The noise was as sudden as it was deafening. In shocked surprise I looked upwards to see two MiG fighters powering low over my head. As I watched, the Bosnian Serb jets flew up the valley and were gone in seconds. I was on the front line near Turbe in central Bosnia in 1993.
The jet’s timing was exquisite. As the local UN commander, I was discussing the no-fly zone in the skies above with a Bosnian Serb colonel. The zone had been introduced a few months earlier but I had seen little evidence of it in practice. The colonel had just told me that it would have no effect on his operations. I disagreed. He won, by way of practical demonstration. I just felt a mug.
In truth not only were vast areas of the Balkans hidden from our radar coverage but Bosnian Serb aircraft could fly provided they didn’t go above 20,000ft. That gave them a significant amount of scope to attack whatever target they wished and I knew it — whatever I argued publicly. We were not prepared to bring down Bosnian Serb aircraft, helicopters or even attack anti-aircraft missile batteries. This made a mockery of what the no-fly zone was supposed to achieve.
Clearly comparing the situation in Libya with Bosnia is imperfect but we should learn from our Balkans experience. To my mind an effective no-fly zone has to satisfy several clear conditions. It should be established by the highest international authority, which means a UN Security Council resolution. But Security Council decision-making often occurs at the speed of a striking slug and coalition building is slow.
If the US is prepared to lead — and the Obama Administration does not seem keen — any action will most certainly require others, not just the UK and France, to make a firm commitment as well. Other European nations must step up to the plate too.
Advertisement
Together with the French, British diplomats are preparing for that right now — and I have no doubt that the corridors around the offices of the Russian and Chinese delegations must be a hive of activity. But we should beware of a resolution hobbled by the realities of UN superpower politics. A resolution that allows for an exclusion zone, but not for military strikes to make it work, would be the worst possible outcome.
Naturally Nato operational planners are making contingency plans too. Some suggest that Nato could go it alone without a Security Council resolution; this would be a mistake. A Security Council resolution gives the ultimate political top-cover.
That resolution must accept that we will have to be prepared to neutralise Libyan ground-to-air missile batteries or even to bring down aircraft and helicopters that contravene it at whatever height they fly. But this means accepting two things: that civilians will probably die, and that striking the sovereign territory of a nation state is an act of war in normal circumstances.
Any no-fly zone requires airborne warning aircraft and fighter-attack aircraft to operate against both air and land targets, flying tankers and bases within a reasonable distance of Libya. Only the US has that capability and it will not be easy. Tripoli is at least 1,000 miles from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus and even closer air bases, say in Malta, Italy or Greece, are hardly next door.
A no-fly zone also crucially requires the support of those that it is intended to protect: the Libyan people. The Libyan opposition has been clear. Up until now it has not wanted any foreign involvement in the form of combat boots in Libya but yesterday in Brussels a leading opposition figure called for a no-fly zone. That support may well increase in proportion to large civilian casualties over the coming days or weeks.
Advertisement
Neither must the attitude of other Arab countries be ignored. Many of their autocratic rulers are in varying degrees of shock at the sheer speed and scale with which popular protests have swept the region. They face a dilemma. If they give support to the Gaddafi regime they lay themselves open to opposition on their streets. If Arab states turn against Gaddafi and he clings on to power they will have to deal with him regardless.
Even several of my more pacific constituents have already contacted me demanding that we take immediate and direct action to stop Gaddafi’s massacres. When images of atrocities and the like are beamed directly into sitting rooms it has an immediate impact but public opinion can be fickle. I’m not convinced that we have the stomach for another foreign adventure, especially if ordinary Libyans are killed because of US or UK action.
Imposing a no-fly zone is certainly no easy task. But for me the nightmare scenario occurs if Gaddafi manages to overcome his opposition. How would the West be viewed for encouraging anti-Gaddafi forces then? I recall a previous example of failed Western policy after the Gulf War. We encouraged the Marsh Arabs to rise up against Saddam Hussein’s rule. They did just that but then we stood idly by as Saddam smashed them to bits. Surely that cannot happen again?
Colonel Bob Stewart is Conservative MP for Beckenham and former commander of UN forces in Bosnia, 1992-93