The idea of a no-fly zone in Libya has been discussed by various governments. It hasn’t yet been sanctioned by the UN security council. See resolution 1970 (2011) here. David Cameron has raised the idea more seriously now that UK citizens have been evacuated. BBC political editor Nick Robinson comments on this here.

A few thoughts: how does this square with UN claims “Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya”? Sovereignty of whom; independence of what? – the people, the state, the government? Territorial integrity of what? A no-fly zone would prevent Libya from exercising its sovereignty throughout the whole of its territory, and thereby compromise its territorial integrity. Not the latter in terms of its territorial preservation – I don’t think anyone is suggesting Libya’s borders be redrawn, and the national unity claim reinforces this – but certainly in terms of its territorial sovereignty.

Blair’s first military intervention when he was Prime Minister was to police, and then punish, Iraq over no-fly zones – this was Operation Desert Fox in 1998. It was of course followed by Kosovo in 1999; Sierra Leone; Afghanistan and Iraq. Although, as Robinson points out, Cameron’s military role has been the continuation of the Afghanistan war, this is perhaps an cautionary tale. One of the great problems of the Iraq war was the damage it caused to ideas of ‘humanitarian intervention’, and one of Blair’s greatest failings was his inability to work out where the line between that and neo-conservative arguments about ‘contingent sovereignty’ lay. I think most advocates of humanitarian intervention or the ‘responsibility to protect’ failed to articulate clearly what the differences were between those approaches, and as I’ve argued elsewhere, the logic of one was carried over into the other. This will inevitably complicate any intervention in Libya, however benign or worthy the intentions. Coupled with the colonial legacy in the region of two of the other countries discussing this – France and Italy – this is surely reason to tread very carefully. Given the UK and the West’s recent embrace of Libya – quite literally, see this picture of Blair and Gaddafi – because of a supposed turnaround in its attitude, but also because of trade, it looks terrible. And, perhaps more importantly, it risks taking away from the courage and achievement of the Libyan people themselves.

[Update: Lenin’s Tomb offers a critique of the notion of ‘humanitarian intervention in strong terms here]