Does the coalition go beyond the nails of the UN resolution?
(BRUXELLES2/Analyse) This is the main accusation made by the African Union, and certain Arab and European countries (Germany in particular) on the military action developed in Libya. By hitting targets, the coalition would have exceeded the role assigned to it by the UN resolution. Point of view which is not really confirmed if one reads well the resolution 1973 of UNO.
Two different goals
The resolution establishes two objectives which are the subject of two different paragraphs: “protection of civilians” and “no-fly zone” which appear in different paragraphs. The protection of civilians makes it possible to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and areas of civilian populations under threat of attack in Libya, including Benghazi ". While the "No Fly Zone" allows UN member states to take " all necessary measures to enforce this prohibition and prevent air attacks against the civilian population”.
Clearly the action carried out by the Rafale on the first day, March 19, meets the first objective. While the strikes then carried out by the Americans and British with the Tomawakh responded more to the second objective.
A broad mode of action
If we take the no-fly zone, it can conventionally be set up in two ways: either only by intervention after the fact – when the plane is out – with interception or even destruction of the aircraft in flight; or by prior destruction of all air defenses and all aircraft. The danger of this method is the possible collateral damage. But the first method, "soft" in appearance, can turn out to be just as deadly: for the plane responsible for enforcing the no-fly zone, as for the populations who are below the exchange. The resolution allows both methods to be used.
The mode of action chosen by the UN resolution is indeed very broad, whether it concerns the No Fly Zone or the protection of civilians. It allows the use of all " necessary measures to the objective pursued. And provides not only defensive actions (after an attack) but preventive actions (before an attack).
No occupying force but...
The prohibition of an occupying force has often been interpreted as a prohibition of presence on the ground. However, nothing is planned in this way. This action being under chapter VII, nothing prohibits a priori the deployment of a force of the UN intended to protect the civilians or rather of fixers intended to guide the planes in charge of making respect the Non Fly zone.
Read also: