This article from the BBC raises the issue of the legality of the US / Britain patrolling of the ‘no-fly’ zones over northern and southern Iraq. I would like to solicit views of Non-US Dopers as to whether they feel the US/UK are overstepping authority in maintaining these no-fly zones. Are the US and UK violating Iraq’s sovereign airspace or are Saddam Hussein’s previous actions justification for continued support of a ‘no-fly’ zone.
The reason I pose this question is the lack of attention I see in the global press seems to indicate implicit agreement that the ‘no-fly’ zones are acceptable while still being on possibly shaky legal grounds.
The problem with International Law is that it is widely open to interpretation and the one sole governing body that has any say on what International Law is has not said anything directly on this matter and indeed cannot because the US would veto it faster than a teenie bopper could snatch up the latest N-Synch record.
So then we’re down to arguing points of violating International Law as defined in the UN charter, but without the Security Council ruling directly on the matter, the charter is simply interepreted by any given side as being in their respective favor.
I’m rather dissappointed to see the BBC quoting Iraqi news casuality figures, the Iraqi news being as reliable for facts as Madam Cleo.
I myself rather question that Iraq even has sovereignty over the no fly zone near Turkey. They don’t control the area, the Kurds do. The Iraqi government in no way represents these people, indeed has tried to kill as many of them as possible in the past. So why should it be considered Iraqi territory?
The US has total authority, due to it’s military strength, and coupled with the humanitarian mission ie stopping Saddam wasting more Kurds from the air, there’s really no one to question their authority. The French and Russians may moan about the sanctions (possibly rightly) but if they tried, through the UN, to block the patrolling of the No-Fly Zone (which I doubt they would), the US would probably just use NATO as it’s mandate as in Yugoslavia.
The British can’t really be blamed for their part in this; I heard they only have two planes and one of those has a puncture right now.
[international law nitpick] Couldn’t use NATO - NATO allows for allied military operations only within Europe, North America, the Atlantic, and the Mediterranean. North Atlantic Treaty, Art. VI. [/nitpick]
Who cares about legalities when the moron has demonstrated a clear talent for starting war, is slapping UN laws back in their faces over weapons inspections (but only because the UN has not the balls to use force as they should), a total disregard for anyone’s life but his own, is still killing his own people, trying to kill peace keepers, shows obvious symptoms of a paranoid, and given half a chance, will rearm and attack again. Plus, he is still selling crude to any bastard nation willing to risk crossing the limitations placed on such sales by the UN, you know, like France and the Netherlands. His nation is starving, but he isn’t and couldn’t care less who dies just so long as he has complete power.
And people squabble over laws or legalities of the protection zone? He’s a mad dog. He should have been put to sleep during the war, except for the whining of the Saudis and others of his ilk, who felt that since he is ‘of the blood,’ he just needed his bottom smacked rather than killed by the ‘Great Satan,’ when they could not do it themselves.
The hell with legalities. The no fly zone is keep thousands alive and safe. Shove those laws where the sun don’t shine! In my opinion, every time he fires at a UN aircraft, the retaliation should be 10 times worse, not only gutting the weapons emplacements, but any within 100 mile area. Eventually, it will dawn on him that each time he shoots at a UN craft, he looses every expensive bit of technology in the area that cannot be replaced. Also, nations still selling him weapons need to be stopped by having their transports destroyed. The would piss off Russia, who is still shaking hands with the US on one side and shoving military gear to Sadaam with the other.
It’s like selling Hitler nuclear arms and supplies during WW2 while claiming to be buddies with everyone else.
Depends how much you value “rule of law”. I value it highly. So do other people. Acting with impunity is something Iraq does. Western countries should not. If Western countries were at war with Iraq, then the sky over Iraq could be filled with US fighter planes. But no one is currently at war with Iraq.
By your argument, as the US is executing prisoners and I regard this as a barbarious violation of human rights, I should be entitled to fly my jets over Texas and bomb anybody who shoots at me.
In any event, I also question the usefulness of the no-fly zones. They don’t practically appear to work. Right now they seem more symbolic than anything else.
No, I do not see how his previous actions, per se, could possibly justify the no-fly zone (NFZ). What would justify it is clear utility at present.
DreamSpinner:
I find this to be highly dubious (in more ways than one). The obvious response is, “how?” What does the NFZ accomplish that could not be accomplished without it? We could keep the same force (and therefore the same deterrence) in the region without patrolling Iraqi air-space, which puts American (and Iraqi) lives in danger. With or without the NFZ, any Iraqi military build-up for invasion would be detected by satellite surveillance (as was the build-up for the ivasion of Kuwait). Iraqi air-strikes against foreign or domestic enemies can, I believe, be effectively deterred by threats of massive retaliation. Saddam has shown himself to be aggressive and untrustworthy, but never insane.
The NFZ prevents Iraq from using its air force against the Kurdish population. Saddam has not shown any reluctance to expose his troops to retaliation. Indeed he seeks such action as it continues to allow him to portray Iraq as a martyr nation thus continuing to erode support for the actions of the US and Britain. If the NFZs are lifted, he will crush the Kurds if he can in a bid to regain control of Iraqi territory.
Didn’t the war end with a cease fire as opossed to a peace treaty? I’m not sure if that really makes a huge difference but under those conditions would it be illegal for one of the antagonists to still operate within their sphere of influence. With no proper boarder treaties would that not act like a loophole the US and UK could use.
Not that international law has any real teeth behind it when dealing with the major players out there. Did the US really have top pay the consequences when they shot down that civilian plane in the late 80s early 90’s?
You have to be careful when refering to a “Sphere of Influence” as it is not the same thing as territorial sovereignty.
The US and Britain are flying within Iraqi sovereign air space as defined by customary international law. The US and Britain justify this through their own interpretation of the UN charter and since they both have seats on the UN security council they both have a lot of influence on what is deemed “legal.”
If you were refering to US shoot down of an Iranian airliner then yes, the US did pay reparations for the tragedy and the career of the ship captain that was responsible was ended. I’ve seen on board video of the crew members reactions as they realized the enormity of the mistake they made. They were truly horrified. I wouldn’t trade places with them for anything.
Thanks for the information. I was in assisting a conventions for a Post secondary Model UN Club when the Iranian plane was shot down. As the people involved used current events it shook up the prepared debates when teh “Iranian delegates” Demanded justice for the incident.
As for the original discussion
I agree with you that it is soveriegn territory. My original line of thinking was on how the US/UK could justify the legality of teh no fly zone. I had the idea that during a conflict soveriengty is disregarded by all antagonists and only after a proper treaty are the boarders recognized. Probably not but it was a thought.
Thanks for the information. I was in assisting a conventions for a Post secondary Model UN Club when the Iranian plane was shot down. As the people involved used current events it shook up the prepared debates when the “Iranian delegates” Demanded justice for the incident. I just couldn’t remember the date or what the actual outcome was.
As for the original discussion
I agree with you that it is sovereign territory. My original line of thinking was on how the US/UK could justify the legality of the no fly zone. I had the idea that during a conflict sovereignty is disregarded by all antagonists and only after a proper treaty are the boarders recognised. Probably not but it was a thought.
I thought Saddam had already crushed the Kurds in the north. Turkey won’t let them in, and the Kurdish population is hiding in the mountains. In the south, as I said, the Marsh Arabs are equally decimated.
The Kurds in both the Northern and Southern NFZs continue to be viewed by Saddam as a threat to his regime, although I don’t believe they are actually strong enough to directly threaten his rule. The Kurds in the North are especially unorganized, have a tendency to fight each other, and have not learned that a two front war is a bad thing. Turkish troops actually crossed into Iraq in 1999 in an attempt to stop the Northern Kurds activities against Turkey. This also served to demonstrate how little control Iraq currently has of it’s Northern region, none at all.
The entire situation is a complete mess. Refer to this report for details.