• R2P: The Next Decade
• Responsibility While Protecting
• Libya v. Syria: Is That the Question?

R2P: The Next Decade

Few political principles have been marked for victory or defeat with greater frequency or fervor than the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). An explicit outline of state and international responsibilities to protect populations from genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing, R2P was first articulated in 2001 by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty and adopted by the full spectrum of global leaders at the United Nations World Summit of 2005.

Over much of its first decade, the concept’s development went largely unnoticed beyond a narrow band of policy actors, experts, and advocates. That changed abruptly when Libya’s Qaddafi labeled his protesting public “cockroaches” and openly declared that suppression would quickly turn to mass slaughter.

R2P enters its second decade in the midst of tension as the mounting crisis in Syria begs the world for unity. Stanley Foundation program officer Rachel Gerber examines the principle’s evolution and offers highlights from a recent event that considered its next decade.

Responsibility While Protecting

Gareth Evans, president emeritus of the International Crisis Group and former foreign minister of Australia, helped create the Responsibility to Protect concept as co-chair of the International Committee on Intervention and State Sovereignty. He was also a key participant in the January 18, 2012, conference “R2P: The Next Decade,” co-sponsored by the Stanley Foundation, The Carnegie Corporation of New York, and the MacArthur Foundation. In a recent op-ed published by Project Syndicate, he discusses next steps needed in worldwide efforts to prevent genocide and other mass atrocity crimes.

Libya v. Syria: Is That the Question?

The death of Muammar Qaddafi in October of last year marked the end of the Libyan revolutionary struggle against a brutal regime. Many have since hailed the revolution in Libya as a model for international intervention. However, while the Libyans claimed victory over Qaddafi’s oppressive regime, another Arab country remains plagued with violent exchange between a government and its people: Syria. Since the Syrian opposition movement arose in March 2011, approximately 5,400 people have been killed. Just one day before a crucial UN Security Council vote on an Arab League plan that calls for “a Syrian-led political transition to a democratic, plural political system,” Syrian military forces unleashed an unprecedented amount of violence on the city of Horns, marking the deadliest day of the uprising with 200 killed.

On February 5, the UN Security Council vote on the Arab League plan failed, with both Russia and China vetoing. The successes of the Libyan intervention leave many wondering why a similar intervention—or even the imposition of UN sanctions—has not yet been possible in Syria. While the humanitarian crisis in Syria is undeniable, other factors—including geopolitics and regional interests—have made international consensus difficult to reach. Both Russia and China have expressed concern that UN actions such as endorsement of the Arab League plan would lead to civil war. Both countries prefer a political solution as opposed to international intervention, while both also feel that UN efforts so far have been biased towards the armed opposition movement.

In the aftermath of the Libyan campaign, a grim reality has set in. Multiple factors—among them Qaddafi’s pariah status, the timing of the intervention, and the threat of a refugee situation in Europe—set the stage for international consensus on Libya. Unfortunately, the factors surrounding the Syrian uprising do not create as favorable an atmosphere for collective action through the Security Council, and may require UN member states to seek alternative means to exercise their responsibility to protect in Syria. One such factor includes the Libya campaign itself, which some claim stretched its protection mandate—and the parameters of international consensus—by directly supporting rebel factions and seeking regime change rather than political settlement. Russia and China have invoked these critiques as reason to block Security Council action on Syria.

While the mandate for intervention in Libya demonstrated that international consensus and cooperation can be rallied for quick and efficient international cooperation to protect populations from mass violence, continuing debate over Syria demonstrates military intervention like that in Libya will likely remain rare.

—Audrey Williams, Stanley Foundation Policy and Outreach Intern

Contact Us
Suggestions? Contact the editor.

If you have received this message in error or no longer wish to receive it, click here to unsubscribe.

The Web links in this e-mail contain the opinion of their respective Web sites and/or authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Stanley Foundation. Please do not reprint or host the articles contained within this e-mail without explicit permission from the authors.

About The Stanley Foundation
The Stanley Foundation seeks a secure peace with freedom and justice, built on world citizenship and effective global governance. It brings fresh voices, original ideas, and lasting solutions to debates on global and regional problems. The foundation is a nonpartisan, private operating foundation, located in Muscatine, Iowa, that focuses on peace and security issues and advocates principled multilateralism. The foundation frequently collaborates with other organizations. It does not make grants.

The Stanley Foundation, 209 Iowa Avenue, Muscatine, IA 52761