Don’t Allow Libya to Define R2P
15 March 2012
Ever since the military involvement in Libya there has been an increasing debate, even a buzz, about whether or not it sets a precedent for future action in protecting civilians against state violence. The debate is further complicated by the current stalemate on taking action in Syria. This leads some critics to claim that the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), as a concept, has been damaged or made more difficult, however, they are mistaken.
First, R2P should not be judged on the basis of the military response in Libya. Somewhere along the way, R2P has become synonymous with military intervention. Just last week, Alex de Waal made the argument in the New York Times against the perceived “idealism” of R2P. His argument relies on a misunderstanding of the concept as the use of military means towards the ends of democracy and justice. The reality is that the original International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) report, released in 2001 made clear that the implementation of R2P is about the protection of civilians, should be considered primarily preventative and considers military action a very last resort.
To follow up from Garth Evans’ response to the article, the intention behind the doctrine is to reset the dialogue around sovereignty, as a responsibility, and to establish a set of criteria upon which to base any future intervention in humanitarian crisis – whether through diplomatic political and economic means, or if and when it is needed, the use of the military. Even with the current situation in Syria, it remains vitally important that employing the words “Responsibility to Protect “ in an international resolution need not mean military intervention. (…)
If anything, it is not the doctrine itself, but its misinterpretation which could cause the most harm, if it is to be discounted. This indeed is the case in the Middle East where there has been a variety of initiatives taken that have helped in the restraint on violence and in several cases changes in government or it’s behavior that have not yet been identified as falling under R2P. Take Yemen as an example, where negotiated amnesty for President Saleh led to a more or less peaceful ending to what may have otherwise been a lengthy crisis. This is R2P in action. As is Kofi Annan’s current involvement in Syria, so pointed out by Roland Paris yesterday.
Another question that is raised has to do with the Russian and Chinese veto on Syria. No question that this has set back the UN ’s credibility. There has to be a response to this quandary. Again, it seems appropriate to refer back to the original ICISS report. One of those ideas is working to create a “code of conduct” by the permanent members to refrain from using the veto on initiatives that are designed to protect people and apply R2P principles. (…)
There is a very real possibility that this rebellion in Syria could erupt into a civil war, which could have long term destabilizing and terrifying consequences for the region as whole. This increasing risk shows how closely R2P is linked to the fundamental mandate of the Security Council in promoting peace and stability. There needs to be active and purposeful action to try and restore credibility to UN Security Council and underline the necessity of the international community taking action against mass murder and serious threat to civilian lives — the very essence of the Responsibility to Protect.
Read the full opinion.
Read Alex de Waal’s opinion published in the NYTimes, How to end mass atrocities, and responses by Gareth Evans and Roland Paris.