At the time of this writing, the Syrian crisis is in its fifth year, with rising toll in human casualties and refugees despite a temporary truce agreed few months ago. The civil war grinds on with no apparent end in sight. As a result, the 'Responsibility to Protect' (R2P) norm after the Libyan crisis (2011) has come under serious review and scepticism.
Despite failings and flaws, this is not to say that foreign interventions in support of R2P will never occur in the future. They might do and some may be even may successful; however, given the trends the doctrine's implementation in undertaking future military interventions is likely to be more selective, cautious and circumstantially based.
It is felt that big powers have often used and abused R2P as an excuse for their vested interests. In order to prevent it from misuse some safeguards are essential to be followed. First, prior to approving any armed intervention, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) will need to articulate its objectives clearly and precisely. It is highly unlikely that it would approve any future intervention easily if its implicated objective is 'regime change' only in a target country. Moreover, indiscriminate use of force needs to be avoided before agreeing to approve any coercive intervention. In other words, the UNSC should exhaust every possible diplomatic and peaceful solution to the crisis and the armed intervention should occur only as a last resort.
Besides, minimum amount of force should be used and 'collateral' damage has to be minimum with future implications of military intervention contemplated beforehand. Importantly, neighbouring countries, regional organisations, notable leaders and civil society should be co-opted to dampen, or if possible, resolve the crisis at its earliest stage. In addition, it is necessary to look beyond Track I to citizen-based diplomacy and initiatives.
As a preventive, early warning system (EWS) ought to be instituted in potential theatres of conflict; prevention rather than reaction should be the operational norm. Measures such as arms control, demilitarisation of politics, social justice and good governance could prevent flaring up of civil conflicts. In this context, appointing of Focal Persons by the UNSC should be made who regularly monitor and provide updates on potential trouble spots.
As "mission creep" or extension of original mandate often tends to happen in foreign interventions, the UNSC resolution mandating any military intervention needs to establish an independent monitoring mechanism to review implementation as per the original mandate. This should also set suitable deadlines for an exit strategy. This mechanism would be required to report to the UNSC on the mandate originally given and its consistency on the ground. Should the original mandate be exceeded, the conduct of intervention should revert to the UNSC for fresh review.
Given the R2P mandate on protection of unarmed civilians, it is important for the intervening force to be strictly neutral as far as possible between contending parties. Further, the force should be well-trained, well-armed and well-equipped to complete the mission efficiently in the shortest possible time.
Conformity to international law, particularly international humanitarian law is important. Regional human rights bodies should be brought into the picture soon. In this regard, the International Criminal Court (ICC) should be juridically strengthened to try those culpable for acts of genocide, torture and mass murder. This may serve as deterrent against repressive leaders and their minions who responsible for taking law in their hands.
Additionally, new thinking has to emerge beyond the confines of existing paradigms - long-term versus short-term; multiple levels of action and struggle for change rather than short-term and ad hoc. During the intervention it is entirely possible that conflicts will arise between political objectives as determined by the UNSC and military imperatives as determined by conditions on the ground. This can be resolved by sensible recommendations to the Security Council from designated military command. Presently R2P is viewed differently by China and Brazil, especially the latter, advocating Responsibility While Protecting.In addition, the use of non-violent alternatives to use of force such as preventive deployment, unarmed peacekeepers, policing, can be tried. Peacekeeping should be improved to include peace building and rehabilitative development.
Last but not least, the UN system needs a major revamp, especially its arbitrary use of veto power. UN system is becoming outmoded, insofar as it has stood paralysed for the last five years or so in case of the Syrian crisis. As a consequence, R2P doctrine has justifiably come under serious criticism. Big powers (US, Russia) and regional powers (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Turkey and Iran) are working at cross-purposes by supporting their own proxies for regional hegemony.
The rise of ISIS has further complicated the situation in the ME. Employment of R2P once made sense in Africa and far off places when major powers worked with consensus. At present, the US and Europe seem reluctant to physically commit troops in civil conflicts. Albeit consensus exists on the R2P as a humanitarian norm and accepted in principle by all nations big or small, differences arise on interventionary mechanisms.
As for future, most probably the R2P interventions may be most likely endorsed in Third world countries where big powers interests do not intersect. Hence in general judgements whether and when to intervene shall be made on 'case by case' basis rather than predetermined, universally applicable principles. In other words, the Responsibility to Protect (after Libya and Syria) cannot be guaranteed where an intervention runs contrary to political or strategic interests of P-5 member of the UN.
Here, it is instructive to note that the failure of Russia and China to endorse even a very weak UNSC resolution against Syria in face of clear evidence of commission of mass atrocities - casts dark shadows on the doctrine.
States, regional organisations and international bodies, including the UNSC share the responsibility in making the R2P doctrine work. As a humanitarian norm, it is agreed by all but its interpretation and implementation in how to protect unarmed citizens leads to divisions.
If the R2P fails to fulfill its role faith in UN, global order, regional organisations will be further shaken - thus seriously undermining global security.
(The writer is Head Department of International Relations, National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad)