Paradise Lost

Before I dive into the meat and potatoes of this post I want to explain why I titled it Paradise Lost.  My working title was Trouble in Paradise, but that was the headline for this story in many of the major news outlets and I wanted to set this analysis apart from the crowd.  I settled on Paradise Lost in reference to John Milton’s 1667 poem by the same name.  The poem concerns the Biblical story of the banishment of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.  In Milton’s own words the purpose of the poem is to, “justify the ways of God to men.”  Admittedly that was where my knowledge of the work ended.  But after reading a synopsis or two I think an interesting comparison can be drawn between Satan tempting Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and Former President Nasheed exposing corruption in the Maldives.  In both stories Satan/Nasheed could have safely remained the ruler of their respective domains, but they chose to brave the abyss to show Adam and Eve/the world the truth about good and evil, rather than allow them to remain oblivious.  Of course their motivations for acting were very different so this is where my comparison ends. 

In December I posted a link to the Top 5 International Documentaries of 2011.  If you haven’t already I highly recommend checking them out, especially The Island President, the story of then President Mohamed Nasheed and his struggle to raise awareness of the dangers of global climate change.  This story is captivating for two reasons: the first is that in 2008 Nasheed became the first democratically elected President of the Maldives, a small island nation in the Indian Ocean.  The second reason is that for the Maldives climate change doesn’t just mean more powerful storms or extreme temperatures.  Rising sea levels threaten to submerge the nation (highest elevation is eight feet) beneath the waves of the Indian Ocean, literally erasing it from the map. 

The reason I say “then President” is on February 7^th Mr. Nasheed resigned from office.  He succinctly chronicles the events leading up to his resignation in an Op-Ed piece he submitted to the New York Times.  To summarize its contents, Mr. Nasheed asserts that he was forced out of office at gun point after cracking down on a corrupt judicial system and Islamist Extremists using the freedom of expression guaranteed by the new Constitution to spread hate and intolerance.    

In addition to his Op-Ed piece, Mr. Nasheed was recently interviewed by Christiane Amanpour.  In the interview Mr. Nasheed asserts that, “What happens in the Maldives happens in the Middle East always two or three years later.”  This assertion foreshadows a similar upheaval in Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, and Egypt in 2014. 

Mr. Nasheed has been succeeded by his Vice President, Mohammed Waheed Hassan Manik.  After taking office the new government issued a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Nasheed on unspecified criminal charges and began to rebuild the President’s cabinet with individuals who held high offices during Mr. Guyoom’s dictatorship.  Initially President Waheed said Presidential elections would be held as scheduled in October 2013, however he has recently changed his stance and said elections would be held, “as early as considered feasible by all concerned.”  This was further solidified by Indian Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai who brokered an agreement between the two parties for early elections.

If the word of former President Nasheed is taken as the truth, this coup d’état represents a dangerous future for nations emerging from the Arab Spring with new governments.  However it is promising that both sides of this issue have thus far been able to work through their differences and agree on a course of action to resolve their dispute.  To quote current President Waheed Hassan, “this is an opportunity for us to regain the respect of the international community, but most importantly continue to build a safe, democratic, and prosperous Maldives for all our people.”  Clearly the truth of this statement can’t be over emphasized.


Assuming early elections are head in the next few months; the success of this brokered peace will be determined by how free and fair the election is, and the acceptance of the election results.  If the losing candidate and their supporters acknowledge that the election was free and fair, and that they accept their opponent as the peoples’ choice for President of the Maldives, than this will be a perfect case study for the peaceful resolution of contested Presidencies.  If however, civil unrest ensues or the election is not democratic, the Maldives would become the newest example of a country in chaos and unable to escape political strife.  

The Responsibility to Protect

It occurred to me that I have not raised as many morel and ethical questions as I set out to when I created this blog.  In continuing to analysis the crisis in Syria I think the justification given by Russia and China for their veto of a UN Resolution calling for President Assad to step down offers an excellent case study to consider the morality of intervening in the domestic affairs of a sovereign Nation. 

By design the UN Charter is not definitive on the issue.  In Chapter 1, Article 2(7) it states, “nothing should authorize intervention in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” This definition is in line with the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), in which the concept of a state was established as the sole entity which can legally exert authority over a region.  Prior to this treaty Europe functioned in a state of nature, in which whatever government could exert authority over a region was justified in doing so.  

However  in Chapter VII, Article 39 the UN Charter authorizes the Security Council to, "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Article 42 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."  Article 41 and 42 outline the necessity of exhausting non-violent options before taking, "action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security."  This ambiguity allows future leaders to decide on a case-by-case basis whether state sovereignty or international peace and security should take precedent.

In the case of the UN Resolution voted on this past Saturday (2/4/12) the United States, Great Britain, France, and ten other members of the Security Council voted in favor of the Resolution, believing the conditions in the Syrian crisis fall under Chapter VII.  Conversely China and Russia vetoed the resolution, arguing the crisis is a domestic matter and falls under Chapter I, Article 2.  While there is a case to be made for both arguments, every day spent deliberating means another day of violence and death.  Therefore we have a moral imperative to outline a set of principles which can serve to spur a prompt and unified response under the direction of Chapter I or Chapter VII accordingly. 

For the sake of keeping this analysis focused I will assume no one will contest a principle stating in a case of blatant State sponsored genocide the UNSC should be required to act in accordance with Chapter VII.  Conversely a peaceful gathering of people protesting higher taxes doesn’t warrant the violation of a State’s sovereignty.  That said I will continue by analyzing the justifications given by the P5 members for their respective votes in an effort to highlight factors that would mandate UNSC action in accordance with Chapter I or Chapter VII. 

Why Russia vetoed:

On Monday (2/6/12) Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke in Moscow supporting his government’s veto of the resolution by arguing the resolution is one-sided against the Syrian government.  Mr. Lavrov justified this by citing the resolution as calling for the Syrian Government to end violent actions, without obligating groups opposing the regime (like the Free Syrian Army) to cease violent acts as well. 

Russia has opposed many of the sanctions and political efforts to isolate Syria, choosing instead to work with the Assad regime to try and impose a democratic transition.  This strategy was supported by arguing a sudden and violent change in Syria’s government would result in a volatile situation similar to that in Libya. 

Additionally, on Wednesday (2/8/12) Mr. Lavrov commented that both the Syrian regime and the opposition have instigated the armed conflict.  “On both sides there are people that aim at an armed confrontation, not a dialogue.”  Mr. Lavrov continued to say that President Assad wants his Vice President, Farouk al-Sharaa, to hold talks with opposition groups. 

Why China vetoed:

Like Russia, China has argued that it vetoed the UN Resolution to save lives and ensure stability in Syria.  According to Sun Zhe, international studies professors at Tsinghua University, Chinese officials view the actions of the Syrian Government as, “extremist”, but they do not want to see a repeat of Libya or Egypt. 

While the UNSC approved two resolutions in 2011 which authorized action, “by all means necessary” (Ivory Coast and Libya), it now seems that Russia and China are less comfortable with the idea of regime change.  For Russia this is because Syria is a close ally, and it therefore is inclined to stand by it.  For China these circumstances are slightly different.  For a Chinese perspective this resolution undoubtedly seems like an attempt by the UN to remove regimes which don’t agree with it.  This would be worrisome for China as doesn’t always agree with the opinion of the UN.

Britain, France, and the USA:

Conversely, the 13 members of the UNSC which voted for the resolution see Assad’s regime as a government which has been told stop, had sanctions imposed against it, and yet the violence persists.  After nearly a year of protests and death the only change has been Syria’s decent towards chaos.  In contradiction to Russia which is still trying to work with the President Assad to impose democratic reforms, Nations favoring the resolution believe the Syrian government has already shown its unwillingness change its behavior and policies and therefore intervention is the last resort. 

So where is the line between Chapter I and Chapter VII?  In December of 2001 the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) met and produced The Responsibility to Protect report.  In the introduction the report succinctly states that, “sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe – from mass murder and rape, from starvation – but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states.” (VIII) It is important to notice how closely this statement echoes the language in Chapter I and Chapter VII of the UN Charter.  Where the ICISS takes the next, crucial, step is it doesn’t allow the responsibility to protect to disappear in a gray middle ground between Chapter I and Chapter VII.  Rather it clearly states that once the sovereign state is “unwilling or unable” to uphold this responsibility, it must be picked up by the international community. 

With this I believe Syria has clearly and unquestionably failed in its responsibility to protect its citizens.  Combined with the unwillingness of President Assad’s regime to work with the international community to stop the violence I further believe an intervention in Syria is not only justified, but is morally necessary.  While I can acknowledge why Russia and China would be against this intervention, I believe I have clearly negated any moral justification for their vetoes of the UN resolution.   

I would like to close by presenting the guidelines for military intervention from the ICISS’s The Responsibility to Protect Report.  I believe these are self-explanatory but if there readers feel these principles need more clarification I will provide it at a later date.

• Right Authority – Who authorizes military action. (ICISS 32)
• Just Cause – “What kind of harm is sufficient to trigger a military intervention overriding the non-intervention principle.” (ICISS 32) This is generally characterized by large scale loss of life or ethnic cleansing.
• Right Intention – “To halt or avert human suffering.” (ICISS 35)  Should always be established through multilateralism.
• Last Resort – There must be reasonable grounds to say no other option would work. (ICISS 36)
• Proportional Means – The scale and duration of operations should be minimally necessary to end human rights violations. (ICISS 37)
• Reasonable Prospects – Must have a reasonable chance of success, can’t make the conflict last larger. (ICISS 37)