington Post added: “Although NATO enforces a no-fly-zone over Libya, it appears to allow rebel flights that shuttle personnel, food, medicine — and allegedly some weapons and communications equipment.”
UN Security Council Resolution 1973 contains an important caveat: it does not apply to humanitarian flights, “such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance.”
However, Libyan rebels acknowledge that these flights are being used for military purposes, in clear violation of the resolution. “The importance of this airport is bringing humanitarian aid and military supplies for our rebel brothers… in the Nafusa Mountains,” said Mohammed al-Bujdidi, a rebel commander near the airport. This is consistent with countless reports of a rebel tactic for smuggling weapons into Libya—namely within supposed humanitarian aid shipments.
Furthermore, the Libyan rebels have a small number of MIG-21 fighter aircraft that have flown within the supposed no-fly-zones. Three armed MIG-21s were photographed in late June flying in formation over the Benina Airport, and a video of a rebel’s armed fighter jet being serviced before takeoff is available here.
The truth of NATO’s intended strategic objective in Libya was articulated with rare candor last week by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: “The objective is to do what we can to bring down the regime of [Libyan leader Muammar] Qaddafi.” Increasingly, and more overtly, the three military missions that NATO claims to be conducting in Libya are being utilized in a coordinated effort to remove Qaddafi from power. As a local rebel commander in Libya’s western mountains told CBS Evening News on Friday: “When we get permission from NATO we will advance forward.”

comments?

[charles the hammer]

The No fly zone was an obvious attempt to get a UN mandate to help the rebels so enforcing it on them is counterproductive?

[spanish_emperor]

The No fly zone was an obvious attempt to get a UN mandate to help the rebels so enforcing it on them is counterproductive?

No, it was a mandate to protect civilians. They were all supposed to remain neutral

[charles the hammer]

No, it was a mandate to protect civilians. They were all supposed to remain neutral

We both know you dont for a second believe that.

[spanish_emperor]

We both know you dont for a second believe that.

Show me where it says the nations can interfere in the war, provide arms or assist the rebels? The whole point of the intervention was to minimize casualties as both sides negotiated for a peace deal.

Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians

We also must remember that when the mandate was put in place, we all thought they were all innocent civilians and that it was not a civil war, otherwise they would have mentioned the rebels as well.

[hellheaven1987]

We both know you dont for a second believe that.

Unfortunately with black ink on white paper there is no excuse of violating UN Resolution 1970 and 1973, especially those terms were first written down by the very members violating them now.

Shame on West, that is all I can say (but then West has a lot of members that are shameless).

[gradeAhaze]

I'm sorry but i just don't think any country besides Libya and the Libyan people should be involved in this current situation. The U.S. said that they "would not have boots on the ground" here but they have 2200 marines on the ground there. Bombing raids have also been carried out by U.S. Canada and France. If you ask me, the problem in Libya is more of a civil dispuute between the people and their dictator. Yes he has done some terrible things, but I really don't see how it concerns us. Let them have a civil war and fight for there freedom, if they lose and MoKhad does some crazier things than he has already done and it starts to effect other countries in the region, then maybe step in. I don't see why we(U.S.) and other western countries see the need to police the world.

Yemen(a harbor for terrorism and many recent terror plots in U.S.) is having a similar situation along with Syria. If anything I feel these two countries should be the main point of concern to the West along with Saudi Arabia.(major oil) The Saudi People are seeing what is happening in these other countries and if that country loses stability it could mean greater problems for the world as we know it than having some witless powerless dictator destroy his own country in Libya.

[spanish_emperor]

oops, this was supposed to be in one of the other numerous libya threads. Please move.

[spanish_emperor]

Personally, i would applaud the interference if it were actually a humanitarian intervention; something it is not.

[Plan C]

Are you guys all nuts? Three posts in a row, all in agreement? Well, here's fourth.

We should not take sides in a civil war. If we do, then tax payers need to know why, specifically. And "because it's the right thing to do" does not cut it.

[legate]

If the rebels advance on tripoli and there is threat of a bloodbath, will NATO attack the rebels?

[Plan C]

If the rebels advance on tripoli and there is threat of a bloodbath, will NATO attack the rebels?

UN resolution 1970 suggests they must.

[legate]

UN resolution 1970 suggests they must.

Well I would hope so. I was reading an article either in the Guardian or Daily Telegraph which was about graves of mutilated gaddaffi soldiers. Its clear both sides are not exactly showing a good example.

Theres really not much NATO can do from the air if the was to really hit the fan.

[Oklop]

If the rebels advance on tripoli and there is threat of a bloodbath, will NATO attack the rebels?

Certanly not. The rebels will never fire indiscriminately on civilians. Even thought they are from different clans, one supporting Gaddafy and the other hating him for favoring his clan over theirs.

They love democracy and freedom

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Certanly not. The rebels will never fire indiscriminately on civilians. Even thought they are from different clans, one supporting Gaddafy and the other hating him for favoring his clan over theirs.

They love democracy and freedom

Wondering whether naive as a child or simply sarcastic...

[removeduser_4536284751384]

We should not take sides in a civil war. If we do, then tax payers need to know why, specifically. And "because it's the right thing to do" does not cut it.

Libya has been responsible for an awful lot of terrorist attacks on Europe. Lockerbie was a direct attack on a US airliner over UK airspace on the direct orders of Gaddafi. He supported every terror organisation going, including the IRA.
Not to mention the effect this crisis has on the price of oil, and the knock-on effect that has on so many other goods and services.

[Imperial]

L
Not to mention the effect this crisis has on the price of oil, and the knock-on effect that has on so many other goods and services.

TBH, the crisis would have been over by now if NATO never got involved.

[legate]

NATO involvment has prolonged the conflict which may result in more deaths in the long run. Anyone know if DU munitions are being used?

[Poach]

We're in this war to help the Rebels topple Gaddafi, it would be rather counterproductive to prevent arms reaching them or to prevent their air movements.

[legate]

We're in this war to help the Rebels topple Gaddafi, it would be rather counterproductive to prevent arms reaching them or to prevent their air movements.

Even if they were commiting attrocities?