The West is stepping up their pressure on President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Humanitarian concerns including the alleged use of chemical weapons against his own people and the current”no-end-in-sight” scenario have made the United States and the European Union look for alternatives to diplomacy and sanctions. President Obama has reportedly asked the Pentagon to draw up plans for a no-fly zone (NFZ) over Syria which would be enforced by NATO.
Precedents
A NFZ was used most recently in Libya in order to protect civilians from violence during the uprising against former dictator Muammar Qaddaffi and previously in Iraq and Bosnia. In both Bosnia and Libya a NFZ was the result of a resolution of the UN Security Council.
Pros and Cons
Pros
Proponents of a NFZ in Syria look to the example set by the success of the mission in Libya where it helped the opposition topple the Qaddaffi regime.
According to Amnesty the Syrian regime began resorting to air bombardments as a strategy in August 2012. Since then air strikes have increased and have been systematically focused on towns under opposition control. The attacks have seldom targeted opposition forces’ positions and have instead struck residential areas, killing civilians not involved in the conflict and raising calls for the international community’s responsibility to protect the Syrian people. Further, a NFZ would impair the regime’s current air superiority and might also be used as leverage when negotiating with President Assad.
Cons
Sceptics such as US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey warn that Syria is not Libya; while Libya’s air defence systems were substandard Syria’s are much better developed. According to US Senator John McCain who is a proponent of a NFZ a realistic plan “would include hundreds of planes, and would be most effective if it included destroying Syrian airplanes on runways.” Thus, it would require an aggressive operation and the alleged presence of Russian anti-air missiles only increases the dangers of imposing a NFZ. Additionally, there is no clear consensus either within the EU or between it and Washington of what an end result ought to look like and what a NFZ should entail; whether it is used as a deterrent or as a prelude to other military operations. Furthermore, with Russia averse to helping or arming the opposition, the UNSC is unlikely to support a resolution calling for a NFZ in Syria.
Apart from the natural risk of casualties in any military mission Dempsey warns of Syrian actions outside its borders, be it asymmetric attacks against or the launching of long range missiles against neighbours such as Turkey and Israel.
International Context
Currently, most analysts believe that both the end of the EU arms-embargo and the threat of a NFZ are mechanisms used to put pressure on the Syrian regime in possible peace negotiations. However, if peace negotiations come to naught and a NFZ is authorised it would include not only the US, the UK and France but other key regional players such as Turkey and Jordan; if a NFZ is established the US is likely to place Patriot missiles in Turkey and use bases in Jordan for search-and-rescue missions. The Arab League is supportive of the Syrian opposition and the Syrian National Council has called for a NFZ to be installed in northern Syria. International involvement is therefore unlikely to be viewed as western interventionism.
Turkey has called for a NFZ in Syria but has affirmed that it is up to the UNSC to decide whether to establish a NFZ. Russia on the other hand is calling ideas of humanitarian corridors and a NFZ “destructive” but agrees that a NFZ can only be approved by the UNSC.
The EU Foreign Affairs Council lifted its arms embargo last week but has not yet voted or spoken out regarding a NFZ. However, theEuropean Council recognises the SNC as legitimate representatives of the Syrian people and France, the UK, and Denmark recognise the SNC as “sole legitimate representative” and individual MEPs have repeatedly called for a NFZ.
Further reading
Lessons from Iraq and Bosnia on the Theory and Practice of No-fly Zones
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1116005
No-Fly Zones: Strategic, Operational, and Legal Considerations for Congress
[…] External rules. The Millennium Development Goals beyond 2015 were not only of concern to MEPs this week, they are also relevant to Mali. The country has entered a phase of reconstruction and democratisation. Their fight against corruption is an important element, as our keysource on Corruption and developing countries shows. On current events, we published a summary on a Potential No-Fly Zone Over Syria. […]
Hope common sense prevails. Just look how Russians, Hez, Iran are reacting to ANY action West is doing right now.
So far they are responding to need to basis.
Syria is NOT Libya is true to every word. In fact Syria is Syria/Hezbollah/Iran?Russia … and if West has appetite for WWIII then please do a NFZ because Iran , Hez and Russia cannot afford Syria to fall. The war will spread right from ME to Afganistan as all know that the NWO cannot pass through Syria which is the red line. It would be for Nato a war too far.
This is the reason why Obama is not authorising it in spite of UK and France(both irresponsible nations , calling for it.
He would be committing his biggest mistake of his Presidential term if he does.
The West started it (No Saudi or Qatar dare to act without Nato’s backing) and it is the West should withdraw for any possible conclusion of this war.
Frankly other than planes what can the west offer ? Ground troops to fight in ME where Iran with millions of fighters of Hezbollah class all ready to flood the entire ME with Iraq participating? Lebanon 2006 showed 3,000 hez able to withstand 30,000 Israelis with all the modern gadgets.
The west will get the worst taste of defeat that is for sure.