No-fly zone on the horizon in Syria?

Published time: June 14, 2012 00:43
Edited time: June 14, 2012 15:27
AFP Photo/ HO / United Nations / David Manyua
Download video (14.69 MB)
Embed

As international pressure against Syrian regime is ratcheting up France has urged to use UN-sanctioned force to implement Kofi Annan peace plan with a no-fly zone being an option.

In his strongest statement on Syria French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius proposed making the six-point peace plan obligatory by invoking the UN’s “Charter 7” provision which allows the Security Council to authorize actions ranging from sanctions to military intervention.

"The situation in Syria has taken an even more serious and horrid turn," he said as quoted by Reuters. "We have been informed that children are being used as human shields by the regime, placed in front of tanks, tortured, raped and assassinated.”

"To stop this civil war from getting worse, we have to find a way for Assad to leave power and find a way for the opposition to create an alternative transition. But it's clear today … that it is a civil war."

The French foreign minister said that a no-fly zone was an option that would be under discussion to stop the "massacres."

The Chapter 7 of the UN Charter states that in case the economic measures prove to be inadequate, the Security Council may take actions “necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.”

Fabius also said that he wanted EU foreign ministers to adopt tougher sanctions at their next meeting on June 25 not just on Assad, but also military officials who were responsible.

The strong words from Paris come after reports that US President Barack Obama has asked the US Navy and Air Force to accelerate plans that would aid in the ousting of Assad.

According to Israel’s Debka news agency, President Obama hopes that by initiating a temporary air strike in locales instrumental to the Syrian government, the US may be able to decimate Assad’s control by attacking his regime’s military command centers.

Last month US Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) called for the implementation of a no-fly zone. He said that ousting Assad from control in Syria is much more crucial for America’s interests than the issue of Libya.

The situation on the ground in Syria is spiraling out of control with the United Nations peacekeeping chief now describing it as a civil war. The Tuesday comment by the Herve Ladsous, the Under-Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations, make the future of the Annan’s peace plan rather uncertain.

As the mandate of the UN observer mission to Syria expires next month there are fears that some Security Council members may not be willing to renew this mandate if they feel that the UN observers will be in danger.

Comments (52)

peter (unregistered) 15.06.2012 10:05

What Nato means by "No Fly Zone" is No Fly Zone for Assad's planes. The rest air force for Rebels okay.

Wonder how Russia will respond with their SAMs on those intruders from Nato or USA.

As for Syria, she can shoot down a few ... but best is to hide those assets in the early stages. Let them bomb dummies .... and ride it out .

Nato cannot fight without air force ... and that is why they are sooooooo frustrated when Russia vetoed and stationed their ships ever ready to watch the skies of Syria

0

Undo

art (unregistered) 15.06.2012 04:24

Surprisingly, of all comments no one took some time to reveal the one common character in all Sarkozy-Jewppe and Holande-Fabius teams. All four are Jews.
Western political and social stature has been humiliated and trashed by Jews. The entire boastful democracy in the West is now tamed and controlled by Jews. No matter who and how you vote, you end up with a Jew or a Jew-leashed in office. So no policy, especially foreign policy will change.

0

Undo

joe (unregistered) 14.06.2012 19:15

Renae, nobody wants war.  A mild amount of logic penetrates most propaganda. 

The rebels have mostly kalishnakov and homemade bombs.  Neither of these weapons is of western manufacture.   This means that the weapons priovided by qatar have not arrived yet.  The regime has tanks, artillery, apc, helicopters.  The regime controls from the med to the mountains and is now battling to keep control of the cities.  These are obvious facts that can be gleaned from the articles printed here on RT.  Now, apply some logic to those facts. 

How is it possible for rebels to control such large swaths of land with such inferior weapons?  As the number of rebels continues to grow will the regimes weapons advantage increase or decrease?  Will Assad deploy more powerful weapons to compensate for being outnumbered?  If more powerful weapons are deployed then will the rebels surrender, seek to aquire more powerful weapons, and/or deploy more merciless strategies?

All things considered, the best way to avoid spilling oceans of syrian blood is for the west and soviets to block each other from shipping any advanced weapons to either side.  As they do so, it will play out in the media as accusations and counter-accusations.   The best position for either russia or europe is to block each other.  Both are fully capable of bypassing blockades.  As long as neither side goes first then not as much Syrian blood will be spilled.

+4

Undo

View all comments (52)
Add comment

By posting your comment, you agree to abide by our Posting rules

Log in to comment in full, or comment anonymously under character-limit restriction.

100 Text

– required fields

Register or

Name

Password

Show password

Register

or Register

Request a new password

Send

or Register

To complete a registration check
your Email:

or Register

A password has been sent to your email address

Edit profile

Name

New password

Retype new password

Current password

Save

Cancel

Follow us