It should be noted that I wrote this piece more than a year ago, the stats may be a little dated but the general thesis holds true.
The ongoing Syrian uprising has left thousands of innocent people dead, with no end in sight. The global community demands justice, yet it appears nothing is being done. The “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine provides the framework for humanitarian intervention under four sets of conditions- war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and ethnic cleansing. The emerging norm contends that sovereignty is not a right but instead a responsibility, premised on the ability of the state to protect its own citizens.
Neither the legality of the doctrine, nor the definition of sovereignty will be discussed throughout this paper, as scholars much more qualified than I, have debated these topics extensively elsewhere. Instead, the scope of this essay will be narrowed to answering the question: “Why hasn’t the United Nations intervened militarily in Syria?”. In order to do this, the paper will be broken into three parts.
First, I will provide background information on the norm, with specific attention paid to the threshold that must be met before the doctrine becomes relevant. Second, I will discuss the six criteria that must be fulfilled before military intervention can be justly authorized. Each component will be analyzed in relation to the United Nations role in Syria. Finally, I will conclude with a prescription for the future, fully cognizant of the strengths and weaknesses of my argument.
A responsibility is not the same as an obligation. Just because you have the right to do something, does not mean that you have to. Proponents of military intervention into Syria point to the success NATO experienced in Libya. An easy comparison to make, but a wrong one. Contrary to the experience in Libya, Syria has a strong and fully equipped military, fighting a weak and disorganized resistance. Allies on the Security Council prevent sanctioned military action, while regional allies provide fear of conflagration. Congruent with R2P principles, the United Nations should not intervene militarily in Syria as it would make a bad problem even worse.
The atrocities committed in both Rwanda and Srebrenica while the global community stood by and watched, marked a turning point for the United Nations. Unable to intervene, Kofi Annan proclaimed the need for a new conceptual framework to reconcile the respect of state sovereignty with the need for humanitarian intervention. The formation of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) and the subsequent release of their report “The Responsibility to Protect” provided this framework. The report contends that sovereignty is not a right, but instead a responsibility. It concludes that sovereignty is contingent on a states ability to protect its citizens from mass atrocities- an umbrella term comprising of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and ethnic cleansing. If a state is unable or unwilling to protect its citizens, the international community has a responsibility to do so.
The following section will provide background information on the situation in Syria, proving that it has met the threshold for intervention on the premise of R2P. Since beginning in Tunisia, the Arab Spring contagion has spread throughout the Middle East/ North Africa region. The situation in Syria is unique and not comparable to other revolutions or uprisings. With few exceptions, the regime is strong and unified behind Bashar al- Assad. The military which is currently being used to quell the uprising, is formidable and fully equipped. Conversely, the resistance is weak, disorganized and lacks central leadership. The Syrians’ disunity is primarily a result of its sectarian composition and the legacy of French colonialism which favored the Alawite minority over the Sunni majority. As a result of nepotism, despite only comprising eleven percent of the population, nearly all of the government posts are held by Alawites. As such, they are very loyal to Bashar al-Assad whose family has been in power for forty years. For the purposes of this paper, Assad will be referred to as the “state”.
Syria is not only unwilling to protect its citizens, the regime itself is complicit in committing mass atrocities. The uprising began with a “Day of Dignity” on March 15th 2011. The first shots were fired three days later, as security forces killed three protesters. Subsequent protests were met with increasing levels of violence, as more protesters were killed and hundreds of youths marching in solidarity were fired upon. As a result, the government resigned. Assad blamed foreign conspirators for inciting the unrest and vowed to eliminate the “terrorists”. Eighteen months have passed since the first shot was fired and little to no progress has been made. Violence has escalated, thousands of lives have been lost, many more displaced. What began as a popular uprising has evolved into a civil war between the state and the opposition. The threshold for intervention has been met. However, for military intervention to occur, six criteria must also be met. Right authority, just cause, right intention, last resort, proportional measures and finally, but most important- reasonable prospects of success.
The following section will analyze each of the six components in relation to the United Nations role in Syria.
Right Authority
The Security Council is the only body of the United Nations vested with the authority to authorize military intervention. It is comprised of ten elected and five permanent members. The United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, China and France are the five permanent members of the Security Council- each one entrusted with veto power. Russia and China have used this power three times in relation to Syria, blocking Security Council resolutions that could have resulted in sanctions against the regime. If military intervention were to occur with the right authority, it would have to be authorized by the Security Council. The obdurate positions of both Russia and China prevent sanctioned military intervention. The Security Council has been circumvented before, evidenced by both Kosovo and Iraq. Additionally, vetoes can be avoided through the “Uniting for Peace” procedure. Both provisions are suggested in the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine. It is not the lack of right authority that is preventing military intervention into Syria. The following section will carefully analyze the next two provisions that must be met before military intervention can be justified.
Just Cause and Right Intention
Just cause and right intent are the second and third principles that must be met in order to justify military intervention. “The large scale loss of life... carried out by killing, forced expulsion, acts of terror or rape” is how the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine defines the just cause principle. The primary purpose of the right intent principle is to prevent or end human suffering without ulterior motives. If the state is unwilling or unable to protect its citizens, and large loss of life is occurring, then the just cause principle has been met and the international community can intervene militarily, provided it has the right intent. The loss of life is well documented. Since the rebellion has begun, tens of thousands of people have died- a significant portion, murdered by the regime. The Syrian government is complicit in these deaths. However, it is prudent for the purposes of this paper to acknowledge that the Free Syrian Army (FSA) is just as complicit in the commission of mass atrocities. The summary execution of prisoners without trial is a war crime- something the FSA has done multiple times.
It has been postulated that the opposition has ties with Al Qaeda, further complicating military intervention. The right intent criterion is best ensured through collective or multilateral military intervention. The United States has gone on record stating that Bashar al-Assad must be deposed- an ulterior motive Russia is not willing to accept. Occasionally, dictators and their supporters are the only ones able to hold together states that are not always considered “nations”. Josip Broz Tito was able to maintain Yugoslavian unity throughout his thirty-five year authoritarian rule. His death in 1980 served as the harbinger of war and the eventual dissolution of the state. Successful regime change is contingent on a competent opposition ready to fill the void. Currently, there is no cohesive opposition in a position to legitimately take power if Assad were removed. The United Nations, by authorizing military intervention, strictly for humanitarian purposes would be acting with both just cause and the right intent. However, before doing so, all other avenues must be exhausted.
Last Resort
Military intervention can only be only be justified once all other peaceful resolutions have been explored. The United Nations has been involved in Syria since the onset of the uprising. Russia and China have thrice vetoed financial sanctions against the regime, however, an arms embargo and country specific sanctions have been in place for a while. The United States has admitted to colluding with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar offering “non-lethal” assistance to the rebels. An irresponsible position if the Al Qaeda allegations prove to be legitimate. In response, both Russia and Iran have vowed to assist the Assad regime in their effort to cleanse the country of “terrorists”. Although neither Russia nor the United States has admitted to offering direct offensive military support, it is easy to conclude that the uprising in Syria has evolved into a proxy-war between the competing super powers. Special Envoy Kofi Annan was able to negotiate a six-point plan as part of a ceasefire agreement that was broken before the ink was dry. It reaffirmed the sovereignty of the state, called for a cease-fire by both sides and allowed Bashar al-Assad to retain power. The Six-Point Proposal of the Joint Special Envoy of the United Nations and the League of Arab States was unanimously adopted as Security Council Resolution 2042. It was broken four days later. All other reasonable efforts have been made to end the humanitarian crisis in Syria. However, it is the following two principles which elucidate why the United Nations both should not and will not intervene militarily in Syria.
Proportional Means and Reasonable Prospects
The final two principles that must be met before military intervention can be justly authorized, provide a catch-22 that prevent it from occurring. Proportional means limits the scope, duration and intensity of the proposed intervention, while reasonable prospects contends that intervention should not occur unless success can be ensured. Additionally, the second provision within the reasonable prospects paradigm states that, if the consequences of intervention are likely to escalate the conflict, coercive military action cannot be justified. The two principles taken together, provide a unique challenge for the United Nations and the responsibility to protect framework. The Syrian regime is winning the fight for Aleppo- Syria’s largest city, the resistance is losing ground. In an attempt to reverse this trend, the United States is working closely with Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia to aid the Free Syrian Army (FSA). The United States has set aside $25m for “non-lethal” assistance to the rebels, and $64m in humanitarian assistance for the Syrian people. Operating out of a base in Turkey 100km from the Syrian border, wealthy Saudi Arabian and Qatari families offer the FSA financial support, allowing them to continue their struggle. The support, both financial and logistical has allowed the FSA to make substantial progress, however, a new Syrian offensive appears to be inevitable as the global community prepares for the worst. Syria has gone on the record, stating they have both chemical and biological weapons that will be used in the case of foreign intervention. Assad has publicly declared that “Any action against Syria will have greater consequences [on those who carry it out] greater than they can tolerate”. Iran had pledged to support Syria in their fight against the “terrorists”, and it is unsure how deep the Russian and Chinese loyalties lie. If the United Nations were to intervene militarily, chemical and biological attacks may result in thousands of lives painfully lost. Although assurances have been made that the weapons will not be used against its own populace, it is difficult to trust a regime that indiscriminately shells its own citizens. If unilateral military intervention were to occur, it risks regional and even global conflagration. Military intervention will worsen the situation and cannot be justified.
The inability to intervene everywhere, should not prevent the global community from intervening anywhere. There are conflict zones worldwide that the United Nations cannot or will not intervene. Specific circumstances must be met before the R2P framework is applicable, and six criteria must be met before military intervention can be justly authorized. Tens of thousands of people have died in Syria since the uprising began and many more have been displaced. Not only is the regime unable or unwilling to protect its citizens, it is itself complicit in these atrocities.
Syria has forfeited its sovereignty, and the international community has the responsibility to protect its citizens. However, the principles for military intervention have not been met. The right authority provision cannot be reconciled as long as Russia and China continue to veto Security Council resolutions. The onus is on the global community and Ban Ki-moon to negotiate a framework that can be universally adopted. National interests must be put aside. Just cause is analogous to the basic R2P principles themselves. Opinions can be debated, facts cannot. The Assad regime is complicit in the commission of mass atrocities against its citizenry. The advent of Al Qaeda into the opposition provides the regime with justification it desires. The state can now rightfully claim that it is fighting a terrorist group that the United States itself has vowed to eradicate.
The “Friends of Syria” can no longer, in good conscience, support an opposition linked to a terrorist group responsible for thousands of deaths worldwide. The Assad regime has lost all legitimacy and must go. This sentiment has been expressed by the majority of the global community yet cannot be the premise on which military intervention is based. Regime change is an ulterior motive that is not congruent with the right intent principle. The proportional means principle states that the scale, duration and intensity of any proposed military action must be the minimum necessary to remove the threat. As all other measures have failed and the regime is adamant on retaining power, nothing short of a full-scale military intervention will be able to tip the balance of power in favour of the FSA. The reasonable prospects principle states that military intervention should only occur if success is ensured without worsening the conflict. The full-scale military intervention of Syria will lead to the use of chemical and biological weapons, regional conflagration and possible superpower confrontation- making the conflict exponentially worse. It is easy to draw the comparison between current regional tensions, and those experienced prior to World War I.
As such, the United Nations, congruent with R2P principles, should not intervene militarily in Syria. However painful the reality, a government committing mass atrocities on its population is not enough to justify military intervention. As difficult as it is to reconcile, humanitarian intervention may do more harm than good. As a last resort, a comprehensive ceasefire should be negotiated by all parties. The negotiations should be inclusive and involve any interested parties. Regional players such as Qatar, Turkey and Iran may be more integral to the peace process than even the United States or Russia. Any agreement should not contain regime change as a component since it will be vetoed and should instead stress the need for democratic elections.
The responsibility to protect is an umbrella term comprising of the responsibility to prevent, react and rebuild. The United Nations was unable to prevent the mass atrocities being committed by the Syrian regime. They have however reacted through sanctions, diplomatic negotiations and the issuance of Kofi Annan as a special envoy. Military intervention is not an option. The responsibility to rebuild is one in which the United Nations will be able to offer the most assistance, and where the Syrian population will need it. Through the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) the UN will provide peacekeepers who can ensure the ceasefire is respected. Financial aid will allow for infrastructure that was damaged during the war to be rebuilt. Finally, parliamentary and constitutional assistance will ensure that Syria has a fully functional constitutional democracy congruent with a civilized nation.
