I found my notes on responsibility to protect!
Okay okay okay. So military interventions are often fraught with moral issues - sometimes you do it, sometimes you don't, but when you do it's to support the team you like. So begged the question, when would it be appropriate to intervene for humanitarian reasons? Well, a couple of smart dudes, mostly Canadian, framed it as a responsibility to protect - that states have a responsibility to protect its populations from certain mass crimes, and that the international community will help a state achieve this end, and if it fails, step in to fulfill that responsibility. Notice how it's framed as a responsibility - under such a norm you "must". The details are often iffy yadda yadda, but it's a great idea in principle, it makes sense, and I haven't heard any disagreements against that yet.
The best bit of the argument to me is that states have responsibilities, in addition to its sovereign rights. If sovereign rights were all that's needed to justify a state's action, then human rights would be absolutely meaningless. So logic = win, and apply that responsibility not to states only, but to the international humanity and you have R2P in a nutshell.
Some caveats: humanitarian intent? haha, no - Libya turned into regime change. An intervention would also need a reasonable prospect of success, and I'm sure all those intervening hope for it. But can they deliver it? and at a cost we citizens can stomach? It should also have approval by proper authorities. The Arab League calls for an intervention from the UN and the international community - it'll probably get one, but only from one of the two. The UN is the ultimate authority, in the ideal and principled sense, but should lack of UN decision mean an intervention should not proceed? Lastly, one that is well expressed in this thread so far - it doesn't work.
There is another interesting criticism in my notes: that a Western intervention isn't about them, but us - that the West would do such a thing to feel all good and "Western", about maintaining the West's prestige and image. It's a very interesting one, because of course you're saving lives and nobody should decry that as a bad thing, but it's all self-aggrandizement in the end, is it? Compare it to rich people donating their wealth so they can leave behind a "legacy": noble or douchey? Can it be both?
Please don't auto-combine ><
UN chief warns against strikes on Syria
Ban Ki-moon says that military action against Syria could lead to a worsening of sectarian violence in the country.
Quote:
UN chief Ban Ki-moon has made an impassioned plea against military action in Syria, warning that it could spark further sectarian violence in a country already suffering from a humanitarian crisis "unprecedented" in recent history.
Speaking at a humanitarian meeting hosted by Britain on the sidelines of the G20 summit on Friday, Ban called on world powers to put aside their differences over the Syrian conflict, and to take concerted action to get desperately needed aid to the population.
"I must warn that ill-considered military action could cause serious and tragic consequences, and with an increased threat of further sectarian violence," Ban said.
About a third of Syria's pre-war 20.8 million population has fled abroad or have been forced from their homes during the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad's regime which is now in its third year, UN refugee agency data showed.
"This is a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions in recent history," Ban said.
But "as some flee the country, others dig in to fight," Ban said, pointing to the need therefore to "avoid further militarisation of the conflict and revitalise the search for a political settlement instead."
With a political solution proving elusive as world leaders dig in their heels over their entrenched positions, Ban called for unity in securing humanitarian aid for the population.
Food aid shortage
A funding shortage was also threatening to leave refugees in neighbouring countries with no food, he said, adding that stocks would run out within days in Lebanon and within two weeks in Jordan.
"The world must do everything within its powers to stop the suffering of the Syrian people. Let us use this united recognition of the problem as our starting point for focused and positive action," he said.
"Your support in exercising leverage on all parties to facilitate humanitarian access is critical."
On Thursday, the UN refugee agency said that from October, it will have to cut food aid to more than a quarter of Syrian refugees in Lebanon...
From the UN top dog, unintended consequences? As an advocate and moderator, his opinion must count for something, even if he has no real power. He didn't say how he would come to this conclusion, but perhaps (US limited scope intervention) + (Syria disintegrating already) = (Syria disintegrating faster in the wake of an intervention with nothing done about it because that's not what the US is going there for). Thoughts?
Source:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe...721727957.html
