Malta’s lukewarm approach to the imposition of a no-fly zone on Libya to stymie the forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi reflects the international community’s cautious sentiment, according to analysts.
Foreign Minister Tonio Borg on Thursday expressed reservations on the imposition of a no-fly zone even if this was to be under a UN mandate. The Constitution bars Malta from participating in any military action unless it is sanctioned by the UN.
Such caution is, however, understandable, according to Mediterranean international relations analyst Stephen Calleya. Despite the gradual escalation of violence in Libya over the past four weeks since the start of the revolt, he said, the international community remained very cautious. Russia and China, permanent members of the Security Council, are against the imposition of a no-fly zone.
However, according to a former military expert who preferred to remain unnamed, it would be difficult for Malta to turn down requests for help if a no-fly zone was imposed by the UN, even if it was up to sovereign states to decide on their participation.
The scenario changes in the unlikely event that some countries decide to impose a no-fly zone without UN approval.
“If there is a coalition of the willing to go ahead without a UN mandate, it would be sensible and prudent for Malta not to involve itself on the basis of constitutional neutrality and because of its relationship and proximity to Libya,” he said.
Intervention by the West remains highly controversial though, with Prof. Calleya pointing out that ordinary Libyans do not want external military intervention.
“Any intervention by the West could be equivalent to pouring cold water on the Arab spring and so all ramifications of military intervention should be evaluated.”
A no-fly zone would seek to ground the Libyan regime’s fighter jets, preventing them from being used against the rebels. However, its implementation is not straightforward and US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has already warned it would entail the bombing of air defence structures, radars and airports to make it an effective strategy.
According to the military expert who spoke to this newspaper, a no-fly zone was operationally akin to “the beginnings of a war”.
Given the past experience with no-fly zones in Iraq after the first Gulf War and Bosnia in the early 1990s, which did little to stop people being killed by ground troops, doubts have been raised about the effectiveness of a no-fly zone on Libya.
However, the expert insisted a no-fly zone with selected bombing targets could help bring about a level playing field for the rebels.
“A no-fly zone would enable the rebel forces to fight back because at the moment they are totally outgunned and they don’t stand a chance,” he said.
Whether it would be implemented, he added, was a totally different story, especially after the Iraq invasion sucked the British and Americans into a quagmire.
His sentiments are reflected by Prof. Calleya, who insisted that any military intervention would have to have an exit strategy. “It is very easy to argue for a no-fly zone but it depends on what shape it takes. The clean surgical ‘let’s put up a few planes and fly a few Awacs’ attitude may make way for more complicated scenarios and, like in all military operations, the West would have to agree on an exit strategy.”
Another question that would be lingering in military planners’ minds would be one of resources given that Nato is already deployed in Afghanistan and the US in Iraq.
Will this be a case of sitting on the fence until things sort themselves out?
“When I see the atrocities on television I get very emotional, as it should be, but when it comes to taking specific action you have to take into consideration who is going to take the action, what they are currently doing and what the ramifications will be,” Prof. Calleya said, adding that if Col Gaddafi did deliver on the threat to wage all-out war on the rebels the international community would have to react.