RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT: SYRIA’S CASE
Instructions: Choose one of the questions below and answer all parts of the question:
With reference to either the United Nations Security Council critically evaluate the obstacles to engaging in humanitarian intervention and peace building.
Responsibility to Protect (R2P) codifies our moral obligation to vulnerable persons in conflict and disaster zones. Critically evaluate the doctrine in relation to current actions or inaction in Syria.
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT: SYRIA’S CASE
With a common war seething in Syria for over two years and developing death rates, there are some people curious of unavailable philanthropic mediation in Syria within the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. The main goal of this paper is to inquire and analyze if the Syrian circumstance undoubtedly warrants the use of R2P doctrine, and besides, if it not applicable, what are the situations have altered the doctrine from being authorized. Presumably, it is true that Syrian gore positively shows a legitimate instance of R2P. However, solid complaints from a few nations around the globe, combined with a general anti-interventionist sentiment, have kept off the utilization of the R2P doctrine in Syria.
Doctrine of Responsibility to Protect
First of all, we must understand the primary principle of the doctrine of the R2P, which was an ingenuity postulated by the UN on the World Summit in 2009. This doctrine came into being after the UN-led relief missions were highly criticized and ill-executed in the last decade, which led to an increased number of death tolls and inadequate relief to affected persons (Murray & McKay, 2014). The yearning new doctrine of R2P was partitioned thrice; first, that it was nation’s essential obligation in securing their populaces against the of the acts genocide such as genocide, atrocities, ethnic purging and violations against humanity (Bellamy, 2010). Moreover, the global community had a duty in helping any state in endeavoring to authorize the R2P, particularly, if a state is clearly neglecting to protect its populaces, the global community must make an aggregate move to secure populaces, as per the UN Charter (Murray & McKay, 2014). Subsequently, the fairly disputable formulated policy was the primary case of the outright force of state power since there was a mutual conviction that nations once in a while utilized their independent powers’ right to do unlawful and unfriendly practices against their populaces. Therefore power was used as a “license to kill” (Kersavage, 2014).
Interestingly, the UN solidly came up with the system for a correct arrangement and rules which specifically managed instances of atrocities and human rights infringement, and, significantly even more prominently, the R2P rule spoke to a drastic movement in the behaviour of global issues as it turned into the liberal response to the conventional pragmatist principle of the right to mediate, which was regularly referred to by numerous forces as an honest to goodness premise for their threatening and constrained inclusions in different states (Lauria, 2012). It is evident that the Responsibility to Protect doctrine was meant to change the apparent international scene by presenting an aggregate decision-making instead of permitting one nation to singularly mediate in a different country’s internal affairs without erstwhile talks or endorsement from the international organizations. Imperatively, it is noted that the new R2P precept displayed an assortment of recommended arrangements, leaving military mediation as the last stride. Additionally, it vigorously focused on the possibility of duty, in that, the first obligation of a nation is to secure its citizens, and afterward the aggregate commitment for a more extensive international community in protecting people in case their respective state neglects (Sahnoun & Evans, 2002). Finally, the R2P doctrine likewise symbolized a noteworthy upgrade in the dialect in international relationships, as there was no idea of forceful interventions, but somewhat it is helpful and a peaceful concept for protection (Sahnoun & Evans, 2002).
Syrian Case Analysis
Subsequently, in critically analyzing of the R2P doctrine, this paper will outline considerations as to whether this tenet is appropriate to the Syrian current actions and inactions. Ever since 5/11, war has torn of Syria as groups rise against the Syrian government, which has swelled out to conventional war, causing the death of more than seventy thousand subjects (Murray & McKay, 2014). Organizations such as the UN and other nations have unwaveringly denounced the administration of President Bashar al-Assad for practicing an act referred to as “war of annihilation” and genocide against the people of Syria. In their scorching report, Amnesty International presumed that the purposeful and illicit homicides are broad and organized assault against the Syrian populace, completed in an organized way and as a feature of state’s policy and in this way apparently constitute violations against humanity (Amnesty International, 2012). The UN reports concur with Amnesty’s International report as, as indicated by its UN examinations, it is evident that Syrian administration has committed some gross infringement of human rights, combined with atrocities and wrongdoings against humankind. (Murdie, 2013) Thus, since unmistakably weighty human rights treacheries are still committed in Syria. Does Syria need an intervention?
Attribution cannot be put forth that such lack of action to one single country or course. It is evident that the United Nations has failed to pass strong recommendations against Assad as well as the diplomatic efforts have been wrecked Russia and China, as primary allies to Syria. This two Security Council’s inclusion has hampered the UN from realizing its goal as per the R2P doctrine since they voted Syria, leaving the Assad regime free to proceed, practically unaltered. Syria’s government has been offered a significant lifeline for its allies (Lauria, 2012). For example, Russia is interested in the continuation of Assad regime as well as Syria provides Russia with the one naval base in the Mediterranean. However, another important fact to this general inaction towards Syria is that previous, contrary crisis like Libya in 2011; the western nations are seeing a likelihood that Syria is turning into a sectarian Islamist state.
is evident that the transnational community is plastered with challenges in the
current Syrian situation, on which hardly depicts a possibility of an informal
resolution. Syrian’s current state is an archetypal case which permits the
utilization of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine due to the presence of a
government campaign of the execution against rowdy citizens amidst the civil
war. Nevertheless, as Russia and China have repetitively been hindering
UN-imposed sanctions, The UN is now rendered powerless, minimizing the
potentiality of a military intervention to stop the bloodshed. Additionally,
there is no other country from the international community that is willing to
deploy military intervention in Syria. Therefore, Syria poses a worthy instance
of failure not only to the UN but also to the international community, which
has set back to be a passive observer to stop the atrocities. The solutions do
exist with the implementation of the R2P doctrine, but it’s unfortunate that
there are concrete reasons in its prevention to the international community
from stepping up to its earth-shattering responsibility and implementing it.
List of References
Amnesty International. (2012). Deadly Reprisals: Delibarate Killings and other abuses by Syria’s armed forces. London: Amnesty International Ltd.
Bellamy, A. (2010). The Responsibility to Protect—Five Years on. Ethics & International Affairs, 24(2), 143-169.
Kersavage, K. (2014, January). The “responsibility to protect” our answer to “never again”? Libya, Syria and a critical analysis of R2P. In International Affairs Forum, 5(1), 23-41.
Lauria, J. (2012, July 19). Russia, China Veto Syria Resolution at U.N. Retrieved September 2, 2016, from The Wall Street Journal: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444097904577536793560681930
Murdie, A. &. (2013). The Impact of Human Rights INGO Shaming on Humanitarian Interventions. The Journal of Politics, 76(1), 215-228.
Murray, R., & McKay, A. (2014). Into the Eleventh Hour: R2P, Syria and Humanitarianism in Crisis. Bristol: E-International Relations.
Sahnoun, M., & Evans, G. (2002). The Responsibility to Protect. Foreign Affairs, 81(6), 98-109.