Future of humanitarian intervention looks bleak indeed

Future of humanitarian intervention looks bleak indeed

As US President Barack Obama seeks approval from Congress for a military strike on Syria while the G20 remains divided on this subject, let us look at some elements pertaining to the Syria dilemma with implications for future humanitarian interventions.

The general principle of humanitarian intervention and the new principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) call for international intervention to protect civilians when the state in question commits crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, genocide or war crimes against its people or fails to protect its people from such crimes. In the case of Syria, strong evidence suggests that over the past two years, the Assad regime has committed crimes against humanity against its people. More than 100,000 deaths have been reported.

Chemical weapons, such as sarin gas, are considered weapons of mass destruction and the use of such weapons is considered a war crime, one of the four crimes that can trigger international intervention.

It is noteworthy that the US is currently not addressing the deaths of more than 100,000 people in Syria, but is suggesting that because it has "high confidence" that the Syrian regime may have used chemical weapons to kill 1,429 people, thereby crossing Mr Obama's previously declared "red line" against the use of chemical weapons, the US should now use force against Syria.

Humanitarian intervention should be a response to the nature of the crimes committed rather than the methods used to commit the crimes, in order to avoid sending the dangerous message that it would be fine to kill, as long as certain weapons were not used. Humanitarian intervention in Libya was the consequence of the Gadhafi regime's killing of its people and threatening to kill more, regardless of the weapons used. Genocide committed in Rwanda and Cambodia did not involve weapons of mass destruction.

So far, international reaction over the continued and sustained use of force in Syria against civilians appears to have weakened further the principle of humanitarian intervention. One part of the message now is clear: the Assad regime may continue to kill its people as long as chemical weapons are not used. And if chemical weapons are used, the worst international response the Assad regime could expect is only a limited military strike at selected targets, making no significant improvement in the ability of the international community to protect the Syrian people from future crimes against humanity.

United Nations Security Council authorisation of the use of force against Syria would legitimise international intervention. Short of that, legal justifications are substantially weaker. Syria is a signatory to the 1925 Geneva Protocol banning the use of chemical weapons, but that treaty has no enforcement provision or mechanism.

Syria is one of only five states that have not signed the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, thus making it out of reach of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The use of the R2P principle may help strengthen the legal argument, but the legal standing of the R2P principle itself is still in doubt. Also there is a growing opinion that a decision to intervene under the R2P principle should be made by the UN Security Council rather than leaving it for states to decide individually.

The timing question is also problematic. Why intervene before the recently departed United Nations chemical weapons inspectors could present their report in a few weeks' time? No one doubts that chemical weapons have been used in Syria. What is controversial is by whom. The assessment made by the US government, which is being used to justify intervention, relies mainly on circumstantial evidence. It does not provide a smoking gun that would confirm the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime. Instead, the US would only say that it has "high confidence" that the Syrian regime may have used chemical weapons. This indicates that the guilt of the Syrian regime remains unconfirmed.

There is a growing tendency for individual states to conclude that it would not be in their best national interests to protect foreigners, living in far away lands, from their own governments, regardless of the severity of the accused crimes. World leaders may become more cautious before declaring future "red lines". The future of humanitarian intervention does not look promising.


Professor Kantathi Suphamongkhon was the 39th Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand. He is senior fellow at the Burkle Centre for International Relations at UCLA and is a distinguished visiting professor at UCLA Anderson School of Management.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT