Ghostbusters!

The second part of the, "Who You Gonna Call?" post from last week.

“We can't afford to give governments in Russia and China a veto over how we defend our interests and the progress of our values in the world.” – Senator John McCain

As I’ve already broken down, we are addressing whether the United Nations or the United States should be the preeminent keeper of international peace and defender of human rights, and the precedent this would set. 

My simple answer is the United Nations should be the preeminent keeper of international peace and defender of human rights.  If for no other reason, the UN can speak for the will of the world, transcending diplomatic allegiances like NATO or the Arab League.  Because of this, involvement by the UN can hardly be said to advance any one nation’s agenda over another’s.  Furthermore, when the UN acts it is in the interest of international peace and the protection of human rights.  I say ‘when’ because history and current events have shown the UN doesn’t always act.  The United Nations has proven unable to consistently uphold these responsibilities, and I am concerned it will take another Rwandan Genocide for the world to realize this. 

Since you aren’t going to call the UN, it seems like the only other option is the United States (and France, Great Britain, and Turkey to name a few).  But what precedent does this set when three of five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) ignore the vetoes cast by the other two? 

This is a difficult question.  On the one hand, by going against the UN we are saying, “The UN doesn’t have authority over us.”  Suppose in the near future China asks the UNSC to sign a resolution declaring the South China Sea as exclusively Chinese maritime territory.  Given recent events in the region I have no doubt the United States would respond, if needed, by casting a veto vote.  If the United States just defied the UNSC by intervening in Syria, who are we to scold China for continuing to occupy islands and waters claimed by Japan, Philippines, and Indonesia.  A situation that should have been resolved through diplomatic channels would them come down to a military standoff, with the possibility of small conflicts between nations. 

Conversely, if the United States and other likeminded nations respect the will of the UNSC they won’t intervene in Syria.  The conflict will continue to escalate, with more crimes against humanity being committed by both sides. 

The phrase ‘between a rock and a hard place’ doesn’t begin to quantify the moral dilemma we face here.  Respect the United Nations and aspire that one day it will be able to act in every case of crimes against humanity… or try to save the lives of thousands of Syrians while labeling the UN as irrelevant. 

The answer, in my opinion, is both clear as day and invisible.  It is what Jack Nicolson was referring to when he screamed, “you can’t handle the truth!”  Covert operations cannot replace policy, but it can support it.  In this case the United States hasn’t been shy about favoring the Free Syrian Army and calling for President Assad to step down, but it has been unable to openly support the FSA with weapons, intelligence, or funding.  It is these capacities that the Agency excels at. 

This is a difficult issue, but I believe it is an unfortunate reality that there are occasions when otherwise morally questionable actions are justified.  I can think of several examples but I will end this tirade here.  If there are any differing opinions out there I’d love to here them.

Who You Gonna Call?

Part 1

Yesterday at the Republican National Convention Senator John McCain and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke to attendees about American foreign policy.  Without going into details the duo said exactly what you would expect.  They outlined the dangers of American decline, talked about the U.S. being a resolute beacon for our allies, and reminisced about the good old days.  Neither offered specifics for how a Romney/Ryan administration would go about these issues, or any others for that matter, but that was not the purpose of the event. 

So why the blog post?  It is to react to this one liner from Senator McCain.  “We can't afford to give governments in Russia and China a veto over how we defend our interests and the progress of our values in the world.”  He is referring to the vetoes by Russia and China of repeated attempts by the United States and others to secure UNSC action in Syria. 

Senator McCain isn’t saying that Russia and China shouldn’t be permanent members of the UNSC, armed with a veto vote over any item put before the council.  He is saying their veto votes shouldn’t stop the United States from acting as it wants.  To keep this post on the briefer side, the issue at hand is; what precedent are we setting by going against the expressed or implied will of the United Nations? 

The answer to this question (Ghost Busters!) depends on whether you think the United Nations or the United States should be the preeminent keeper of international peace and defender of human rights.  As this situation shows, they cannot jointly share this role every time. 

There are pros and cons to each but I will stop here with the hopes that this question raises some debate.  Check back soon for part two; my answer.

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)