Guess what's going to happen if somebody dares mention Malta's airfield
timesofmalta.com, tonight
Libya no-fly zone would require bombing raids: US
Enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya would first require bombing the north African nation’s air defence systems, top US commander General James Mattis warned today. A no-fly zone would require removing “the air defense capability first,” Mattis, the head of Central Command, told a Senate hearing.
“It would be a military operation,” the general said.
The United States and its allies are weighing possible military action, including a no-fly zone, to stop Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi from using his forces to crush mounting opposition.
Although Gaddafi’s military is badly outgunned by US and NATO aircraft, the regime has dozens of surface-to-air missiles that could shoot down allied warplanes.
US military doctrine usually requires knocking out an adversary’s air defense missiles and radar any time air power is used.
The general’s comments came as the American military moved naval and air forces near Libya for possible joint NATO military action, including a warship with hundreds of Marines.
The USS Kearsarge, an amphibious assault ship accompanied by two other naval vessels, was expected to pass through the Suez Canal soon from the Red Sea, two defence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told AFP.
The Kearsarge amphibious ready group, with about 800 marines, a fleet of helicopters and medical facilities, could support humanitarian efforts as well as military operations.
US military leaders are preparing a range of options for President Barack Obama and holding discussions with their European counterparts, but the likelihood of military intervention remained unclear, one of the defense officials said.
“I think it (the advice) goes from everything from a show of force to something more involved,” the official said, adding: “The president has made no decisions about the use of the military.”
Analysts say a symbolic show of force off the coast of Libya in and of itself could increase pressure on Gaddafi but the official said the deployment of naval and air forces near Libya was not an empty gesture.
“There are sailors on ships heading that way, it’s real.”
An American aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise — which has fighter jets that could enforce a possible no-fly zone — could also be called upon for the Libya crisis.
The carrier is currently in the north of the Red Sea near the mouth of Suez Canal, according to the US Navy’s website.
A no-fly zone would likely require large numbers of aircraft, with US bases in southern Italy providing a staging area for operations.
The United States and its partners might have to ask other countries in the region, including Egypt or Tunisia, for permission to use their airfields, analysts say.
The West heaped pressure on Gaddafi today after loyalists tried to retake a key city near the capital following a show of defiance by the veteran leader.
64 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
If Malta is mentioned, Gaddafi apologists/PN Bashers (not necessarily, but sometimes, the same thing) will squeal about our neutrality.
Leaving aside the antediluvian aspects of this concept in 2011, there is much to say for the argument that you cannot be neutral in the face of an individual and/or his regime who have been placed beyond the pale by the civilised world.
What amazes me is that they believe that a constitutional clause is an effective barrier against the lunacy of Gaddafi’s regime.
You’ll have to spell that out very simply, La Redoute.
A psycho like Gaddafi who thinks nothing of killing his own people and who is completely detached from reality will not let a position of neutrality stop him blanket-bombing Malta if he wants to.
Somebody who regularly violates every human right on the list and who is facing charges for crimes against humanity is not going to let Malta’s constitution stand in his way.
We can guarantee our security not by staying out of it, but by helping to get rid of him as soon as possible.
This is not about neutrality but about Malta’s role.
As I said in previous posts, Malta’s role should be humanitarian, not military. Any offensive military use of our territory would establish a dangerous precedent.
[Daphne – A dangerous precedent: the latest buzz-term. A dangerous precedent to what, Kevin? Do tell.]
We don’t know the outcome of this revolutionary wave (and the US ‘democratisation’ of Iraq serves as no inspiration either – in fact it has been a complete failure).
God knows what democratic-Islamic hybrid could emerge here, unless it is not of the Mubarak type, where elections are as foregone as their Soviet counterparts.
[Daphne – Whatever emerges, Kevin, it is hardly likely to be worse than 42 years of murderous tyranny and state-sponsored terrorism that posed a perpetual threat to the west. So I think you can stop tensing up at the prospect.]
Can anyone here spell out the scenarios they have in mind? This is not a rhetorical question.
A few years down the line we might be dealing with an anti-Western alliance of nations ranging from Morroco to Oman and beyond. How sure are you that this could never happen? Where’s the ‘precautionary principle’ when it really counts?
[Daphne – Because, Kevin, you probably failed to notice that these revolutions are spurred not by anti-western sentiment but by an overriding and pressing desire to be more like the west. I believe it was Robert Kagan, interviewed by the BBC, who remarked that these revolutions were a historic inevitability, bound to happen given that a significant part of the population of North Africa is under 30 and part of the Facebook and internet world, unlike their parents, who were completely cut off from European life and ideals.]
This is not about Gaddafi or neutrality. It is about a tiny island-state on the frontier of an emerging political union. Do we want Malta to be a cannon in the palisade? They shoot at cannons, don’t they?
[Daphne – Kevin, I know it really hurts to remember this, given all of your and Sharon’s efforts to keep us out of the European Union, but Malta is no longer a ‘tiny island-state on the frontier of an emerging political union’. It is part of a massive political union itself. An attack on Malta is an attack on the European Union, and not an attack on a tiny island state. So it’s a good thing, isn’t it, that we didn’t follow Sharon’s advice and vote No.]
The article above amply shows that Malta is not needed militarily. It is Malta’s humanitarian role that is indispensable, because Malta’s very size and statehood, together with other characteristics, offer the best prospects for coordination and logistics in the humanitarian field (a developed State in a toolbox).
strong>[Daphne – You miss the point. It is not about being needed. It is about wanting to join in, to be part of the effort to rid the world of Gaddafi. We want to join in because, after the Libyans, we despise him most. I would hate to have to stand by while watching others get rid of Gaddafi.]
Besides, Section 3 of the Constitution of Malta gives this argument a solid legal backing:
“(a) no foreign military base will be permitted on Maltese territory;
“(b) no military facilities in Malta will be allowed to be used by any foreign forces except at the request of the Government of Malta, and only in the following cases:…”
Read more here: http://www.legal-malta.com/law/constitution-1.htm
[Daphne – (b) gives lots of room for manoeuvre, don’t you think?]
“(i) in the exercise of the inherent right of self-defence, in the event of any armed violation of the area over which the Republic of Malta has sovereignty, or in pursuance of measures or actions decided by the Security Council of the United Nations.”
Yes, I know that most probably the Security Council won’t agree on taking military action.
Actually the EU is an emerging centralised superstate camouflaged as a federation.
Nearly everyone agrees that Gaddafi must go. Gaddafi is already gone in my argument.
As for being a part of this (wannabe) superpower that no one would dare attack, why, that’s the standard argument. But what seems obvious today might seem naive tomorrow.
You say you want to join the fight to oust Gaddafi. Brava. Malta is already playing a role to oust Gaddafi, but you want Malta to do more; you want to fling bombs on Gaddafi’s compunds signed ‘From Daphne with Love’.
[Daphne – You’ve got it.]
That’s an emotion not a strategy.
[Daphne – Sorry to have to labour the point, but by an emotion not a strategy, do you mean sort of like NO2EU?]
The plural of cannon is cannon
Daphne, I think you should slow down on this one. With or without the neutrality clause in the constitution, Malta cannot, will not, should not be used for any military offensive action, under any circumstance. Not now, not ever.
Malta should support all actions taken by the international community provided that it does not involve Malta in any specific offensive military role.
Malta’s role is strictly humanitarian.
[Daphne – I hardly think the UN or Nato are going to take note of what’s being said here. As for Malta’s role being strictly humanitarian, I don’t remember that being said when Gaddafi sent a couple of warships to stop us drilling for oil. Neutrality, as the point has been made here several times, is useless in the face of an armed enemy. What this means, effectively, is that you are never neutral at all, but always condemned to keeping the enemy happy even if it ends up going against your proper interests (EU membership) or a dereliction of duty (standing by while others suffer).]
I reiterate what I said before.
Think long term. Malta allows military aircraft to use Maltese territory to carry out attacks at strategic locations in Libya.
Following a chain of international events, upon which Malta will have no control, some madman threatens Malta with a missile strike. The perception will be created that Malta is now within a conflict zone – no doubt aided by media instigated by some of our competitors.
The mere perception could have an effect on our economy, especially tourism. The stronger the perception, the more devastating the effect.
[Daphne – How would using Sicily or Cyprus be any different? You do realise that Malta cannot be picked up and moved, so wherever the attacks on Libya come from, Malta is still going to be in the neighbourhood, neutral or not.]
They already did, about 4 hours ago, on BBC NEWS: “possibly using Malta as a military base”.
You think that Labour is waiting quitely, waiting for the right moment to lash out at the Prime Minister for breaching the constitution. I think you’re going to be waiting for a long time … :)
[Daphne – What are the odds that the Labour Party missed that on the BBC? You don’t have to be sharp to work out that the minute there is a real suggestion that we use our airfield for this purpose, all hell will break loose at Brontosaurus Central. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. Ah, but your faith in Labour is so touching.]
If they do that, I would be the first one to condemn it. I have no problems admitting that the party that I support has screwed up. That is why I voted PN in 2003, for instance – since unfortunately the EU issue was turned into a political game and there was no other option. Don’t assume that all labour supporters are the same. There are the narrow minded hardcore supporters (just like there are in the PN) .. and then there are those, who, surprisingly, have a brain and can actually analyse things :-)
[Daphne – Ditto. If the Labour Party doesn’t scream blue murder about neutrality, I’ll be the first to say it’s begun to grow up. People first, always: you can’t let a tyrant get away with murder because of ‘neutrality’.]
Sigonella airbase in Sicily (a few minutes flight from here) can be of strategic importance in any offensive against Libya.
Malta is not needed any more strategically; in face Britain has already eyed Cyprus. A number of hypocrites are anxiously waiting for our government to over-step its actions and breach any clause in our constitution (jien nitnejjek mil-Kostituzzjoni). But if one listened carefully to the Prime Minister’s memorable press conference, these “wishers” are going to be terribly disappointed.
I remember George Vella whining (well, bellowing actually) that Malta was violating its own neutrality by following EU-imposed oil sanctions against Yugoslavia. On such occasions, Labour seem to find themselves inevitably on the side of dictators.
http://www.doi.gov.mt/en/commentaries/1999/05/ind16.asp
In the present situation, refusing to cooperate in protecting the Libyan population (because that is what a no-fly zone would be for) would put us firmly on the side of Gaddafi. Labour still have to learn that, sometimes, fences have no seats.
There will be no military intervention, at least not a direct one. After the terrible experience in Iraq, the US will not want to get entangled in yet another excruciating controversy. Apart from that, Russian and China will oppose.
[Daphne – Russia and China are not members of NATO. They can only block a UN decision, not a NATO decision. You are in no positon to declare that there will be no military intervention. The Libyans themselves are insistent that they want a no-fly zone imposed immediately.]
One knows how a military interventon begins, but can have no idea how it will develop. Things in Libya look headed for a Somalia-like outcome. A failed state in perpetual civil war, with a piece of a government here, and another piece there.
The Libyans themselves have indicated they are not in favour of external intervention. Such an action would cause extreme resentment.
[Daphne – No, Albert, they have said they do not want military intervention ON THE GROUND, but they repeat that they want a no-fly zone imposed immediately because without it, they cannot push on into Tripoli and there are fears that Gaddafi will bomb Benghazi. Please do not extrapolate from your Labour indhil barrani mindset.]
Those who are itching for that type of action, even hoping it would be launched from Malta (just because that might hurt deeply those who have advocated neutrality for Malta) simply do not know what they are talking about.
[Daphne – Albert, ‘those who are itching for that type of action’ are not itching at all, and it is certainly not to score points off Labour and its much-advocated adherence to neutrality. It should have occurred to you by now that many Maltese people want Malta to be involved because they want Malta to be part of the effort to get rid of Gaddafi and establish a new order in Tripoli. They want to be able to say – and be proud of the fact – that Malta was part of it. I for one would hate to see my country stand by and watch while Sicily, Cyprus and an aircraft carrier parked outside Malta do the work. Then what exactly do you plan to tell the incoming Libyan administration? “Sorry ta, we stayed out of it because we were neutral. Now if you don’t mind, let’s get back to business, ta, hi.” Jew wed tibza li l-habib tal-Labour Party ha jibqa hemm u jieklok?]
Albert, I for one would like Malta to be involved because, among other things, we owe it to the Libyan people. After forty years fraternising with their oppressor and giving him medals, don’t you think we need to make it up to them in any way we can?
Why do you keeping insisting it’s about neutrality when it’s not? We are NOT neutral. Malta has taken sides: we’re calling for Gaddafi to step down.
The issue is about Malta being used as a military springboard when a purely humanitarian role would serve everyone the better.
And to think it’s all so you could vent your anger at Gaddafi in a childish Us-Cool-Kids vs. The Desert Ghoulie kind of fantasy…!
[Daphne – Unwind, Kevin. This isn’t No2EU. It was the ban on Malta being used as a military base which came FIRST. The neutrality clause exists to keep Malta from being used for military purposes, and not the other way round: i.e. we do not avoid using Malta as a military base because we are neutral; we are neutral because somebody wanted to ensure that Malta wouldn’t be used as a military base. I can’t see why you don’t form your opinions anyway, instead of just repeating those of Sharon’s CNi. Or maybe you shared those opinions from the start, and were betrothed after long discussions about Malta’s neutrality (“Oh, I so agree!”). You’re so easy to tease.]
Kev, it could be argued that enforcing a no-fly zone is essentially a humanitarian enterprise.
Daphne, I don’t care about the chicken-and-the-egg here. It’s irrelevant. F**k neutrality! We are NOT neutral as we’ve taken a stand against Gaddafi. Good. We had no choice – ethically, politically and strategically. The bottom line is we can never be neutral once we’re part of a beligerent EU, so let’s not mess up people’s already messed up minds, please.
As for CNi, I was never even a member of CNi and it’s been a while since I last heard their cue.
In fact, the only time I met Karmenu was in my professional capacity when he was prime minister, unless one counts a couple of sessions at Mintoff’s house to strategise over the latter’s latest political ventures, which, I must add, could have had better eventual outcomes, potentially, than FMI had I the sense to take with me a large megaphone and an espresso machine armed with large batteries and enough coffee and sugar to share it with my host and his guests, including Karmenu.
Karmenu, however, is quite a gentleman, and far removed from the caricature you present.
[Daphne – It’s called a split personality. A gentleman one to one and a crackpot in power. Gentlemen don’t ride on convoys of trucks laden with dockyard thugs to ransack buildings. Gentlemen don’t do the things he did when he was prime minister.]
@KEV – To call KMB a gentleman is an insult to those who, like me (at the age of 17 – when, thanks to Labour, I was working as a pupil-worker for the grand sum of Lm28 a month), saw him on a truck accompanying dockyard thugs who were wielding heavy chains and tools in Santa Lucia Street, Valletta – fresh from ransacking the Law Courts and, presumably – on the way to ransacking the Curia.
He may not have been accompanying the actual men who carried out the horrendous attacks, but bloody hell, I can still picture him on that truck with the hooligans. Quite gentlemanly, I must say.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12606855
Careful, or you’ll have Louise Vella and all the other usual suspects worrying about the prospect of being invaded by Egyptians.
Maybe not just yet. She’s currently disturbed by the prospect of Eritreans.
I’d feel very uneasy about this and I am sure Lawrence Gonzi must be extremely concerned. Wouldn’t this be a very ugly precedent? As much as I agree that most probably a military strike is the best thing how I wish that they could launch it from somewhere else. I am thinking of the way this will make us look in the eyes of other mad men.
[Daphne – And your point is….what exactly? That Malta is a special case? Different from Sicily? Different from Cyprus? Deserving of special treatment? Can stay out of it and play nice? Is allowed to be nice to ‘mad men’ while letting others, equally at risk if not more so, do the dirty work? Exasperating.]
How do you think Malta currently looks to the eyes of other mad men?
No, I guess we can’t shy out of our responsibilities but nobody can feel happy that we may be used in this way. The last time was over 50 years ago.
[Daphne – And all Maltese with their heads screwed on and the right set of principles were more than happy to be ‘used that way’. It was a darn sight better to fight with the Allies than be buggered up the backside by Benito and Adolf, quite apart from anything else. Malta wasn’t ‘used’. It was part of the show. Or are you now going to suggest that Malta could have stayed out of World War II, had it not been a British colony, by waving a neutrality clause? Switzerland didn’t stay out of WWII because it was neutral. It stayed out of WWII because it agreed to bank the Nazis’ stolen goods. I’ll tell you what would have happened had we not been a British colony: we would have been forcibly roped into the Axis of Evil and then proceeded to be thoroughly bombed and invaded by the US along with the rest of southern Italy and Sicily.]
Daphne, I agree with all that you wrote above but I’m thinking of some sort of retaliation against us. I think it is quite normal to feel concerned.
[Daphne – You’re right. It’s quite normal to feel concerned…about Libya. Who is going to retaliate – the new Libyan administration? Gaddafi in his dying hours? And why are we fearing retaliation when Sicily and mainland Italy, and Cyprus, all equally close in geographic terms, are not? Another question: why is it that you think geographic proximity makes for greater risk of retaliation? Gaddafi’s most notorious crime was the bombing of a commercial plane over Lockerbie in Scotland. His second most notorious crime was the bombing of a nightclub in Berlin. And that led to retaliation by….the United States, on the other side of the Atlantic, though their plan was foiled by the prime minister of Malta.]
Meanwhile I was worried when I noticed that a couple of people I know seemed overtly excited about all this. I couldn’t help suspecting that perhaps their lives are so boring that they don’t care what pumps out the adrenalin into their bloodstream.
[Daphne – People want to be involved, dery, that’s all. We’re sick to death of Gaddafi – I certainly am – and we want to be part of the effort to knock him out of the mix. As for the rest, I’ve always said that the Maltese are happiest when this sort of thing is going on. It’s not because our lives are so boring, but because centuries of serving as a military fort must have altered our DNA in that direction. That’s why we can’t organise the surfacing of a road but when it comes to a military or quasi-military operation like this evacuation of 12,000 people we pull it off without a hitch and with only 24 hours of lead time or less.]
And probably gassed due to the fact that the Nazis were promoting the ‘Aryan race’.
“Switzerland didn’t stay out of WWII because it was neutral. It stayed out of WWII because it agreed to bank the Nazis’ stolen goods. ”
Well, for the record there is a bit more to it than that.
Switzerland, unlike Malta, had a strong standing army and due to it’s natural defences, again unlike Malta, namely many mountains and narrow passes that invading armies have to pass through, makes it notoriously difficult to invade. Tanks, for example, that the Nazi’s “Blitzkrieg” depended on, are practically automatically neutralised in Switzerland.
Had Hitler tried to invade, he would have eventually succeeded through sheer weight of numbers, as Stalin did in Finland, but it would have been a pyrrhic victory.
Plus many Swiss were more sympathetic towards Germany as you said.
Having said that, had the Nazis won the war, they would almost certainly have turned their sights on Switzerland!
We needn’t mention that other countries’ neutrality in the War, like Belgium, The Netherlands and Norway did fuck all to protect them!
Daphne, you mentioned something about our genetic make up having been moulded by centuries of military activity. I remember reading somewhere that the ‘Maltese Bravery’ for which we got the George Cross is a special type of bravery. It is not the type which makes people take an active role but a sort of bravery that makes us capable of suffering without giving up.
[Daphne – That’s stoicism. And it has nothing to do with bravery or genetic make-up. It has to do with being (literally) peasants.]
Ah yes that is the word… being stoic. There is no equivalent in Maltese.
[Daphne – Yes, there is: the same one, I believe.]
OK so we got the George Cross for being stoic. What else could the peasants have done but try to survive?
dery, we got the George Cross precisely for being peasants, for only peasants are treated to a bead tied to a thread for their suffering and told its for their bravery.
[Daphne – Kemm in tan-nejk, Kevin. You mean: only peasants except to be paid in 4 x 4s and hard cash in return for fighting for their OWN freedom.]
Kev,
Have a word with one of these peasants. I’m sure they could disabuse you of your prejudice.
George Cross Living Recipients as at 1st April 2010
ARCHER, Stuart, GC, OBE, ERD & 2 Bars
BAMFORD, John, GC
BEATON, James, GC, CVO
BUTSON, Arthur(Dick), GC (AM), OMM, CD, CStJ
CROUCHER, Matthew, GC
FINNEY, Christopher, GC
FLINTOFF, Henry, GC (EM)
GLEDHILL, Anthony, GC
GREGSON, John, GC (AM)
HUGHES, Kim, GC
JOHNSON, Barry, GC
KINNE, Derek, GC
LOWE, Alfred Raymond, GC (AM)
NORTON,Peter, GC
PRATT, Michael, GC
RAWANG, Awang anak , GC
STEVENS, Henry, GC
VAUGHAN, Margaret, GC (AM) (now Mrs PURVES)
WALKER, Carl, GC
WALKER, Charles, GC (AM)
WOODING, Ernest, GC (AM)
There’s another list of peasants here http://www.gc-database.co.uk/ but that lot are no longer around to politely tell you where to put it.
Kev, better a lifetime as peasant than a second as an opportunistic coward.
Nice one, Daphne, tal-4 x 4…
After all, what makes this blog entertaining if not these below-the-belt knee-jerk salvos?
[Daphne – Ara, I didn’t know you drive a 4 x 4. Not very ‘green’, Kevin.]
Forsi huwa ahdar moghod iehor, Daphne.
For a nation of hair-splitters, we do miss the more obvious things sometimes. How is a plane taking off from Malta different from a ship leaving Grand Harbour headed to the Indian Ocean on anti-piracy patrols, with, er, Maltese soldiers aboard? Because it’s already happened.
I still can’t see a no-fly zone being imposed though. Foreign intervention is precisely what Gaddafi is waiting for. And the insurgents have already stated they refuse any foreign help. Quite right too. It may be the harder way, but it’ll give them more room for manoeuvre once they topple Gaddafi.
Now for the juicy details:
No-fly zones were iposed three times in the long history of the world:
1991, over Iraq
1992, over Bosnia
1999, over Kosovo.
The action is a military one, and requires approval under Chapter VII of the UN charter (use of military force). In 1991, there was no UN mandate, so France, at that time absolute shytes and sticklers, refused to extend the authorisation for the no-fly zone after the Gulf War ended, leaving the US and UK to do the job alone. Eventually it was just the US.
For a no-fly zone to be credible, it requires 24-hour, all-weather patrolling. In 1999 it required a full five or six fighter squadrons operating for six weeks non-stop, plus supporting units. Six Serbian planes were shot down. In 1999, two Serbian planes were shot down.
It’s very much an open-ended mission. Gaddafi could rally his few remaining forces in Tripoli and say he’s still in power, and the no-fly zone would still have to be imposed.
Then there’s a deeper problem. All of Europe and much of the Western world is calling for Gaddafi to go. If this “coalition of the willing” (risqué phrase but there you go) were to declare the establishment of a no-fly zone, there are only three nations posessing the AWACS capability needed: the US, the UK, and France. The others would just sit and watch, or send their fighters, potentially to be used in angers, which creates all sorts of political problems back home (look at German rules on the use of military force, and could you imagine Italy sending planes, to be forever reminded of the Senussi uprising?). So it’s extremely tricky to put into practice.
H P Baxter makes interesting statements. The government of Malta has not only to to take into account the Constitution of Malta but also, as other countries have to do, the legality of military action which has not been approved by the UN as well as the risks and benefits of such military action.
I would not approve of airstrikes or a military invasion of Libya, but would consider sending peacekeeping forces which can intervene to defend themselves and civilians, after all diplomatic and mediation efforts to solve the current crisis and conflict fail.
[Daphne – Did the UN or the Libyans ask David for his opinion? Are they obliged to take it into consideration? No. And no. I’m sorry to be sharp, but I have no time for people who speak out of their pants. The parties in this debate are the UN (or Nato) and the Libyan people. The Libyan people – through their temporary representatives, including the rebel army leader who has defected and is leading the forces in Benghazi – have made it clear repeatedly that they want a no-fly zone imposed AT ONCE.]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8354737/Libya-Russia-China-join-France-in-opposing-military-action-against-Gaddafi.html
[Daphne – http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-01/u-s-senate-poised-to-call-for-libya-no-fly-zone-qaddafi-ouster.html ]
“There is no unanimity within NATO for the use of armed force. And the kinds of options that have been talked about in the press and elsewhere also have their own consequences and second- and third-order effects, so they need to be considered very carefully,” Gates said.
He also pointed out that any authorization for NATO to use force would have to come from the United Nations.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/libya-fly-zone-require-nato-military-force/story?id=13031952
[Daphne – Do keep up, David, you’re way out of date: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-01/u-s-senate-poised-to-call-for-libya-no-fly-zone-qaddafi-ouster.html ]
My position on Maltese neutrality is clear enough, so I can’t be accused of being in the ‘incarcru demmna ghall-barrani’ brigade.
I just think we need t put things into perspective:
1) Gaddafi hasn’t attacked the insurgents from the air yet.
2) There have been clashes on the ground between insurgents and loyalists, and even then, no aircraft were involved. Besides, the insurgents seem to be holding their own against Gaddafi’s forces.
3) Of course the no-fly zone could be imposed by NATO without a UN mandate, but we’ve been down that road before, and it was nasty. The Libyans asking for a no-fly zone haven’t thought things through.
For a start, there would always be the possibilty of ground troops being sent in to rescue downed pilots.
Secondly, any anti-aircraft threat has to be neutralised. That means killing people, in plainspeak. Now what if the insurgents mistakenly fire at a NATO aircraft, as happened with the RAF C-130 during the desert mission? They would be fired upon, and possibly killed, and they wouldn’t enjoy it.
Thirdly, where would you draw the line? Literally. Libya isn’t Bosnia or Kosovo, thin and crossable in a few minutes, with Italy just miles away. It isn’t Iraq, where the Allies had bases to the north and south.
Say a no-fly zone is imposed over the coastal strip, and Gaddafi is taking the roundabout route through the south of the country. Do we patrol over the whole of Libya? There’d have to be an armada of refuelling tankers flying all over the place, requiring their own escort. Do we fly the planes from Chad? The Chadian regime is absolutely against that. Do we use the Central African Republic? Then you’d have to have a huge number of troops just for forces protection (see what happened at Birao). That’s ground troops.
4) The insurgents calling for a no-fly zone aren’t asking it for humanitarian reasons, but military ones: they want the airspace clear so they can make the final push to Tripoli. If we fly overhead, we’re providing air cover, and that’s participating in the attack. So if they want to do this on their own, and may the God of War be with them in this one, they’ll have to be on their own all the way through.
We could, at best, provide humanitarian and medical aid, as the French are doing. But a no-fly zone…bugger me, this is worse than the Cuban missile crisis.
5) Malta needs to freeze Libyan assets PRONTO, before any airbase pipe dreams. Hello, anyone on the line in Castille?
[Daphne – It’s one of the UN sanctions, and the order is out in the Government Gazette.]
Oh, and we need to change Gnien Gaddafi’s name. Imagine if we had a Gnien Mussolini during World War II.
The whole wide world was a no fly zone until the Wright brothers’ first flight- sorry couldn’t help it.
“There’d have to be an armada of refuelling tankers flying all over the place, requiring their own escort. Do we fly the planes from Chad?”
The tankers could easily fly from Sicily. And even Malta unless Karmenu decides to block the runway with his Volkswagen Beetle. If I’m not mistaken they also have aircraft carrier launched tankers, even if of very limited capacity and numbers.
They have plenty of tankers especially now that activities in Iraq have wound down considerably. They could easily spare a few for Libya.
U.N. General Assembly Suspends Libya From Human Rights Council
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/01/general-assembly-suspends-libya-human-rights-council/#
Louise Vella displays a spectacular ignorance of universal rights – from timesofmalta.com
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110301/local/old-libyan-flag-taken-into-libyan-embassy
Louise Vella
The Eritreans should stop abusing Malta’s hospitality. If they want to demonstrate they should go and do so in their own country – if they are allowed.
I like Louise Vella’s final “mwouahaha” touch.
That is what she believes passes as wit.
This is the first time in Malta that a community of refugees/immigrants is officially coming out in favour of Libyans.
I have noticed that, even when demonstrating outside their embassy, Libyans were not joined by other refugees, especially Arabs. We have a largish Palestinian community, for example, which is always telling us about their problems. Where are they now? It’s almost as if they are siding with Gaddafi.
Franco Farrugia, of the Lanzit Kontra Daphne Fuq Facebook Brigade, thinks that visitors to Malta should be stripped of their rights upon point of entry. His intellectual liberal friends David Friggieri, Raphael Vassallo, Josanne Cassar and Wanktellectual Zammit must be proud to count him as one of their number.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110301/local/libyans-take-their-protest-to-ta-giorni-school
“Franco Farrugia
I am sorry to disagree with you. We are already up to our necks immersed in this conflict; they have no right to anything because they are guests in our country!”
Can anyone tell me why Jacques Rene Zammit insists on calling himself “wankellectual”? Is it a word he invented, or what?
[Daphne – What do you think? He thinks he’s an intellectual, I once (several times, actually) called him a wanker, so he had himself reborn as a wanktellectual. But actually, he’s just a class A wanker.]
Ah, I see. An intellectual? Why, for writing articles that bore people’s pants off within the first two sentences? Really, now.
The pentagon doesn’t need Malta to enforce no-fly zone. The necessary operations can be done from the aircraft carrier and from the Libyan soil.
Just a thought, once the Libyan people sees the support of USA and Nato they will be encouraged to move into Tripoli. Young Libyans full of spirit are just buying time until the US aircraft carrier is within striking distance of the Libyan shore.
If NATO needs heavy lift aircraft, then they have to fly from an airstrip. The reasons are myriad: refuelling tankers, bombers, AWACs etc… these can always fly from Sigonella though. It’s not much of a flight difference but Baxxter can surely correct me here.
Malta’s airstrip should be used for humanitarian aid. It would be good planning to leave the airport and harbours clear of military hardware and instead start preparing for cargo and hospital ships and aircraft. I guess that’s what Gonzi implied in his speech.
I think they would avoid setting up bases in Libya, purely for political reasons. Technically and militarily it would be a non issue and would be very convenient in simplifying the logistics but politically I don’t think it would be acceptable.
May I please repeat what I said here two days ago in other words ?
It takes 15 minutes for a 4.5 th generation USAF fighter to fly from Sigonella to Tripoli. That is five minutes more than it would take to fly from Luqa. Remember that these beasts can fly at Mach 1.5 which is roughly half a kilometre per second.
Why on earth would the Pentagon want to fly from Malta, when they have an incredibly sophisticated set up already in place manned by four thousand experts ?
The options will be Sigonella, USS Enterprise or both.
The main military problem is not Malta’s so-called neutrality.
It is taking out the Libyan air defence capability with minimal collateral damage.
Anthony, I’m sure that NATO could manage very well without Malta. Our involvement – even if only in a minor way – is not so important for NATO; it is important for us. Why is this so hard to understand?
Is being bombed by Libya a realistic concern should the US bomb them to establish the no fly zone? Does Gaddafi even have people who can fly planes anymore?
I do not think it’s a question of pilots. It’s more on the state of the hardware and whether it is in a state to fly. Radar cover: nobody noticed the RAF Hercules or the German Transal flying to airstrips in the desert to pick up people.
On one of the news channels I saw a couple of SAM (Surface to air) installations which seemed the worse for wear with rust.
In a previous blog, somebody mentioned that Gaddafi let his weapons run down lest any of his military head honchos get any fancy ideas.
If there are no pilots, there is no problem.
If there are pilots, Malta’s constitution won’t stop Gaddafi trying to use them.
The neutrality clause is a joke when you’re talking of nutters and windbags who have no regard for any law but their own whim. The neutrality clause affords no protection. We may as well try to fend them off with a sanitary towel.
So it comes down to this: We refuse to be used as a base for fear of retaliation.
Which is rubbish.
Because what counts is the political stance, not the planes flying out of your territory. We’ve already aligned ourselves with the anti-Gaddafi coalition. We’ve frozen Libyan assets. We’ve voted along with the other EU states to impose sanctions.
In other words, we are no longer neutral. And it happened ages ago, when we joined the EU.
Were we braver back in the early 80s when Libyan planes were based in Malta, and we brushed away the possibilty of being bombed by the US, or were we just more stupid?
All this talk that Malta should have been independent in WWII is a joke.
Assume the Allies weren’t here and the Nazis didn’t invade. Where was all our food going to come from? Think the Germans or the British would have wasted time sending supplies? The population would have starved in 6 months.
Malta has a strategic position that Switzerland doesn’t have. Anyway, I wouldn’t have taken any bets on Switzerland’s neutrality if the Nazis had eliminated Russia and England.
I for one agree with the statement “speak softly ……..but carry a big stick!”
I don’t think that the neutrality cause is so important in 2011 or in this instance.
However, I don’t think it will be so safe for us if Malta is used as a military base. Malta would be risking it a lot. Just remember that Libya fired 2 – 3 missiles to Lampedusa in retaliation for US airstrikes on Libyan facilities in 1986.
[Daphne – Pineapple, please remember that Malta is part of the European Union. Any attack on Malta is an attack on the EU. And any attack by the EU on Libya is an attack by Malta. I really don’t know why people are still thinking in pre-2004 terms.]
Such missiles were targeted at the US base on Lampedusa. So if the US will have a base here from which to attack Libya. I don’t think Ghaddafi will think twice to attack the US base stationed here.
[Daphne – The United States has a full military base in Sicily. It does not need one in Malta. That aside, I find it fascinating just how many people so fondly believe that a man who thinks nothing of bombing his own people will let common decency or ‘neutrality’ stop him from bombing Malta if that’s what he’s decided he wants to do.]
“Any attack on Malta is an attack on the EU. And any attack by the EU on Libya is an attack by Malta.”
I don’t think that this is the case. The EU is not a military bloc. Are the Maltese accountable for the actions of the British in Iraq?
[Daphne – Not similar at all.]
I want to reassure all those who are worried about the Constitution and its neutrality clause.
According to the US head of naval operations, one aircraft carrier is not sufficient to impose a no-fly zone all over the vast territory of the Jamahariya.
According to the admiral, the USS George H W Bush is ready in Norfolk to join in the fray. This is the newest carrier in the US navy and the world’s technologically most advanced.
No mention of the airfield at Gudja was made in his statement nor of the piddly radar there.
His comments are reported in detail on the CNN website.
To those who are sticklers at upholding the constitution: enjoy your evening.