Idiot Wind: No Fly Zones

No Fly Zones

The purposes of No Fly Zones when created in 1991 under UN resolution 688 were to protect the Kurbs in northern Iraq and to safeguard the coalition aircraft during the airdrops of aid to Kurdish refugees on the Turkish border. More aggressive “patrolling” of the no-fly zones was ordered in 1998 by the Clinton administration to effect the so-called “enhanced containment” of Iraq. This allowed US pilots to strike at any part of the Iraqi air defense system, not just those that directly target their aircraft. The British government subsequently achnowleged for the first time in 1999 that the changes affected their pilots as well.

The irony of these no-fly zones is that they provide only grounds for provocation (from either sides) and achieve next to nothing about the protection of civilians. As early as 1994, the US State Department’s annual report on the human rights situation in Iraq acknowledged that, although the no-fly zone prevented aerial attacks on the southern marshes, it did not prevent artillery attacks or other army actions. By the end of 1996, the same source noted that civilians were not protected from ground attack in either zone.

The intensified low-level warfare conducted by US and UK in recent months has little to do with the protection of civilians - the prime objective of the no-fly zones. Neither does it help convince the international communities that it is peace or disarmment that the US and UK government are after.

More recently, blinded by his eagerness for WAR, the Bush administration stands out to be the only one in the 15-member Security Couucil insisting that the no-fly zones are included in UN Resolution 1441 and that firing on the aircraft policing the two zones is a “material breach” - a pre-condition imposed by UN for an invasion.

Similarly as blinded, the UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw released a dossier today which apart from being old news and generally considered part of a propaganda war to back up the case for possible U.S.-led military action in Iraq, demonstrates (at best) a lack of strategic thinking if peace and disarmment is what he is after.

No, I don’t think to be late is necessary wrong. I question the wisdom of releasing a document (of old news) at a critical time when we are in the process of disarming Saddam. While the weapon inspectors seem to be doing fine in Iraq (so far) and Saddam’s continual co-operation is needed for a successful implementation of disarment and elimination of WMD, is it wise to tell Saddam that - “Look here Saddam, you have a deplorable track record of human rights violations, even if we cannot find any breaches about WMD, we will still get you and put you to trial in an international court for breach of your international obligations in human rights.”

Hey Jack, let’s say you want one of your kids to quit smoking and as an incentive, you tell him that if he doesn’t quit, you will reduce his weekly pocket money (no point giving him money to buy something that will eventually kill him). Now your kid is thinking, assessing the consequences. Before he comes back to you with an answer, you tell him that you are going to reduce his pocket moeny because you had caught him drinking in a pub two years’ ago when he was only 14. Nice tactic there Jack!

Posted on December 2, 2002 10:04 PM
Categories: General ,The Ugly

Trackback

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.hollymolly.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/126

Comments