UN no-fly zone over Libya: what does it mean?

Security Council votes to take “all necessary measures” to protect civilians. We look at the implica


The United Nations Security Council has voted in favour of a resolution to impose a no-fly zone on Libya. Here is a guide to exactly what this means.

What has been agreed?

The resolution (full text here) authorises member states to "take all necessary measures" to "protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack", in particular Benghazi, the rebel stronghold in the east of the country, which is mentioned by name.

It also calls for an immediate ceasefire, an end to the violence, measures to make it more difficult for foreign mercenaries to get into Libya and a tightening of sanctions.

What does this mean in practice?

The resolution would permit air strikes on Libyan ground troops or allow attacks on Libyan warships if they were attacking civilians.

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said a no-fly zone would "require certain actions taken to protect the planes and the pilots, including bombing targets like the Libyan defence systems".

While three air strikes were reported on the outskirts of Benghazi on Thursday, including at the airport, as well as another air raid further south, the dictator's troops have largely been relying on tanks and other ground forces during assaults on the rebels. UN planes could also attempt to bomb tanks and artillery, but unless they have very specific information, this risks causing rather than preventing civilian casualties.

When will action be taken?

According to the French prime minister, François Fillon, military action could begin "within hours". Throughout the past few weeks, France has been an advocate of more aggressive action in Libya.

Despite Fillon's assertion that "time is of the essence", a US military official has said that no immediate US action is expected.

No 10 sources have refused to put a timetable on British military engagement. Reportedly, the British Ministry of Defence is still finalising contingency plans. RAF ground attack aircraft are ready to be mobilised, and should be in action within days. According to analysts at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), Britain and France could operate a limited no-fly zone over Benghazi with little or no US support.

Ahmed el-Gallal, a Libyan opposition co-ordinator, said he hoped that the resolution would be enforced "immediately".

Which countries are involved?

The UN resolution was co-sponsored by Britain, France and Lebanon, with the US heavily involved in the drafting, and was passed by 10 votes to 0, with five countries abstaining, including Russia, China and Germany.

Calls for a no-fly zone have been led by Britain and France, and these two countries are likely to take the lead at least initially. As mentioned above, they could have sufficient military capability to mount a limited no-fly zone should the US choose not to get involved, though this may not have the desired impact on Muammar al-Gaddafi's crackdown.

Many western countries have significant military assets nearby, including aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean, a large US airbase in Italy and a large British airbase in Cyprus.

Arab League and Gulf states have warships and fighter plans, but the extent of their involvement is as yet unclear. Reportedly two Arab nations have promised to take part in intervention, though it is not clear which countries. This could take the form of opening airspace, intercepting Libyan shipping, or contributing their own strike aircraft.

Canada has said it will send warplanes to help enforce the resolution. Nato would have to meet before committing any forces.

Why has it been passed now?

Gaddafi's forces have recently retaken several towns seized by rebels during the uprising, and are advancing on the stronghold of Benghazi. Without foreign intervention, the rebels could be crushed by the weekend.

While David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy have been calling for a no-fly zone for days, the US getting behind the plan was key to it passing. After weeks of stalling, Washington backed the resolution, following calls for a no-fly zone by the Arab League at the weekend. This call for foreign intervention is unprecendented. It is a significant change in strategy for the US, which depends on any action being multilateral rather than US-led.

Another diplomatic shift that was key to the vote passing was the abstention of countries that do not favour military action. It was feared earlier that China and Russia would exercise their right of veto.

Will it stop Gaddafi?

The colonel's son Saif has been quoted this morning as saying that Libya is "not afraid" of UN-backed action. Saif called the vote a sign of "flagrant colonisation" and warned of dire consequences. "This is craziness, madness, arrogance," he told the Portuguese TV channel RTP. "If the world gets crazy with us, we will get crazy, too. We will respond."

Speaking on the Today programme, Libya's rebel deputy envoy to the UN, Ibrahim Dabashi, expressed doubt that the international intervention would change the situation on the ground.

As we have already seen, Gaddafi will not go down without a fight.

Is it likely to escalate into full-blown war?

It is entirely possible that Gaddafi will retaliate. In a statement broadcast on Libyan television, the defence ministry said: "Any foreign military act against Libya will expose all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean Sea to danger and civilian and military [facilities] will become targets of Libya's counterattack." As mentioned above, several western countries have military assets nearby.

However, the UN resolution specifically rules out sending a foreign occupation force into any part of Libya. A ground intervention would require a second resolution to be passed.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

Calais Jungle: What will happen to child refugees when they leave?

Hundreds of unaccompanied child asylum seekers are being taken to Britain where they face an uncertain future.

Hundreds of unaccompanied child asylum seekers are being taken to Britain, moved from a camp in Calais, northern France, as its closure begins. There were 387 unaccompanied minors in the French refugee camp known as “the Jungle” with links to the UK and they are arriving in England in groups of 70.

Upon arrival, the children are taken to a secure unit for 72 hours, before being reunited with families already living in the UK. They are from a group of more than 1,000 children who have been living in the camp in recent weeks. And now, some of those without links to Britain, but who are regarded as particularly vulnerable, are now also being taken across the English Channel.

The youngsters were granted asylum under the Dublin Regulation. The children’s move to Britain has stalled twice already, over delays in accommodation and establishing proof of age. Migrant children have been subjected to intense media scrutiny upon arrival in recent weeks. Calls for dental checks to verify the true ages of youngsters who looked older were called for, but the UK government branded such a practice as “unethical”.

For a long time, the minors living in the camp faced an uncertain future, but the move to take some children to the UK signals a change of tack by the British and French governments. Britain has been criticised for its lack of humanity, but it now seems that the pleas of these children at least have been heard.

Impact of war

While the youngsters may have escaped serious physical injury, the conflicts in the Middle East will have taken a psychological toll on them. Living in the midst of war, many have witnessed unspeakable horror, losing family members in brutal circumstances. Consequently these youngsters are now incredibly vulnerable to mental illness, with research indicating that more than 80 per cent are likely to develop issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

It is important to remember a child’s trauma extends far beyond the experiences that resulted in them fleeing their homes. The children going to the UK now endured prolonged exposure to stress-inducing conditions in the Calais camp, and will now need to adjust to their new cultural surroundings.

War directly affects millions of children everyday. Exposure to conflict and acts of terrorism can lead to the development of acute or chronic stress reactions. Research also indicates that the psychological impact of war on children is likely to have long-term effects – they don’t simply “grow out” of their stress-related symptoms. Continued exposure to traumatic events, as these children have experienced, carries a cumulative impact too, that can worsen the severity of post-traumatic symptoms.

Funding challenge

The children going to Britain will need the right sort of trauma-based therapeutic support so they can successfully move forward before chronic conditions take hold. However, mental health services in the UK are desperately underfunded. More than 850,000 children and young people have a diagnosable mental health disorder, and half of all lifetime cases of mental illness begin by the age of 14. But just seven per cent of the total mental health budget is allocated to child and adolescent mental health services, with one in five young people refused treatment because they do not meet the criteria for care.

A recent poll of specialist nurses found 70 per cent thought child and adolescent mental health services in England were inadequate due to historic under-investment. The government is under growing pressure to invest more, and it is hoped that the arrival of these children will see additional money allocated to the services. When, or even if, this will happen, remains unclear.

Post-traumatic growth

While many of these children are likely to suffer form long-lasting psychological symptoms, there is a possibility that some may emerge stronger than they are now, benefiting in some way from the experience resulting in positive post-traumatic growth, or PTG. PTG is possible in children who have been affected by war trauma, particularly if they are young, as they are more open to learning and change. Interestingly, research has revealed that even the negative aspects of PTSD do not “block” growth when children are placed in a supportive environment – found to be the most conducive thing for PTG.

Receiving the proper social support will play an important role in helping these children deal with the psychological effects of war trauma. The complex situation that the young and unaccompanied migrants have faced calls for help that addresses both the trauma and grief, and will secure continuity in their new lives in the UK.

Losing loved ones is just one of many extremely traumatic experiences these children may have faced, and it could prove quite difficult to disentangle the effect of the loss from other stresses and changes. Time does not simply heal the long lasting scars of prolonged stress that they have experienced. However, it is vital that society does not write these children off as ill or broken. With the right support they can lead full lives and make strong contributions in their new homes.

Leanne K Simpson, PhD Candidate, School of Psychology | Institute for the Psychology of Elite Performance, Bangor University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.