No-fly Zone is Intervening

Over the last few weeks, as the crisis in Libya is fast taking on the visages of civil war, the international community - or to be more precise, the Western World - has been considering how to respond. Sanctions have already been imposed, refugees aided and the forces of stern rethoric deployed. Yet, as Colonel Gaddafi has no intention of leaving his bedouin tent any time soon, the debates are centering on whether to intervene militarily. In an earlier post, I dismissed the possibility and beneficial results of foreign military action, but Western leaders - whether from the UK, US or EU - do not share my negative outlook on the principle. What we do share are doubts about the problems of actually intervening in practice, if only because the UN Security Council is unlikely to sanction such a move.

What seems most likely, at the moment, and if any military operation is to take place at all, is for the UN to give the green light to the imposition of a no-fly zone in Libya to prevent Col. Gaddafi ordering his air force to bombard civilians. This option was muted by David Cameron some weeks ago and then quietly withdrawn as the US would not support the suggestion, saying that for it to be successful, a no-fly zone would have to be supported by ground forces. But now Dr. Liam Fox, the British defence secretary has again voiced British proposals, saying

rather than "taking out" air defences in a pre-emptive strike, Nato leaders could say that, if an enemy locked its air defence radar on Nato planes, they could "regard that as a hostile action and take subsequent action".
He added: "That's one military option but there are other military options that we have used."

Dr. Fox seems to suggest that a no-fly zone would be an action short of military intervention. If this is indeed what he is saying than he appears to be living in a fantasy world - harsh terms, I know, but appropriate - where a man as clearly deranged as Muammar Gaddafi will not provoke the forces enforcing the zone by ordering his own planes into the air, or will desist from placing his anti-air batteries in civilian-populated areas. In the event of the former, enforcing planes would have to engage Libyan aircraft, as clear a military action as any in my book. In the event of the latter scenario, taking out those batteries would without the slightest doubt result in civilian casualties, giving Col. Gaddafi a much needed excuse to excoriate the West. To prevent atrocious numbers of casualties would require ground forces to coordinate airstrikes.

So a no-fly zone is an intervention by its very nature and we should not go down that path, as even Dr. Fox agrees. A civil war is a matter of internal sovereignty and until it spills over into other countries or affects British citizens, Britain has no right to intervene. Col. Gaddafi recognises this and it is indicative that when a BBC team was detained in Libya, the only one of the three reporters who was not physically assaulted was the one British citizen, as this would have given Britain an excuse to press for intervention.

One other way to gain the right to intervene is to take the step France took today to recognise the rebels as the legitimate government of Libya. This would give the rebels the sovereign power to ask for foreign military assistance.

The Gathering Storm on the Korean Peninsula

Today's shelling of a South Korean military base and surrounding civilian areas by North Korea can hardly have escaped anyone's notice. It is the last in a series of provocative actions by the communist Hermit Kingdom, which so far have consisted of cross-border exchanges of rifle fire and the torpedoeing of a South Korean naval vessel. In light of this, it is not unreasonable for the South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak to call for a stern - and possibly armed - response:

"Reckless attacks on South Korean civilians are not tolerable, especially when South Korea is providing North Korea with humanitarian aid," ... "As for such attacks on civilians, a response beyond the rule of engagement is necessary. Our military should show this through action rather than an administrative response" ... "Given that North Korea maintains an offensive posture, I think the Army, the Navy and the Air Force should unite and retaliate against (the North's) provocation with multiple-fold firepower," Lee said. "I think enormous retaliation is going to be necessary to make North Korea incapable of provoking us again."

Indeed, to attack a country's military infrastructure, not to mention the indiscriminate nature of the attack which did nothing to avoid civilian targets, is an act of war. Although in this case it is perhaps nothing more then a simple resumption of hostilities, since North and South Korea are still formally at war, the current situation being nothing more than a decades-long truce.

Nevertheless, South Korea should be aware that every response needs to be in line with the prescribed notions of just intentions, just conduct and proportionality under the just war theory. Furthermore, going to war with North Korea is not as easy as it should be considering the North's economic woes and the ongoing famine there. According to this Wikipedia article their armed forces consist of - if one includes reserves - almost 10 million men. Of course, North Korea also possesses at least a few nuclear weapons, which I don't doubt they will use as a last resort. And then there's China, which might or might not act in support of its erstwhile allies. All this should give South Korea pause and food for thought. Can they win a renewed armed conflict with their communist neighbours? If they, even for a second, believe the answer is no, then perhaps they should not start it in the first place. If, on the other hand, South Korea answers yes to this question, then today's attack is reason enough to go on the offensive. After all, given South Korea's overwhelming technological advantage, even the numerical imbalance between the sizes of the two armies should not be too insurmountable a problem.

As an aside, what does this potential conflict mean for Britain's decision to scrap its aircraft carriers? Con Coughlin writes the following in his Telegraph blog:

This morning’s deeply worrying eruption of hostilities between North and South Korea shows just how quickly conflicts can arise, and underlines the importance of having a carrier strike capability to respond to them.
Whenever Tony Blair was faced with an international crisis, his first question was invariably, “Where’s the carrier?” Gen Richards was himself a beneficiary of the protection afforded by carriers when he commanded the British military contingent that was sent by Mr Blair to intervene in Sierra Leone’s bloody civil war.
But if tensions on the Korean peninsula boiled over to the point where Mr Cameron felt obliged to intervene, he would find his military options were severely limited following what now looks increasingly like his reckless decision to scrap Ark Royal and her Harriers.

Indeed, in this case, an aircraft carrier in the area would have given Britain the choice of whether to put pressure on North Korea or, in the event of war, to at least back up South Korea. The presence of Britain and the United States in the area would also mean that China would have more to consider than its relations with South Korea and Japan should the Middle Kingdom intervene. It might even lead China to abandon the hepless North so as not to damage economic relations with the US, Britain, and through the latter, Europe. It is not to late for David Cameron to reconsider the scrapping of the carriers. HMS Ark Royals is still under sail and can be despatched to the Far East within days.

Defence cuts: Money or Military Judgement?

In an earlier post I argued that spending cuts should never be justified solely on the basis of saving money. Any cut should serve to streamline government, do away with non-essential assets or improve services. Yet this view often gets snowed under in the relentless torrent of money-saving measures, as the picture given by ministers often emphasises only the amount of money saved. This was also true for the cuts to the defence budget announced weeks ago.

The scrapping of HMS Ark Royal and the Harrier aircraft was 'sold' to the public by stressing that it would save more than a £100 million, but the military consequences were largely glossed over by ministers. The UK would be without carrier-based aircraft for ten years, leaving a gap in the defensive strategy of the country and causing worries about Britain's ability to defend the Falkland Islands. As Con Coughlin argues in his Telegraph column today this should not particularly worry us, as Argentina does not appear to be willing - or even possess the military capability  - to invade the island group. He might well be right. However, Coughlin then goes on to suggest that Harrier should not be scrapped because the aircraft might be necessary to strike at Al Qaeda in Yemen should they ever succeed in commiting a terrorist act on British soil.

Ministers have always said that the cuts to the defence budgets would never impair Britain's military capabilities, without ever explaining in detail how this would be so. For instance, if the Royal Navy could do every thing it needed to do without an aircraft carrier duing the next decade, why the need to continue the construction of two new carriers to be completed in 2020? They never gave, at least in my view, an adequately answer. This gives the appearance that scrapping Ark Royal was done just for financial reasons.

But now at last ministers are beginning to counter this fear. Lord Astor, the BBC reports, has said 'the decision to scrap Harrier had been a "military judgement" and not just about costs. He added: "Deleting the entire Tornado fleet would save three times more money." He said the defence review had been "tough but fair".' I'm not sure whether a Tornado aircraft is better than Harrier aircraft, and the government's position that it is may be true, but the arguments that this is so should not be financial but military in nature. Lord Astor's comments iare a promising start, and the MoD should now continue by informing the public of what those 'military judgements' were.

France and UK to work together

A new chapter is about to added to a long and checkered history of animosity and co-operation today. France and the United Kingdom have on and off been foes and friends for centuries, but the French President Nicolas Sarkozy and PM David Cameron today will sign two treaties affirming that those long years of hostile rivalry are hopefully behind us forever. Under the terms of the accords signed at Lancaster House the two countries will increase military co-operation and establish a "combined joint expeditionary force',  shared usage of aircraft carriers, as well as set up centres for the testing of new nuclear weapons technology.

The BBC quotes a Downing Street spokesman as saying:

"This summit marks a deepening of the UK-France bilateral relationship. Ours is now a strategic partnership tackling together the biggest challenges facing our two countries."

Seen in this vein, these treaties make a lot of sense. Both the UK and France desire to remain major powers on the world stage, something that is becoming increasingly difficult with the rise of new powers like China, Brazil and India. At the same time, the necessity of budget cuts on both sides of the Channel mean that there are fewer Pounds and Euros flowing into defence coffers. An article on the Guardian website refers to the Entente Cordiale but correctly notes that today's treaties do not arise from fear of a shared enemy, but are "product[s] of hard-headed pragmatism, designed to maximise each nation's military capabilites while saving money."

So here we are, Britain and France have finally decided that what they have in common, in terms of shared values, views of the world and hopes for the future, is more important than their cultural differences. After the dire news of the last weeks with the scrapping and cutting of so much military hardware and personnel, the future's horizon is looking a little brighter for Britain's place in world.

Yet even so - and I hate to end on a sour note - the UK should never become wholly dependent on the goodwill of any nation, not matter how friendly, for the defence of its shores. It's fitting to remember Harold Macmillan's words from the 50s and the plans for an independent British nuclear deterent: 

 "The independent contribution ... gives us a better position in the world, it gives us a better position with respect to the United States. It puts us where we ought to be, in the position of a Great Power. The fact that we have it makes the United States pay a greater regard to our point of view, and that is of great importance."

Substitute 'France' for 'United States' and you'll see what I mean. Only if the UK maintains its own military capabilities will France lift a finger to defend it should ever that need arise. Britain should not, therefore, become a docile demesne, but remain committed to its own defence, while sharing what can be shared.