Tag: humanitarian intervention

Are We Failing Syria Yet Again? Response to the Chemical Attack on Syrian Civilians

Destroyed city of Azas, Syria. Source: Creative Commons, Christiaan Triebert.

One of the worst chemical attacks turned a rebel-held area in the north of Syria into a death zone. Bombs were dropped from war planes in the early morning of April 4, 2017 and the spread of poisonous gas started shortly thereafter. Close to 70 people died, with pictures of dying children and grieving relatives going around the world. The Syrian military accused insurgents, but it seems clear that only  the Syrian government has the ability to carry these types of bombings. Shock and condemnation was the reaction of governments and the public around the world. Two days later, President Trump ordered airstrikes, his first military action while in office.

Why this outcry and action now? People have been dying in Syria for months and years  – think Aleppo – and the response has been, for the most part, fairly limited. We have seen dying children and assaulted women, airstrikes on civilian areas, and death and suffering everywhere. I would argue there are three reasons for this strong response, both in the public and in the political realm.

  1. The footage of the attacks themselves.
  2. The violation of most important rules of international law.
  3. A new administration in the White House.

Let me explain.

Source: Creative Commons, Códice Tuna Colectivo de Arte.

 

First and most obviously, it is the footage of children and older adults struggling to breathe, frothing at their mouths, and lying motionless in the mud as aid workers desperately try to help. It is the incredible grief by a father, who lost 22 members of his family in the attack, and who can be seen clutching the bodies of his 9-month-old twins. It is the level of individual suffering that most of us can relate to as human beings with families of our own, and the gruesomeness of the attack shakes us to the very core.

However, there is a second reason why this attack is cause for special consideration. The use of chemical weapons rises to the most serious violation of fundamental principles of international law: (1) the  deliberate targeting of civilians is a crime against humanity, the “worst of worst crimes” and on par with genocide, and (2) the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons in warfare is one of the most widely acknowledged and respected rules of the international law of war.

Crimes against humanity are deliberate, systematic attacks against civilians or a significant part of the civilian population. Crimes against humanity were first described and prosecuted in the Nuremberg Trials at the conclusion of WWII and have since entered international criminal law as one of the major crimes for prosecution of individuals. While there is no international treaty specifically dealing with crimes against humanity, the Statute of the International Criminal Court lists mass murder, massacres, dehumanization, genocide, human experimentation, extrajudicial punishments, death squads, forced disappearances, recruiting of child soldiers, kidnappings, unjust imprisonment, slavery, cannibalism, torture, mass rape, and political or racial repression (e.g., apartheid) as crimes that reach the threshold of crimes against humanity if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice.

The prohibition of the use of chemical weapons has its origins in the late 19th century. Shortly after the establishment of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1864 – the institution that oversees international humanitarian law, also known as the “law of war” – states decided to regulate and ban weapons that inflict excessive and unnecessary harm to the people affected by war (e.g., the Hague Declaration concerning Asphyxiating Gases of 1899).  The horrific injuries sustained by soldiers from poisonous gas in WWI and experiences of both combatants and civilians in later conflicts (e.g., in Vietnam) accelerated these efforts, which resulted first in the Geneva Gas Protocol (1925) and then in the Chemical Weapons Convention (1993). The Chemical Weapons Convention  prohibits the use of chemical weapons in all circumstances, which means in both international (meaning between states) and non-international war (any other type of conflict, including civil wars). Only 13 states have not signed either the Geneva Gas Protocol or the Chemical Weapons Convention (Syria is not one of them). The prohibition of chemical weapons is a universal norm, which means that it binds all parties to armed conflicts, whether state or non-state actors, as a rule of international customary law.

This ban of chemical weapons is strengthened by the fact that it is illegal under international humanitarian law to use weapons that do not distinguish between military and civilian targets. So-called indiscriminate weapons are those that cannot be directed at a military objective or whose effects cannot be limited. Similar to the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons, this rule is not only international custom, but has also been affirmed in various international treaties, including the statute of the International Criminal Court and the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention. The UN General Assembly and other UN organs have supported this principle in multiple resolutions and the International Court of Justice, the highest court in the world, reaffirmed the principle of distinguishing between civilian and military targets in the Nuclear Weapons advisory opinion (ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, Advisory Opinion). While there is no definite list of indiscriminate weapons, the ICRC generally cites chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, anti-personnel landmines, mines, poison, explosives discharged from balloons, cluster bombs, booby-traps, certain types of rockets and missiles, and environmental modification techniques.

In other words, the chemical attacks by the Syrian regime on its own population broke two fundamental rules of international law.

Third, we have a new administration in the White House whose policy towards Syria and the Middle East is most likely to be very different than the one of its predecessor (it is too early to tell for sure).  President Trump expressed that the use of chemical weapons in Syria “crossed a lot of lines for me” and changed the way in which he views the Syrian dictator Bashir Al-Assad. The decision to use airstrikes against Syria was made shortly thereafter. President Trump’s words, and in some way, his actions, remind us of President Obama’s reaction to the use of chemical gas against civilians in Syria in 2013. President Obama, who used the word “red line” in connection with the 2013 attack, also contemplated air strikes. However, in an unexpected turn around, Obama decided to seek congressional approval for military action against Syria. The proposed bill never received a floor vote because the Syrian government accepted a U.S.-Russian deal to turn over its chemical weapons stockpile and sign and ratify the Chemical Weapons Conventions.

Sunset at the White House. Source: Creative Commons, Ted Eytan.

 

What does this mean? Were the airstrikes legal? What are the political consequences? From a legal point of view, the situation is complicated, but more easily explained. Under international law, the  use of force against another state is illegal, unless it is in self-defense, authorized by the UN Security Council, or on the invitation of the state affected. Security Council authorization is unlikely to happen considering that Russia is a veto-power holding member of the Security Council and has made it clear that it does not see the need for a condemnation of the attack. The U.S. has not given any indication that the airstrikes were in self-defense. Syria has certainly not invited the U.S. to strike its airbase. So, in most interpretations of international law, the airstrikes are illegal. President Trump said in a press conference in the evening of April 6 that “it is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons,” which could hint at a future justification of the airstrikes within framework of self-defense. There is some discussion over whether the unilateral use of force on behalf of civilians, also known as humanitarian intervention, should be seen as legitimate, if not legal. However, considering the situation in Syria and the U.S. military involvement against the Islamic State, Russia’s engagement, and the geopolitical situation, it would be very difficult for the U.S. to argue for a purely humanitarian justification of U.S. action. While the airstrikes authorized by President Trump were very limited – hitting a somewhat remote airbase – and no formal declaration of war has been made, Syria could very well see the airstrikes as an informal act of war.

Under U.S. law, the President may authorize military action for defense, but not for offensive wars. Offensive wars require congressional approval. Congressional approval was given for military action after the 9/11 attacks, which gives the President far reaching authority to combat terrorism. The Obama administration has interpreted this rule to include and authorize the fight against the Islamic State, and so far, the Trump administration seems to go along with this interpretation. Regardless, a war against Syria, a state, not a non-state actor, is a completely different beast. A war against Syria would most certainly need congressional approval, and members of Congress have already called for the administration to bring any future military action before Congress.

In terms of political consequences, it’s too early to tell if this was a one time engagement and what the Trump administration will do next. Russia’s involvement in Syria complicates matters as not only U.S.-Syrian relations, but also U.S.-Russian relations are at stake. Russia has reacted strongly and called the airstrikes a “significant blow to Russian-U.S. relations.”   Either way, an in depth discussion of strategy will be important, especially considering that interventions tend to be much more complex and complicated endeavors than they first appear. America, as many countries before her, has learned this the hard way. And if we really want to help the “beautiful babies” in Syria, as President Trump claims, we need to open our borders to allow Syrian refugees to find safety.

However, while these discussions over legality and Russia-U.S. relations are certainly important, they are not sufficient. What we need to focus on is the question over what the consequences of military action will be. We cannot be distracted from what has to be the end goal: a political settlement of the conflict. Only a termination of violence and war will end the tremendous suffering of Syrian children, women, and men. Any military action has to be judged on whether it advances or hinders an end to the conflict.

Famine: The Political Overlook of the Right to Food

a picture of Halima Bare and one of her children
Halima Bare (40) and one of her children in Elado village, Wajir District. Source: Oxfam East Africa, Creative Commons.

South Sudan, Somalia, Northeast Nigeria, and Yemen are currently experiencing what is being recognized as an international famine crisis. The lack of food in these countries has resulted in twenty million individuals suffering from extreme hunger, caused by agricultural and civil misfortunes. Starvation is expanding at an overwhelming speed; within the last three months, three million citizens from these regions are experiencing extreme food shortages. Famine has officially been declared in South Sudan, while the United Nations (UN) warns that the food shortages in Nigeria, Yemen, and Somalia are only a few months away from reaching similar extremities. At this rate, these regions could face societal and economic challenges for an extraneous period. The UN has requested a total of $4.4 billion, in attempt to reverse famine in the affected countries. The purpose of this blog is to bring awareness to the global issue of starvation and famine, with regards to the collapse of civil structures and ecological factors that have severely influenced the rise of famine.

Famine refers to a wide-ranging and life-threatening food insufficiency in a specific region of the world. The issue can be created by drought, epidemics, population imbalances, inflation, and government instability. The UN determines an official famine crisis through evaluation of the food shortage margins. The official United Nations website mandates, “A famine can be declared only when certain measures of mortality, malnutrition and hunger are met. They are: at least 20 per cent of households in an area face extreme food shortages with a limited ability to cope; acute malnutrition rates exceed 30 per cent; and the death rate exceeds two persons per day per 10,000 persons.” Natural and man-made catastrophes have worked hand-in-hand for the reasons behind the current famine issue. As political conflict and resource deprivation create an overpowering effect on a region’s agriculture and cost of food, individuals are stripped of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This declaration was created by fifty-six international representatives in 1948 as a universal agreement to essential human rights. The document was put into action only three years after the 1945 Vietnamese famine, which killed roughly two million citizens within six months. Article 25 of the UDHR states, “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

a picture of a Yemini boy on a donkey with gerry cans for water
Yemen: Access to water. Source: European Commission DG ECHO, Creative Commons.

YEMEN What was already the poorest Arab country is now considered to be experiencing one of the world’s worst hunger crises. Two-thirds of the Yemenis population are suffering with food insufficiency. Eighteen million individuals are facing severe food and water shortages in Yemen, and seven million of these deprived citizens are classified as starving. Conflict is to blame for Yemen’s nearing famine crisis. Yemen’s former president’s, Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, failed attempts to provide adequate fuel subsidies to the Yemenis people resulted in the Houthis driving him out of the city of Aden. The clash between Yemen’s Houthi rebels and President Hadi’s soldiers has resulted in a violent civil war, and citizens’ food accessibility and resources have become targets. OXFAM, an international union for poverty assistance, has stated, “Ports, roads and bridges, along with warehouses, farms and markets have been regularly destroyed by the Saudi-led coalition, draining the country’s food stocks. The Houthi led de-facto authority on the other hand, is delaying the delivery of life-saving relief, and sometimes detaining aid workers. This, coupled with a flattened economy, has created an abyss of hunger and a serious threat of famine.”

SOMALIA Drought plays a prominent role in Somalia’s excessive hunger issue. Minimal rain fall has disrupted Somalia’s society three times in nearly twenty-five years. Nearly three million Somalian citizens are suffering from starvation, while 6.2 million citizens are experiencing food and water shortages. This drought has created a spiral of decline for the population’s malnourishment, physical health, and educational standing. An Islamic militant group,  Al-Shabaab, has restricted Somalia’s access to resources after gaining political control of the country in 1991. The previous Somalian government, ruled by Mohammed Barre, was instructed to flee the capital, Mogadishu, after being overthrown by the terror group. During the conflict, the United States cut off their contributions to Somalia, due to the objection of Al-Shabaab. No official government has been established since Barre’s departure. For many years, the militants have blocked access to food and water resources and have required external contributors to pay ten thousand dollars, before allowing them to assist the citizens. The charge was lifted during Somalia’s 2011 food and drought crisis, but the general regulations of Al-Shabaab continue to affect Somalians’ resource abundance. This lack of food and water has caused severe consequences to the victimized citizens, resulting in cholera, measles, malaria, and other fatal diseases. Office for the Coordination of Human Rights recognizes the malnutrition of the Somalian children by stating that 185,000 children are in fatal condition and need of immediate aid. The rebellious leaders have displayed little to no concern with the victim’s current situation, presenting a correlation between Somalia’s political power and failed assistance.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been made irrelevant to the countries’ current leaders, but Anthony Lake, United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund’s Executive Director, asserts, “We are making a difference in the areas we can reach. With the World Food Programme and other partners, we are treating acutely malnourished children. We are vaccinating children against measles and polio. We are providing safe water and sanitation services. But this is nowhere close to enough. Without adequate resources and without safe access, we and our partners will be unable to reach children whose lives are at imminent risk.What is already a crisis can become a catastrophe.”

NIGERIA Northeast Nigeria’s 2.5 million food deprived individuals are experiencing food and water disadvantages, stemming from both extreme drought and political injustice. 100,000 Nigerian citizens are facing fatal consequences of undernourishment and are expected to die from starvation this year. Boko Haram, and Islamic insurgent group from the northeastern region, have spent seven years destroying agricultural resources in Northeast Nigeria and restricting access and assistance to the state of Borno. The radical group not only rid citizens of their right to food and well-being, but also committed violent crimes of kidnapping, suicide bombings, and militant attacks. Although access has improved since the Nigerian army cleared numerous villages in Borno of the militant group, many human rights established by the UDHR continue to be violated today. UNICEF released a statement that claims, “Fews Net, the famine early warning system that monitors food insecurity, said late last year that famine likely occurred in some previously inaccessible areas of Borno states, and that it is likely ongoing, and will continue, in other areas which remain beyond humanitarian reach.” Anthony Lake believes that the lack of food assistance is expected to impact the health of 400,00 children in Nigeria, leading to the possibility of fatality for one in every five kids. This translates to an incomprehensible 246 fatalities in children each day in only one of the famine-potential countries. The United Nation’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs recognizes the detracted human rights of the Boko Haram victims by stating, “In newly accessible areas vulnerable host populations are in critical need of humanitarian interventions including food, water, sanitation, protection, education, shelter and health services.”

SOUTH SUDAN As of February 20, 2017, the world’s newest country has officially declared famine in several locations. The crisis encompasses 4.9 million citizens in need of food and water assistance, including one million individual’s reaching famine. South Sudan’s famine is man-made and could have potentially been avoided. Political opposition between South Sudan’s President Salva Kirr Mayardit and Former Vice President Riek Machar led to an eruption of violence between the Sudan People’s Liberation Army in 2003. The hostility spread past the political supporters to groups and communities throughout South Sudan. Agriculture has been disrupted by this civil war and by severe drought, leaving the majority of South Sudanese citizens with a life-threatening shortage  food and water. The Sudanese government has not only created the chaos that has led to a famine catastrophe, but has failed to consider and abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. With consideration of South Sudan’s short six-year span of independence, the country’s political and agricultural downfall has brought awareness of the current crisis across the globe. The United Nation’s Secretary, General Antonio Guterres claims, “Despite the alarm sounded by the United Nations and the international community over this crisis, the Government has yet to express any meaningful concern or take any tangible steps to address the plight of its people. On the contrary, what we hear most often are denials – a refusal by the leadership to even acknowledge the crisis or to fulfil its responsibilities to end it.”

Collecting Clean Drinking Water. DFID, Creative Commons

United State’s Evolving Contributions The current amount of support going towards the United Nations request of $4.4 billion could take longer than originally anticipated. President Donald Trump has obstinately planned to minimize The United States government’s contributions to the sufferers of these countries, cutting the amount of foreign aid from the United Nation by nearly twenty-nine percent. He calls this “America First.”

The United States is expected to decrease the budgets for all international developments by approximately thirty-seven percent. These revised budget plans constructs a message that greatly contradicts the United States previous assistance, created to specifically minimize the issues of starvation and famine across the globe. Trump’s attempt to decrease funding costs is anticipated to target the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program, originally created by the former senators Bob Dole and George McGovern in 2003. The program has gained a positive reputation for its provided assistance to multiple countries each year. This assistance is focused on agricultural needs, financial donations, and technical advancements. The priority of the McGovern-Dole is to distribute food aid to the countries most effected by hunger and food shortages. Trump’s proposition for eliminating funds for the McGovern-Dole Food has been established through the “America First” budget blueprint, stating that the program“lacks evidence that it is being effectively implemented to reduce food insecurity.” If this elimination is successful, $200 million dollars in food contributions will no longer be an option for the countries currently experiencing famine.

In comparison to the Trump administration, the Obama Administration assisted in United Nations starvation crisis by providing thirty-five million dollars worth of food to Sudan in May of 2016. Similarly, the US provided the United Nation’s World Food Programme  (WFP) with $125 million for food in the countries of Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, and Turkey. The WFP “is the leading humanitarian organization fighting hunger worldwide, delivering food assistance in emergencies and working with communities to improve nutrition and build resilience.” The United States contributed over three times more than any other country to the WFP in the year of 2015. The WFP raised a total $10,979,000,000, within the years of 2015 and 2016, from donors and funding sources in response to global hunger. The US set the bar high with the generous contributions of approximately $2,015,000,000 each year. Following behind are the United Kingdom, European Commission, and Germany, who’s individual contributions amounted to less than half of the United State’s total. While this amount continues to lead the donations across the world, the proposed cuts will undeniably affect today’s starving victims. Denying contributions and assistance to individuals and countries in need challenges the support to the UDHR.

Famines are preventable UN humanitarian chief, Stephen O’Brien has spoken of the extremity of the famine catastrophe currently impacting the globe. O’ Brien estimated the food shortages can be overturned by raising $4.4 billion by July in his statement to the United Nations Security Counsel. One thing O’Brien expresses passionately- preventibility.

“It is all preventable. It is possible to avert this crisis, to avert these famines, to avert these looming human catastrophes.”

 

Stephen O’Brien Meets Displaced People in Uganda. DFID, Creative Commons.

O’Brien’s travels and experiences among the victims of starvation bring about an alertness that is impossible to overlook. O’ Brien states, “For all three crises and North-Eastern Nigeria, an immediate injection of funds plus safe and unimpeded access are required to enable partners to avert a catastrophe; otherwise, many people will predictably die from hunger, livelihoods will be lost, and political gains that have been hard- won over the last few years will be reversed.” His plea for awareness and support based off of both his experiences and current data has been globally recognized by the world, but has lead to unexpected predicaments. Watch UN’s humanitarian chief communicate the issues being faced by the citizens of Somalia, South Sudan, Yemen, and Northeast Nigeria.

Every Contribution Makes a Difference Inevitably, the internet has provided motivated individuals with an outlet for creating contributions for the United Nation’s multi-billion dollar request. Social media has provided increased awareness to the starvation crisis affecting the Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia, and South Sudan. Celebrities including Ben Stiller, Colin Kaepernick, Casey Neistat, Juanpa Zarita, and Chakabars have raised over two million dollars to hep the cause occurring in victimized food shortage countries, specifically Somalia. This contribution began when Jerome Jarre, a French social media celebrity, identified Turkish Airlines as the only accessible commercial airline that flies to Somalia. Jarre utilized Twitter to promote his idea of filling a plane with food and water, and sending the supplies to the Somalians in need. His videos immediately caught the attention of Stiller, and within hours the topic was on Twitter’s Trending Topics. The campaign group’s original goal of one million dollars was reached in less than twenty-four hours of their social media. Turkish Airlines has expressed positive reactions to the campaign, as well. The airline company has announced their willingness to send 60 tons of humanitarian aid, and are expected to send out their first transfer of food on March 27. They have also announced their plan to continue the food transfer through as many commercial flights as needed. Read more information and get involved with the “Love Army For Somalia” GoFundMe page.

The celebrities’ motivation to provide assistance has been viewed as an inspiration around the globe. Our world is in an eye-opening and critical period of humanitarian need. Article 25 of the UDHR may have been overlooked by the government officials of South Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, and Northeast Nigeria, but during times of crisis, our established human rights must be aided by each other.

“We will not enjoy security without development, we will not enjoy development without security, and we will not enjoy either without respect for human rights.” –United Nations Secretary, General Kofi Annan

 

 

Aleppo, Just War and Responsibility to Protect: Why we have failed humanity!

Aleppo A view of Aleppo, Syria from above. It's a real concrete jungle.
Aleppo. A view of Aleppo, Syria from above. It’s a real concrete jungle. Source: Michael Goodine, Creative Commons.

By RUSS HUNTER

I was fortunate to attend a lecture by Dr. John Pace who served in the United Nations for thirty-three years. He distinguished himself as a champion of human rights. He was Secretary to the Commission on Human Rights (1978 to 1994) and Coordinator of the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights (1991 to 1993) with many other posts and special envoys on human rights. I asked Dr. Pace specifically about Aleppo–whether the armed humanitarian intervention (AHI), right to protect (R2P) or the International Criminal Court (ICC) will ever address the glaring human rights abuses by many actors internal and external to Syria. His reply gave me pause. First, he related that AHI as a term is useless. It needs to be debated and defined. AHI is like saying: (paraphrasing) Here is a poisonous sandwich that will nourish you. Second, Syria and in particular Aleppo, will in time be reviewed and the ICC or some other UN commission will tackle the issue. In the meantime, not much will change. I was not surprised by his assessment.

Aleppo, we hear much about the death and destruction, lives forever lost, families forever marred by the violence. Communities wiped out. Horrors that we can barely grasp or fathom as we sit idly by as hundreds of thousands have been displaced. The following will not comfort you, but I do hope it makes you think, make you reflect, make you pause, even if just for a moment about our world politics, and  question the reasons why we have allowed something so heinous occur. We have often heard our politicians say things such as ‘never again’, ‘we must not let the human suffering of this magnitude occur’, and ‘don’t cross the red line or we will act’. The reality is, that is all bluster and posturing from politicians. We have just war theory and responsibility to protect as accepted doctrines that can be used to stop an Aleppo from happening. This blog will challenge your thinking in a way that will force you to engage in finding a way to prevent future Aleppo.

We have seen the politics of the UN and in particular the UN Security Council many times before. The failure of the UN has prompted regional coalitions to band together to tackle issues. The UN Security Council is supposed to be the framework for the use of military forces against all forms of aggression. This is particularly the case when forces are piercing the territorial and political sovereignty of a nation. If regional alliances decide to invade on humanitarian reasons but are not sanctioned by the UN, does this destabilize world order? If the politics of the UN fails to protect human rights do regional alliances have a right to intervene? The politics of the UN leads me to my concern: What are the barriers to human rights? What is more likely to succeed in the protection of human rights in a conflict zone?

I will lay out my argument that just war theory (JWT) is justified for humanitarian intervention. The role of the United Nations (UN) Security Council cannot be overstated in this process. My argument lays out how the UN in its political machinations refuses to address the shortcomings of humanitarian intervention (HI). By refusing to address the shortcomings, the UN is a body politic who is complicit in the loss of life and displacement of refugees. Before we go into Aleppo and why it has not ‘triggered’ HI let us first look at intervention, R2P, AHI and HI, and see if we can discern them and come to an understanding of how we can understand them.

R2P is a doctrine that has evolved and used much like JWT to justify military action. It has most of the same elements as JWT: just cause, right authority and right intention, used as a last resort, proportional means, and a reasonable chance at success. The significant difference from JWT is that R2P is for humanitarian reasons or protection of civilians. In other words, JWT seeks political justification for using military force while R2P is not about the political justification but the humanitarian justification. This justification is a fundamental change in the notion of sovereignty. R2P attempts to move from the Westphalian notion of the state being supreme to the R2P claim that an individual’s sovereignty is supreme.

R2P has three distinct responsibilities: responsibility to prevent, responsibility to react and responsibility to rebuild. AHI, HI, and intervention can all be represented in R2P, in essence, R2P evolved from AHI, HI, and intervention. R2P has become part of the UN framework in dealing with a humanitarian crisis. The inclusion is seen by the UN appointing a Special Adviser to focus on the R2P in 2008 and 2009, the release of a report entitled ‘Implementing the Responsibility to Protect.’ R2P is not internationally accepted nor is the basis of intervention (whichever terminology used AHI, HI, or R2P) without controversy. For this commentary, R2P will be synonymous with intervention, HI, and AHI.  Is R2P legal? If so, why is it not used more often to secure human rights? If not, how do we legally protect human rights in places like Aleppo?

a picture of old Aleppo from the Citadel
Aleppo – from the Citadel. Source: Beshr Abdulhadi, Creative Commons.

War, armed conflict, police actions, intervention, right to protect (R2P), and armed humanitarian intervention (AHI), all have common threads that run through them that connect them to just war theory (JWT). The 1648 Peace of Westphalia gave rise to the current idea of the nation state and the sacredness of its territory. This concept of sanctity has led the world to accept that international order works best when there is respect for non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states. The atrocities of the Nazi regime in World War II has challenged that Westphalian notion of the nation-state but has not resulted in an accepted form of humanitarian intervention. We are left wondering: Is humanitarian intervention (HI) a right to use force based on JWT or human rights? Walzer, in his legalist paradigm, tells us that the international community has established that the rights of territorial integrity and political sovereignty is above all else. He also says that the political reality must give exceptions, one of which is humanitarian intervention. JWT recognizes that there are extreme cases where HI is needed. We leave this thought for a moment as we look at R2P.

Simon Chesterman, in his book Just War or Just Peace? Humanitarian Intervention and International Law, argues that there is no ‘right’ to use humanitarian intervention in the UN Charter nor customary international law. If this is correct why and how do we use R2P or apply it in future cases, or more importantly apply it to Aleppo? He claims that humanitarian intervention has no legal basis, and yet we have many examples where interventions have taken place. In his analysis, he argues that it is dangerous to have a checklist of additional justifications to engage in humanitarian intervention. By having a list, states are more likely to engage in bad faith interventions (US Iraqi invasion 2003). How do we reconcile the notion of a world based on law if R2P is illegal? He suggests we should view an intervention based on humanitarian reasons as illegal but that the international community may well tolerate it. Let us apply this to Aleppo. If as he says R2P is illegal, but the UN has embraced it, WHY is Aleppo happening?  For me, it is political. The UN and specifically the UN Security Council is playing politics. The politics are shaped by the doctrine of R2P and the Westphalian use of JWT. R2P and JWT both agree that HI may be necessary, but there is no agreement on which one may take precedence over the other.

The JWT and R2P conundrum leaves us with what is happening in Aleppo. R2P to date has not been invoked by UN Security Council due to the veto power of Russia and China (and I am unsure if the US, Britain, and France would vote in favor due to strategic interests). The sheer amount of deaths, suffering, and destruction clearly shows HI should have occurred sooner. Why not R2P? Only the UN Security Council can answer that one. From an outsider’s perspective, it is due to political maneuvering and unlike Libya, Syria is not a major oil producer and supplier of oil to the EU like Libya is.

a picture of Syrian children
Children. Source: Giulio Bernardi, Creative Commons.

The argument gets sticky here, and some may cringe at what I am about to say. JWT for HI has been invoked – by Assad. Follow me on this. Back to Walzer, his legalist paradigm says the territory and political sovereignty is above all else with exceptions. Within that framework of exception is that the sovereign nation can ask for help with insurrection or anything that threatens to overthrow or pierce their sovereignty. By Assad ‘asking’ Russia for help, they invoked JWT. In doing this, they cut off R2P from occurring. Why? A sovereign nation (Syria) has asked for help (Russia) to defeat an insurgency. Legal and ‘just’ according to JWT. If another country (countries) declared R2P, they do not have a legal basis to intervene, especially without a UN Security Council resolution. If R2P were invoked, it would be declaring war against Syria and Russia. The moment for R2P has fallen to the wastelands of missed opportunities. Why did this happen? R2P has been used recently in Libya, and the aftermath that has ensued in Libya has made everyone pause. For this writer, Libya may have ended R2P from fully realizing its potential. However, why has it failed?

We need to look at the structure of the UN and in particular the sovereignty of the nation-state. We have established under Walzer that the territorial and political sovereignty is above all else. The UN also guarantees this under UN Charter Article 2 (7). As with Walzer the UN Article 2 (7) gives exceptions. This non-intervention can be revoked if the state fails to protect their citizens from repression and internal armed conflicts. Back to my discussion with Dr. Pace. I asked when has the UN ever kicked out a member or declared them minimally unjust? His response “never.” I checked the UN website and could not find any nation expelled or declared minimally unjust. That is where the UN, JWT, and R2P have an issue. If the sanctioning body (UN) and the body that authorizes intervention (UN Security Council) fail to call out leaders of nations who are not minimally just and are not protecting their citizens, how can human rights be upheld? In my opinion, this is the core issue. The UN and the international society have given the state more rights than the individual. R2P tried to change the sovereignty from the state to the individual but as Chesterman points out the law is not on the individual’s side when the nation-state is involved.

Where does this leave us? Is it safe to say that humanitarian intervention is in competing doctrines? Which doctrine is correct? JWT based on national territorial boundaries and political sovereignty or R2P which has no basis in law? If we listen to David Rodin (2002) in War and Self-Defense, he proposes that we should resurrect Kant’s two-tier moral strategy. First, by seeking to mitigate and moderate the evils of war. Second, create a program for achieving a just international system based on an official international rule of law. What Rodin wants is the realization of the ‘cosmopolitan view’ as he pushes for a radical reworking of JWT and international relations.

The basic lesson we should take from the present argument is that our traditional  conceptions of international law and international ethics need to be fundamentally rethought. There is a great scope for real and substantial progress to be made in this area. We need a framework of international ethics which gives greater recognition and protection to the rights of individuals as against states, which can address the problems of     civil war and internal oppression, and which is able to more effectively restrain international aggression. (Rodin 2002, 199)

Perhaps Rodin has it right. We need to listen and take a lesson from Aleppo. We do need a framework of international ethics, and we have no international body to provide it. The UN is continuing to fail us. The world is suffering. Our human history has never been strong about individual rights. We have had Kings, Queens, Arch-Dukes, Czars, Khans, and Emperors who have ruled empires. We have had conquests to rule the world with no thought of the individual. Human rights are new in the timeline. The Enlightenment ushered in a new awareness of the unalienable rights of the individual, but that has not triumphed over the rights of the state.

History is full of examples of the state trampling on human rights even after the Enlightenment. Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, and many others have killed millions, and yet an individual’s right to life is second to the sovereignty of the nation.

a picture of a man in a boat on the Eufates River
2008-XIII-A Eufrates. Source: Mr. Theklan, Creative Commons.

We must face that Aleppo suffers because it is the wrong class, race, and religion of people being harmed.  A current list of emergency alerts, published by Genocide Watch, reveals there are no alerts  from a global North, or any countries part of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) nations; listed are Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Somalia, Central African Republic, Myanmar (Rakhine and Kachin), Burundi, and Boko Haram – Borno State. We have had some regional responses to some of these areas; however, I wager that if this were happening in the global North, we would have seen intervention a long, long time ago.

What will it take to shape the future of human rights? I wager a global North event, an event that rivals that of which we do not like to compare to, I hate to say it but, on the level of the Holocaust. Why? It is because of the failure of the UN to evolve past political manipulation. The League of Nations and the subsequent United Nations was born from the horrific event of the Holocaust. For the UN to evolve once more, I fear it will take something so drastic as to shake the foundations and cause the international society to evaluate itself and what it is doing for humanity.

How can human rights best be protected in a conflict zone? By the UN enacting strong, swift, and a just response to any nation that violates and commits atrocities against humanity. The UN has to act. The UN has to become apolitical when it comes to crimes against humanity. As long as there is a failure of the state to protect the right to life, we must understand that human rights are being pushed backward and not forward. Until the UN becomes able to deal with internal politics, we will continue to have Aleppo’s in our future. So far, the nation-state’s sovereignty reigns supreme, and that does not bode well for the future of humanity.

 

Russ Hunter Expertise: Civil/Military Operations, Intelligence, WMD Operations
Russ is currently in the Masters in Peace and Conflict Studies program at the University of Otago. He holds a Master Degree in Liberal Arts from the University of Richmond, a Post Grad Certificate from the University of Stirling, Scotland and is a graduate of the U.S Army Sergeants Major Academy. He retired from the U.S. Army as a Sergeant Major in 2009 with over 24 years of distinguished military service in both Operations and Intelligence. He has been a guest lecturer at the University of Richmond. The titles of Russ’ past lectures have been Drone Strikes: A Case for a Moral Response, Evolution of Unmanned Air Systems (Drones in the Sky), and Counterterrorism/Antiterrorism Strategy. He co-taught a Drone law course for law, paralegal and Masters students. Russ has multiple awards and citations both professional and academic.

Works Cited:

Chesterman, S. 2001. Just War or Just Peace? Humanitarian Intervention and International Law. New York: Oxford University Press.

Genocide Watch. 2016. http://www.genocidewatch.com/countries-at-risk

Rodin, D. 2002. War and Self-Defense. New York: Oxford University Press.

Walzer, M. 1977. Just and Unjust Wars. New York: Basic Books.