UK, France, US propose no-fly zone over Libya

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, warned last week that enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya would be “extraordinarily complex”

A proposed no-fly zone over Libya would have numerous logistical obstacles and offers no guarantee of achieving the goal of halting government attacks, US officials and analysts say.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, warned last week that enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya would be “extraordinarily complex.”

Others have pointed out that this would be an act of war and would likely require a United Nations resolution as a legal basis.

Analysts note that Libya is four times the size of Iraq, even if the population is concentrated along the coast. Any enforcement would require the use of AWACS radar aircraft, refueling tankers and warplanes to block radar and communications of Libyan aircraft.

Helicopters and rescue crews would also be needed to recover any pilots lost over the North African country.

Barry Watts of the center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments said this would require 50 to 70 aircraft operating each day.

“The bigger problem might be finding air bases close enough to operate,” he said. “Italy comes to mind, but the Italians would have to approve it.”

The warplanes used in a no-fly zone would need a land base or aircraft carrier. There is no carrier in proximity to Libya, although the USS Enterprise is in the Red Sea and the French carrier Charles de Gaulle is in the Mediterranean port of Toulon.

Britain and France have made the most aggressive calls among Western powers for a no-fly zone to hamper Libyan strongman Mauammar Gaddafi offensive. The United States has said it is studying the possibility while warning of the major military operation it would entail.

Colonel David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, said US military planners are examining what would be needed for a no-fly zone if President Barack Obama issues such an order.

“Military planners are looking at all the various options to be able to present to the president a full range, so they would look at sea-based assets, land-based assets, basically what it would take should that decision be made,” Lapan said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said any no-fly operation “begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses. That’s the way you do a no-fly zone.”

Anthony Cordesman of the center for strategic and international studies, a Washington think tank, said any such operation would have to quickly demonstrate superiority over Libyan forces.

“You wouldn’t risk any US or other force simply being caught up in constant surface-to-air attacks and ambushes,” he said.

“The problem is in enforcing something like this, you want to have a decisive act, you want to create a situation where there is no Libyan willingness to take risk or engage.”

Libya has around 100 SA-2 anti-aircraft missiles designed in the 1950s and another 70 SA-6 missiles which are more recent, according to Globalsecurity.org.

Libya has around 300 warplanes, mostly Russian-made MIG-23s and MIG-25s, around half of which are not operational, according the security website.

Cordesman said a no-fly zone for fixed-wing aircraft is easier to implement than one that deals with attack helicopters “which are harder to track and attack.”

But he said that Kadhafi’s forces “could potentially suppress the rebels regardless of a no-fly zone.”

Similar concerns about the effectiveness of a no-fly zone came from the US envoy to NATO, Ivo Daalder.

“No-fly zones are more effective against fighters but they really have a limited effect against his helicopters or the kind of ground operations that we’ve seen,” he said.

“Which is why a no-fly zone, even if it were to be established, isn’t really going to impact what is happening there today. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look at it,” Daalder said in a conference call.

source:http://www.livemint.com/2011/03/08100809/UK-France-US-propose-nofly.html

GMR 2011: Armed conflict stalls EFA progress

Armed conflict is destroying the hopes and aspirations of generations of children, youth and adults on a previously undocumented scale, reveals the 2011 edition of the Education for All Global Monitoring Report (GMR).

‘The hidden crisis: Armed conflict and education’ report reveals that armed conflict is a major obstacle to achieving global EFA goals and the impact of armed conflicts on education represents a ‘hidden crisis’ that reinforces poverty, limits economic growth, and destabilises the development of countries.

While acknowledging progress made so far – 52 million additional children of primary school age have enrolled into school between 1999 and 2008 – the GMR also notes that 67 million children remain out of school, while 796 million adults – two-thirds of them women – continue to be denied access to basic literacy skills.

In addition to these startling figures, EI is also concerned about the teacher gap of 1.9 million professionals who are needed to achieve universal primary education by 2015, and the potentially negative impact of the emerging trend for governments in many countries to hire unqualified or under-qualified teachers

The GMR reveals 42 per cent of out-of-school children live in conflict-affected countries. The scope and breadth of systematically violent attacks on schools, students and teachers, including sexual violence against girls and women, the recruitment of child-soldiers, continues unabated in far too many parts of the globe. The consequence is an increased fear among children about attending school, reluctance among parents to send their children to school, and a perennial fear among teachers about the repercussions of delivering their lessons.

The GMR also paints a stark picture of the state of education in refugee camps. Education remains the most neglected area of an under-financed and unresponsive humanitarian aid system, while many countries refuse refugees access to public education or other basic services.

Conversely, military expenditure is diverting aid resources from many donor countries. The GMR observes that 21 developing countries currently spend more on arms than on primary schools. If they cut military spending by 10 per cent, they would be able to provide 9.5 million more children with school places. The GMR also reveals that it would take just six days of rich countries’ total military expenditure to close the US$16 billion EFA external financing gap per year.

The targeting of civilians by statutory and non-statutory parties involved in armed conflict, the mis-use of school facilities to instill intolerance and prejudice, or to spread endemic violence are clearly violations of international law and the ethos of education.

EI insists that all schools, learners, teachers and support staff should be protected from violent conflict and attack, and supports the GMR recommendation that attacks on children and teachers should be documented, with perpetrators of heinous crimes prosecuted.

EI also agrees that education has the potential to act as a powerful force for resolution and argues that schools should promote peace-building, national healing and tolerance.

Commenting on the 2011 GMR, EI General Secretary, Fred van Leeuwen, said: “Schools must be safe sanctuaries or safe havens that guarantee the peace and security of all children, girls and boys, teachers and support staff and communities.

“EI is urging every member organization to lobby their national government, the UN and the international community to ensure that schools, learners and teachers are protected from violent conflict and attack.”

EI has joined UNESCO, UNICEF, Save the Children and other partners in the Global Coalition for Protecting Education from Attacks, to raise awareness of threats to education, to cultivate public support for safe education, and to strengthen existing monitoring and reporting systems.

source:http://www.ei-ie.org/en/news/show.php?id=1540&theme=educationforall&country=global