The concept of responsibility to protect Comparing the cases of Libya and Syria

Referent: Lavinia Elena Ciurez Contact: lavicat28@yahoo.com

The concept of responsibility to protect, comparing the cases of Libya and Syria

The concept of responsibility to protect is a subject sensible for international community even if the idea of protection of the people is not new, but in the last 20 years because of the fail of intervention in the case of Rwanda and Kosovo (on both of the conflicts were different opinion) the subject is more sensible as there different opinion about intervention. The entire discussion of responsibility to protect is about ethics, personal ethic, group ethic, country ethic and international community ethic. Is about who is more important, people, states, interests of states etc, if we can discuss in this terms. When we talk about responsibility to protect we talk about a lot of concepts of morals in entire political system. Who got the right of life and death over people? Who got to intervene when states cannot protect their civilians? More over the responsibility to protect become a hot spot when we talk about military intervention. If we look behind we will see the intervention of USA in Iraq, is very controversial. After the Rwandan genocide entire world, got the sin of omission as Kofi Annan claim1. More about Rwandan genocide, world failure to respond on the people scream. Tony Blair, the British prime minister promised that If Rwanda happens again we would not walk away as the outside has done many times before2. The British prime minister insist in the same article that international society got the moral duty to provide military and humanitarian assistance to Africa whenever it was needed3. We got a lot of discussion on this subject because there are lot of voices who believe that non-interventionism is not moral and there a lot of voices who claims that the interventionism is unmoral. Both parts got their arguments to sustain their point of view but I think both parts forget about the importance of the morality and why they want to do that. As we know when we say intervention we have to see the magnitude we talk about, the implication of the parts in the problems, and we put the next problems. Why is moral to intervene? When the intervention became immoral? Who got to intervene and when? Is a good thing to intervene in the problem of another state? Who is the most important in the international community1

UN Chiefs Rwanda Genocide Regret, BBC News World Edition, March 26, 2004; available at news. bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3573229.stm. 2 Tony Blair, speech given to the Labour Party Conference, Brighton, U.K., October 2, 2001 in Alex Bellamy, Responsibility to Protect or Trojan Horse? The Crisis in Darfur and Humanitarian Intervention after Iraq 3 Idem 2

state-citizens (if we can put the problem like this)? Are the state interests/resources/relations above people? I was finding very interesting the idea of Alex Bellamy in Responsibility to Protect or Trojan horse because the title say a lot about how all the parts implied, see the intervention. More I think some parts of the intervention use the concept against the interests of the people. I saw this because states create fear for people, when other states intervene to protect them. As I said responsibility got a lot of faces and the parts implied got to take the best solution for the people. The idea of responsibility to protect, is not a new one, but for sure the way how is approached is a new one. In 2001, the idea gets more attention after the genocide from Rwanda and Kosovo. Responsibility to protect appears in 2001, when the Canadian government create with the help of International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, a rapport who treat this problem. For the first time the term of humanitarian intervention used before is reformulated with responsibility to protect accentuated not on the idea of the action, but on the objective followed. The document wants to highlight the importance of state in the process of development and sustainability of the life of the people and peace keeping. The Commission4 wanted to emphasize the obligation of each state to protect his own people against mass atrocities. The intervention of other states got to be last resort of the problem. Responsibility to protect claim - sovereignty is not a right, but a responsibility. The responsibility is not a law, but a set of principles, who claims that states got to prevent against genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, all called Mass Atrocity Crimes. For this the responsibility to protect got three aims5,6: A state got the responsibility to protect its citizens against mass atrocities The international community got the responsibility to support the state to accomplish its responsibility In the case of state failure to protect the population from mass atrocities and peace keeping, the international community got the responsibility to intervene with coercive measures like economic sanctions. Military intervention got to be the last solution.

4 5

International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty ^ Evans, Gareth; Sahnoun, Mohamed, Co-chairs (2001). The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Ottawa, ON, Canada: International Development Research Centre, Minister of Foreign Affairs. pp. 108. ISBN 0-88936-960-7. 6 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/63/677

The Raport7, claims that the intervention got to be authorized previously by the Security Council of ONU (Chapter VII in the UN Charter) or by UN General Assembly (based on the United for Peace resolution) or authorized by a regional security organism, with the condition to be subsequently authorized by the Security Council of UN (Chapter VIII in the UN Charter). Moreover in 2005, all members of UN, reunited in 2005, claim in Declaration of the Milenium8, that all the states accept the responsability and will action to conform the requirements. The international community, have to encourage states to accomplish this responsibility. UN have the responsibility to sustain states to keep the way of responsibility and if there is slippage, tensions, have to sustain states to remove them. Concept of responsibility to protect got to be understood not just like as military intervention but about economic and politic intervention too. As the UN Charter claims, sanctions can be imposed over states through diplomatic ways, without using the army. This can be, ceasing of diplomatic relationships, interrupting communications, embargo, mostly of the arms. States got the right to protect the civilians even against other things than armed conflicts. It is the responsibility to protect the people against verminous disease. The state has to take action against spreading the disease into the country and beyond the border. With the help of World Health Organization, state have to take the best decision for not spreading the disease (mad cow disease, swine flu etc). If we return to responsibility to protect, as we begin to talk about, UN has to have strength relationships with regional organizations as Arabic League and African Union, European Union etc. In collaboration with this organization, they got to take the best decision for the population. The intervention in its all form got not to be just a reason of safety and security, but entire world got to learn from this kind of conflict. For preventing this kind of action against a part of the population and genocide conflicts, it is a must to understand the roots of the conflict. As we know none of the country in the world is pure ethnic and everywhere in the world can begin conflicts based on identity. Genocide and related atrocities tend to occur in societies with diverse national, racial, ethnic or religious groups that are locked in identity-related conflicts9. This are powered by the identity differences, more this are aggravated by discrimination, hate speeches and other violation of human rights. Administration got to find the disparities between ethnic groups and not to instigate

Evans, Gareth; Sahnoun, Mohamed, Co-chairs (2001). The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Ottawa, ON, Canada: International Development Research Centre, Minister of Foreign Affairs. pp. 108. ISBN 0-88936-960-7.
8
9

Assemblee generale, doc. A760/L.1, Document final du Sommet mondial de 2005, adopte le 16 decembre 2005.

http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/genocide_prevention.shtml

more than people can do. Given that no country is perfectly homogeneous, genocide is a truly global challenge.10 The nowadays situation in Arabic countries is not a new situation, if we think at the entire conflicts during the twenties century. Is not just an Arabic problem, is not a problem of a continent, the entire international community got the same problem, the rethinking of entire system. States cant make their own policy no more (without influence other countries etc), because every state is part of international system as citizens as well. In the twenty one century the international policy making got to be rethought. The subject of the different kind of intervention is much disputed and over it, the specialists come with different kind of opinions, some are for intervention during the conflicts and some are against. The subject of responsibility to protect is very diverse. But more than pros and contras got to be the human being protection, over all the states interests and international system. If we think on the last 20 years, we will see some governments take the right of life and death over millions of people who suffer under authoritarian regime, under regimes who didnt protect their citizens. Because of the complexity of the subject we have to make clear some ideas linked by the subject of responsibility to protect. We have to put in discussion some ideas come along with the concept of responsibility to protect as relationship between citizens-state-international communities. We have to talk about sovereignty and loosing of legitimacy and sovereignty in the same time by state. Because of the wide of the subject I will try to limit the explications, to make them succinct. State through its institution got the function to protect its citizens against intern and external threats. The functions of state changed a lot nowadays, but for sure the idea of protection of the citizens is not a new one, but we have to rethink the entire system for understanding the today needs of the people. State cant take any more the decision alone, people are no more just part of a country, but because of globalization they are a part of entire international system. When states failed to protect them, people need the intervention of the international community. Both sides got to get the consensus in taking the best solution for the citizens. The globalization makes people to be more together and hopefully more protected. Weber finds that state got the authority under all its forms, that why he defined the state as an entity who got the monopoly over the violence in a territory, in all its forms. The state is the supreme entity and sovereign. For sure, when we say state today, we see it different than others see it one century ago, or even twenty years ago. For understanding the responsibility to protect we must

10

http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/genocide_prevention.shtml

talk about state and sovereignty and how the international protection can override sovereignty for the good of the people. Today we cant see anymore the state like a tyrant with its citizens and dont do anything as a international organization, because people now got to be seen by state and international organization like the fundamental actor of the entire system. People got to be protected by the bad will of others, by harm and crime. If a state cannot protect its citizens, or doesnt want to protect them, the international community got to put the problem of intervention, with the respect for sovereign of the state. As we know is a full and exclusive principle. Sovereignty of the state is not and never been absolute, in sense of absolute liberty of action. Every country must respect its obligations in the virtue of sovereignty and other state can ask the compliance of the obligations assumed, institution resorting to international liability for unlawful acts11. International Commission12, claim in its report that sovereignty presumes responsibility to protect, integrated sovereignty. State cannot refuse the protection of its population and the action of international community when it cannot protect its citizens. This norm is not generally accepted by all states, but more states got trust in the concept and put more importance on the protection of the human rights, protection of the victims in armed conflicts (humanitarian law) and of international criminal law, there will be a must that people to be protected by state and all international community13. Sovereignty is not just an attribution of power and authority over people and over territory but is an attribute of protection of life, health and dignity of life of the population. The intervention of other states, other organization can be a must just when state cannot accomplish this. We want to highlight that responsibility to protect got the last resort the intervention, the most important part of responsibility to protect is claiming states to respects its obligation, to prevent to happen catastrophes, and after if it is demanded to reaction firm against state actions, to repair the damages produced and rebuild social structures, the economy, vitals for population after human right violations. For prevention states must have institution which can stop this deviation from human rights respect and if it is case to be punished the people who violate the international human right. More state has to be the first example of responsibility in this way. Obligation of prevention is not a new claim in international law, in the Article 1 in Geneva Convention, outlines

11 12

Ion Diaconu, Manual de drept international, Editia a III-a, Bucuresti, Editura Lumina Lex, 2010, pp. 372-381.

Evans, Gareth; Sahnoun, Mohamed, Co-chairs (2001). The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Ottawa, ON, Canada: International Development Research Centre, Minister of Foreign Affairs. pp. 108. ISBN 0-88936-960-7.
13

Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Genese de lidee de responsabilite de proteger, n La responsabilite de proteger, Colloque de Nanterre, Societe francaise pour le droit international , Ed. A. Pedone, Paris, 2008, pp.30-31.

the importance of protection of the victims of armed conflicts as human rights. Geneva Convention claims also that state have to protect that its institution has to protect citizens and not threaten the lives of citizens. As we said earlier one of the most important organisms who got to approval of intervention is Security Council of UN. ICISS recommended that its permanent members 14 commit themselves to a series of criteria relating to the use of force in humanitarian emergencies 15. As the decision got to take immediately, ICISS also recommend that permanent member should not give veto vote against intervention to stop humanitarian action unless their vital national interests are involved. Some people are against of responsibility to protect or intervention and claim sovereignty because lack of protection in US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq. The intervention was put under the idea of self defence but under protection of the Iraqi people too. But humanitarian arguments use to receive a lot of contra voices. The idea of responsibility to protect came into discussion in the same time as the war on terror came into discussion. Through war on terror I talk about terrorism and the immediately repercussions of the event. The intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan shows that US, was not a model of intervention and lots of people and countries wanted to be delimited by this conflict for not causing damage for the idea of responsibility to protect. Some authors highline that US tried to take revenge and not to respect and make a humanitarian intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. More consider the humanitarian intervention in Iraq as an abuse under humanitarian justifications. As a result, after the Iraq war, the idea of responsibility to protect, suffer because of the luck of trust of the countries part of. This is come into a big problem and states and people start to wonder why is the intervention? This is it in the benefits of a state or to save the people? On other hand some countries use the idea of action in Iraq for showing the American activism like oil seeker or anti-Muslims and this reinforce the African and Middle Easter hostility against the Western power. As a result, the states parts in Iraq problem lose the credibility to use the concept of responsibility to protect. In The Mask of Altruism Disguising a Colonial War 16 from Guardian, author show the dilemma of nowadays interventionism, and claim that states intervene in other under a moral rule, just to pump the oil out. The article focuses also on the idea that big countries watch out just the countries with big resources. Humanitarian aid should be what the Red Cross always said it must be - politically neutral. Anything else is just an old-fashioned
14 15

Security Council of UN members (Bellamy 2006)

16

John Laughland,The Mask of Altruism Disguising a Colonial War, Guardian, August 2, 2004; available at www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1273982,00.html.

colonial war - the reality of killing, and the escalation of violence, disguised with the hypocritical mask of altruism. If Iraq has not taught us that, then we are incapable of ever learning anything17. In Saving Strangers18, Wheeler said that in the 1990 the entire world failed to save strangers in Balkans, Rwanda and legitimacy of humanitarian intervention remained hotly contested19. Some parts supports the idea of responsibility to protect, some are capped into scepticism, as Kenneth Roth from Human Right Watch predict that the consequence of the justify a war under the term of humanitarian intervention will make next time more trouble in intervene in really humanitarian problems. Parts of the Security Council use not to agree with the intervention in the conflict because of the principle of the sovereignty, others as Russia and China 20, because of their economical interests or political interests.

Intervention in Syria and Libya, in a comparison

As we said before we want to make an intervention comparison about two of recent event in the world wide politics. As we know these conflicts, take part of the Arabic Spring, an important event of nowadays political scene and very controversial if we think of what happen in these states. Also these events put big sign of question about democracy and who got the power in the world. I assume this because the idea was approached on every part of the problem. Arab Spring is defined like democracy turmoil; in the opinion of some appear independently across Arab world in 2011. The movement took is originated in the end of 2010 in Tunisia and spread in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan etc. In this revolution is important how people spread the idea of change, how they wanted the change in their country, we took part on another way of intervention, if we had till now international implication, in this kind of revolution we have a spreading of asking the human rights and democracy from people to state and international system. I see this like an intervention from down to up. The activists use the technology to spread the idea of changing, to share the tactics. I will highline here the idea of sharing a common way, the call of dignity in all the Arabic countries part of the Arabic Spring. The importance of the event is given by
17

John Laughland,The Mask of Altruism Disguising a Colonial War, Guardian, August 2, 2004; available at www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1273982,00.html. 18 Wheeler, Saving Strangers, p. 295. 19 Idem 15 20 From (Bellamy 2006) Russia had recently sold MiG aircraft to Sudan and feared that the government would use any potential sanctions as a justification for defaulting on its payments. China has important oil interests in Sudan.

the category of people part of the revolution, if we make radiography of these societies; they are mostly formed by diverse tribes who fight for land and power till now. Also the revolution was not a revolution of the capital, but more into the deep of the country, also trigged different type of status, age and sex. In the case of Libya, the armed bands rebels in the eastern part of the country stat the protests. We will focus on this project on two countries because they are the most disputed and they are more controversial, Libyan case and Syrian case. First we will make a short resume of the revolt in each of them and after we will make a discussion about the intervention in both countries of the international community.

Libyan case

Before analysing the crises from Libya, it is important to specify the background of the crises for discovering the system imperfections. Leader of Libya in the moment of the onset events was Muammar al Gaddafi, leader of the state from 1969. Gaddafi established an authoritarian regime, under a democratic name. Libya got important oil reserves, higher quality, this make Libya have an important role in the world, and for sure for African Continent. Also Libya was an important member of African Union, with a major say in. Libya invest big amount of funds in Zambia, Rwanda, Uganda and Ivory Coast. Even if the resources are very significantly and the surface of Libya is a big one, the population is reduced in rapport with the surface and with reserves; standard of living is very poor. Libya got unemployment of 30% and a crisis of living hoods. Moreover the problem with the violation of human rights is a serious problem. The problem is not just one we see just in Libya also in other countries who took part in Arabic Spring. In the beginning of 2011, the government from Tripoli, feeling the revolution wave from other countries trapped in, disrupted the internet connection and push peaceful protests back for stopping that the event from neighbourhood to come in Libya too. Suppression of protests led to widespread demonstrations. The protests begin in Libya on 15 February 2011, known as Day of Rage. For ending the crisis, Libyan government tried to action against some of the cause of the crisis. In this way, the government from Tripoli give back the subsidies for necessity products, ease the access on credits without guarantee and interest, released prisoners and made a commission for reforms. Gaddafi announced change of government administrators for pacifies unhappy people, but Khamis troops grow the population determination for change. The demands of the population were constitutional

democracy, political parties and salvation for poor problem and of unemployment, human rights and the most important removing Gaddafi from leading. Because of importance of Libya in the area and not only, the intern crisis affect international actors either, due of Libyan membership on Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, fighting between government and opposition lead to decrease of the amount of oil extracted and exported, potentially increasing the international prices. The international crisis begins with the breaking of diplomatic relationships between; withdraw of the foreign civilians from Libya and sustaining the opposition of the regime by declarations. By the date of 18 February the opposition controlled most of Benghazi, the second city in the country. Rebels was tried to be captured by the elite governmental troops but the troops were rejected. By the date of 20 February the protests spread till Tripoli, when the head of the state Muammar al-Gaddafi address to the people to inform than the protest will transform into a civil war. The number of the victims raised the international worries. More, Libya was threaten with political sanctions and international community asks in more ways that the government to be dismissed. Methods to manage the crisis were various, the international community starts to cal the end of the repression of protects, after they tried to observe and await the internal crisis solve by internal measures, imposing of sanctions by international bodies and after onset the military hostilities to protect the civilians. The regional actor, Arab League, call for peaceful solution over protests but this do not solve the internal problems. More others organizations as Asian Union and European Union shows the disapproval for human rights violations and claim the responsibility of government from Tripoli on protecting the civilians.

Intervention of international community in Libya

As communications were strongly controlled, the international troops receive distorted information about situation in Libya. From this fact, in the first instance, international community could not make correct decisions over situation. The decision of the big actors varies from noninterventions and call of reestablishment to military intervention. For understanding better the implication of each international actor we will describe in part every actor implied and actions made.

UN

United Nations was the first international organization who intervenes for managing the crisis in Libya. Security Council of UN, adopt the resolution 1970/ 26 February 2011, demanding
10

stopping the violence and starting accomplish the demands of population, permission of monitoring the situation by international community for protecting the human rights, ensuring the safety of foreigners who wants to leave the country, allowing the humanitarian aid and medical supplies, lifting the restrictions of journalists. Also UN demands that the case of genocide to arrive in front of International Criminal Court for genocide against humanity. UN impose embargo on weapons and military equipment and travel ban. Moreover UN asks frozen Gaddafis bank accounts and his goods and over his family and Libyan government. On 1 March, General Assembly of UN suspends Libyan membership in human rights Council. On 17 March, was adopted Resolution 1973 by UN Security Council who call a nofly zone over Libya. Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures21. Also through this resolution, UN Security Council requests the intervention of Arab League and highlights the importance of this regional organization in the area22. Also the Council pointed out the importance of intensifying the efforts in finding a solution for the Libyan crisis. The resolution mention the need of intervention in the following of the no accomplishes of demands and repeatedly attacks over population from Libyan authority. More Libyan government did not take measures to protect the civilians and Resolution demands the importance of the intervention. After resolution was adopted, on 19 France, US and UK intervened in Libya against Gaddafi forces. Near these forces, another 27 states gather and made a coalition for intervention. As a result of intervention is the defeat over Gaddafi government, taking the control the all major cities and abolish Gaddafis system, de ath of Muammar Gaddafi, taking the power by a National Transitional Council. National Transitional Council received the international diplomatic recognition by 105 countries members of UN, EU, Arabic League and African Union. In 16 September 2011, Security Council of NATO adopt 2009 resolution who establish UN mission United Nations Support Mission in Libya/UNSMIL who got the aim to
21 22

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm Recognizing the important role of the League of Arab States in the maintenance of international peace and security in

the region, and bearing in mind the United Nations Charters Chapter VIII, the Council asked the Leagues member States to cooperate with other Member States in implementing the no-fly zone- part from Resolution No 1973, accessed on http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm

11

reinstate the public order in Libya, implementation of the draft Constitution and preparing the first elections in Libya, as a post-conflict operation.

NATO

NATO is an important factor in management crisis in Libya. This organism claim three condition to imply intervene in Libya: NATO intervention to be proved by using the violence against civilians by Libyan government, a clear legal mandate (NATO action under UN mandate) and strong support from regional organizations. Is the first time when a NATO mission is sustained by Arab state: Qatar, Emirate Unite Arabia and Kuweit. NATO, make intervention when its interests are threaded in direct way, but in case of Libya, NATO auctioned under authority of international mandate. Mostly, implication of NATO was given by big number of Libyan refugees, importance of Libya as an oil exporter, investments made by Libyan state in other African states, possibilities that Libya to become a terrorism supporter. Libyan crisis was not just an internal one but a thread over all international system. The important role NATO had through military actions were more about gather information about the situation, in this way planes flew over Libyan territory to take information. Ships from Mediterranean water supervise the embargo of weapons. NATO operation, Operation Unified Protector had the role to protect the civilians and people area. In 21 October 2011, NATO finished the action in Libya and withdrew.

European Union EU adopts some sanction over Libyan regime and sustains UN 1973 resolution23. Negotiations on framework agreement European Union Libya and all ongoing contracts were suspended until the end of the actual crisis24. All organisms implied asking the extradition of the son of Muammar al-Gaddafi, Saif al-Gaddafi for being judged on crimes against humanity on International Criminal Court, National Transition Council reject this, Saif al-Gaddafi will be judged in Libya.
23

Joint Statement by the President of the European Council Herman von ROMPUY, and EU Hight Representative Catherine Ashton on UN Security Council Resolution on Lybia, Brussels, 17 march2011, PCE072/11, A 11/11. 24 European Neighbourhood And Partnership Instrument, Lybia, Strategy Paper & National Indicative PROGRAMME, 2011-2013.

12

African Union

The most important factor in the area that got to take action in Africa for calming the population and o offer mediation got to be African Union. Lately problems shows that African Union cannot fulfill this responsibility and cannot help African countries to be more democratic. African Union imply in the conflict because of the financial support accorded by European Union. African Union is dependent by West countries and also was dependent by Libya as this country pays for itself and for other poor countries. Even if African Union got a large political mandate, in the prevention over conflict and management of crisis25 and was authorized to intervene in the intern affairs of the member states, African Union did not consider using the force for giving a solution in Libyan case. African Union limits its activity to diplomatic measures and mediation.

After finishing the mission, just support mission of UN tried to advise Libya to make its way to democracy, helping it with technical instruments to accomplish this. As Libyan society is very structured, accomplish of a Libyan democratic state will be very hard to be gained as the society is still tribal. More National Transitional Council considers taking as Constitution, Sharia law. This put the question of the democracy and the human rights as Sharia is against women vote etc.

Syria

Even if conflicts begin approximately in the same time, Syrian conflict is still on fire. Syrian conflict begins on 26 January 2011, in Damascus, because a police officer attacked a man in public and after this were protests for the freedom of the man attacked. After in March 2011, Syrian police arrested 15 children because they wrote slogans against government. Syria is ruled by Bashar al-Assad from 1963. In April 2011, approximately 100000 protesters ask the resignation of the president Bashar al-Assad. Government responds with harsh security. Syrian army tanks enter in the cities and killed over 136 people and made the most violent day and bloody from the beginning of the conflict in Syria. By late November the opposition made their army. The clashes between governmental and opposition are very violent and bloody and civilians are not protected neither by
25

Karin BOGLAND, Robert Egnell, Maria Lagerstroem, The African Union - a Study Focusying on Conflict Manegement, mai 2008.

13

state neither by international forces. On 12 June 2012, the UN peacekeeping from Syria claimed that Syria entered in a civil war. We will focus more on comparison between the two states, Libya and Syria to see how responsibility to protect was claimed in the two different cases. If we look on the Syrian conflict belligerents we will see situation is not as easy as seems to be and we will understand why international community just threat the Syrian government to protect the civilian and not take military measures. The conflict is no more just a Syrian conflict is a regional conflict in the area, which got deep roots in the conflictual history of that part of the world. On Syrian government side we have Iran, who gives weapon to the conflict and other paramilitary groups who wants the Freedom of Palestine. On the other part Syrian National Coalition formed by Free Syrian Army, Turkey, Mujahideens and Kurdish Democratic Union Party, Lebanon and Israel. As we see on both parts we have Palestine versus Israel and all the participants on the conflicts are part of the conflict, not for good of Syria, as is no more a Syrian war, is a regional conflict in the territory of Syria. International community as Arab League, United States, European Union, Arab States of Persian Gulf and other countries damned the violence against civilians. Arab League sends an observation mission in December Mission and suspended the membership of the country. On 15 July 2012, the international Committee of the Red Cross claim the Syrian conflict as a non-interventional armed conflict- legal term for civil war who asks the implying of international humanitarian law under Geneva Conventions in Syria. In 2 January 2013, United Nations stated that the victims of the civil war were more that 60000 and by February more than 70000. According to UN, more than 1.2 millions of Syrians were displaced. More than 1 million Syrian refugees leave in neighbourhood countries.

For understanding the pressure put on the both countries we will analyse over the both countries as a comparison. Both regimes were characterized by authority of long regimes, both of them with good recognition from the occidental countries and more. Both leaders tried to keep the power as much they can and took the countries into war for their good. If Gaddafi got moments of clearness and tried to negotiate with people, al-Assad looks fearless. Dunsmore in his article26 make a difference between the two countries from beginning with arranged the UN Security Council members pro and contra al-Assad government. If intervention in Libya got the full support of UN Security Council,

26

http://vtdigger.org/2012/06/03/dunsmore-the-difference-between-syria-and-libya/

14

including Russia and China (intervention under responsibility to protect concept could took place) in the case of Syria either China but especially Russia, both long-time supporter of Assad family blocked the UN resolution. The intervention of NATO was easy in Libya because the spreading of the population, either for planes and for ground troops too when in Syria the country is mountainous, and for planes is much more better but for ground troops is not effective. In the case of Syria is it believed that al-Qaeda factions are included. Also the rebels in Syria are very fragmented and do not have territory. The problem in Syria is a clock bomb as is a religious problem either, in the area are Alawites, Shiites, Sunnis and Christian that could explode in the regional war. The only country who got the power to force Assad to let the country goes to democracy is Russia. The situation of Syria is very delicate as the civil war can be contagious in the area. More in the case of Syria just 40 % of population wants the changing of Assad, the intervention can be claimed as an aggression. If Gaddafi got his moments of craziness but moments in with he asks clemency from the big countries, government from Damascus do not change the paradigm of the dialog they imposed, they affirmed that lead a war over terrorism and over a worldwide way. Scholars claim that Syrian military magnitude is another problem, near of the landscape of the countries to make the intervention much more difficult to make than is Libya. Syrian military have the eight times more people that the Libyan one. Also the Syrian airpower is twice strength as Libyan one. Also military is financed by Iran with tanks and weapon. This make intervention more difficult. The intervention in Syria can cost very much now, if NATO will intervene. Also, the politic of revolution is quite different than in Libya because in Libya, rebels group occupied territory and got it under control, when in Sirya the opposition is leaderless and also their movement are shy and with some declaratory statements. There is no clear opposition force and protesters do not, under international law, have the status of belligerents which would make further violence done to them a war crime under the International Criminal Court27. Making a contrast the rebles in Libya gather their control in Benghazi and they pushed Gadhafi to use his air power against them and NATO impose no fly-zone. In Syria Al-Assad didn;t use air forces against people. He have a ground campaign of violence trying to intimidate the opposition. Also Assad try to use the ground forces to force the rebels to give up. Even if Al-Assad commits with evidence crimes against humanity, Syria is not a signatory of International Criminal Court. Just Security Council can take decision against Assad regime and this is unlikely as China and Russia opose. If the claiming of the responsibility to protect was easy to claim in Libyan case, in Syrian problem is not so easy to

27

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-tactics-of-intervention-why-syria-will-never-belibya/article4182403/http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1674

15

intervene even if it is for people. Situation in Syria is tragic as international community can intervene, as the conflict can be escalated in the area by intervention. In the end of this month UN asks Syria access for an investigation on Chemical army and Syria did not accept access without restriction on its territory. After te begging of the conflict in Syria even if the international attention was on the country, because of the forbidding the all kind of intervention from Rusia and China side as they blocked United Resolution, that could impose sanctions in Syria. Also a friend of al-Assad regime block the intervention too, Iran. For Syria were made two resolution, number 2042 and 2043, first for observing the Syrian Civil War, and also another one for accepting a Mission from UN, United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria.

16

Bibliography:

1. Bellamy, A. J. (2005), Responsibility to Protect or Trojan Horse? The Crisis in Darfur and Humanitarian Intervention after Iraq. Ethics & International Affairs, 19: 3154. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-7093.2005.tb0049 2. UN Chiefs Rwanda Genocide Regret, BBC News World Edition, March 26, 2004; available at news. bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3573229.stm. 3. John Laughland,The Mask of Altruism Disguising a Colonial War, Guardian, August 2, 2004; available at www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1273982,00.html. 4. Evans, Gareth; Sahnoun, Mohamed, Co-chairs (2001). The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Ottawa, ON, Canada: International Development Research Centre, Minister of Foreign Affairs. pp. 108. ISBN 088936-960-7. 5. Ion Diaconu, Manual de drept international, Editia a III-a, Bucuresti, Editura Lumina Lex, 2010 6. John Laughland,The Mask of Altruism Disguising a Colonial War, Guardian, August 2, 2004; available at www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1273982,00.html. 7. Wheeler, Saving Strangers, p. 295. 8. John Agnew. Sovereignty Regimes: Territoriality and State Authority in Contemporary World Politics. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 95, No. 2 (Jun., 2005), pp.437-461

Sites

http://vtdigger.org/2012/06/03/dunsmore-the-difference-between-syria-and-libya/ http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/crisis-in-libya http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-tactics-of-intervention-why-syria-will-never-belibya/article4182403/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1674 http://www.unhcr.org/cgibin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?page=search&skip=0&query=resolution+1631&x=-417&y=-154 http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/intro.shtml http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/document-archive/unitednations?view=fjrelated&id=2410

http://www.amnesty.org/en/ai_search?keywords=syria&show_advanced=false&title=&ai_index=&s ort=date&start_date%5Bdate%5D=&end_date%5Bdate%5D=&language%5Ben%5D=en&document _types%5Breports%5D=reports&document_types%5Bpress_materials%5D=press_materials&docu ment_types%5Burgent_actions%5D=urgent_actions&document_types%5Baudio_video%5D=audio _video&document_types%5Bevent%5D=event&document_types%5Bother%5D=other&form_build _id=form-78bec99ed27392fb334886d871ad01e4&form_id=amnestysearch_filters_form&op=Search http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE24/012/2013/en http://swampland.time.com/2012/06/01/the-obama-doctrine-syria-vs-libya-intervention/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-tactics-of-intervention-why-syria-will-never-belibya/article4182403/http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_167 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_civil_war http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138479/sheri-berman/the-promise-of-the-arab-spring http://www.ziare.com/international/siria/nato-ar-putea-aplica-scenariul-libian-in-siria-1225515 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/syria-crisis-un-rights-idUSL6E8JFA3220120815 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/syria-in-full-scale-civil-war-un/story-fn6s850w-1226393685426 http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/01/world/meast/syria-crisis-beginnings/index.html http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-us-intervene-in-syria-with-military-action http://www.news24.com/World/News/Syrian-army-behind-majority-of-abuses-UN-20120524 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war http://www.mediafax.ro/externe/mediafax-zoom-doi-ani-de-conflict-in-siria-galerie-foto-10666517 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria#Politics_and_government http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/ethics_online/0070.html http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/syrian-delegates-push-for-peaceful-resolution-of-conflict/ http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/at-home-and-not-at-home/ http://www.du.edu/korbel/hrhw/volumes/2002/2-1/belloni2-1.pdf http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/obama-boosts-syria-support-as-congress-pushes-for-militaryintervention/ http://www.foreignpolicy.com/category/topic/syria http://www.realitatea.net/john-kerry-zborurile-intre-iran-si-siria-il-sustin-pe-bashar-alassad_1142391.html http://swampland.time.com/2012/06/01/the-obama-doctrine-syria-vs-libya-intervention/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/aug/12/iraq.iraq1

18