The
Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a relatively new international
security and human rights norm to address international community's
failure to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and
crimes against humanity. When and where to intervene has came more and
more actual question during last decades in western foreign policy. The
wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have been claimed
to be justified attacks in name of humanitarian intervention or recently
due the R2P norm. On the other hand there is questions why the same nor
has not been applied in Syria, Somalia, Burma, Sudan etc. Official
high-flown statements are normally dealing R2P issue from perspective of
humanitarian need or to build a democratic state in intervention
region. In my opinion an opposite approach is more dominating on the
ground – approach where intervention logic is traced from needs and
motivations of intervener not from those in mission theatre.
From my point of view the key question is whom the interventions are protecting. The answer may be related to three issues:
- Does the implementing power have economical, military and/or political interests in the intervention region?
- Is the possible intervention region on border zone of sphere of economical, military and/or political influence?
- Is
some party in possible intervention region enough rich or skilful to
manipulate public opinion in intervener countries to get them on their
side?
Looking
interventions during last twenty years most of the mentioned three
issues have been driving force for attacks. Balkans draw new lines in
sphere of influence between great powers, same with Afghanistan in
addition that country has also raw materials, in Libya and Iraq oil and
gas fields were good motivation as they are also with possible attack to
Iran in near future. In all cases the biggest beneficiary has been U.S.
military-industrial complex. One could estimate that humanitarian
interventions in Africa will start immediately when enough big oilfield
will be discovered in conflict region.
Excerpt
R2P - Responsibility To Protect
The term Responsibility To Protect ("RtoP" or "R2P") was first presented in the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS)
in December 2001. As the UN debated major reforms of its human rights
system, the idea of committing to an international R2P gained support
from many governments and civil society organizations from all regions.
UN Security Council's Resolution 1674 on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict
includes the first official Security Council reference to the
Responsibility to Protect. On January 2009, UN Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon issued a report entitled Implementing the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP). The report outlines measures and actors involved in implementing the three-pillar approach as follows:
- Pillar One
stresses that States have the primary responsibility to protect their
populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes
against humanity.
- Pillar Two
addresses the commitment of the international community to provide
assistance to States in building capacity to protect their populations
related to issues mentioned in 1st pillar.
- Pillar Three
focuses on the responsibility of international community to take timely
and decisive action to prevent and halt issues mentioned in 1st pillar. |
Creating the facade
Manipulation
of public opinion is effective way to get wider support for wars – and
their huge costs – abroad. Terrorist and criminal organizations
transform without delay into allies and/or freedom fighters (al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan and Bosnia, KLA in Kosovo, Saddam Hussein in Iraq,
al-Qaedea figures now power in Tripoli) while the enemy will be
demonized (Serbs, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda). Number game with deaths
is easy way to get attention in nearby regions. So in Bosnia the numbers
needed were planned already some two years before Srebrenica, in case
of Kosovo U.S. officials claimed that from 100,000 up to 500,000
Albanians had been massacred. When the figure later was near 10.000 from
all ethnic groups together the bombings were already over.
With
cases more far away from western civilization other fabrications - than
number game - have been useful such as WMD's in case of Iraq, safe
haven for terrorists in Afghanistan and probably possible bombings
against Iran will be justified with nuclear thread. One should also note
that interventions can (secretly) begin before any public decisions
(e.g. in Bosnia with operation “Storm” and in Libya special forces
operated months before UN decisions).
The used operational chart with last big conflicts has been following:
1st creating imaginary thread (Iraq/WMD, Afghanistan/Taliban, Balkan Wars/ethnic cleansing…),
2nd destroying the enemy by cluster bombs, depleted uranium war heads, contract killing, torture etc.,
3rd bringing democracy and stability in form of puppet governments and ousting local more or less selected authorities.
Official
high flown statement of course are speaking humanitarian intervention,
R2P, peace enforcement, defending democracy etc to hide real
motivations.
Not even the foggiest idea what's next
One
problem is that intervention plans cover only the first stage
concentrating to get justification for attack and to get fast tactical
military win and forgetting what to do after military success (or
especially without it). In my opinion most of the problems in Balkans,
Iraq and Afghanistan are based to poor planning before intervention. For
example in Bosnia despite international community’s state building
efforts the country is splitting parts. Since war 15 years ago foreign
aid has exceed USD 80 bn for artificial creature designed in Dayton
agreement aiming multi-ethnic state with EU perspective. As a result
Bosnia is now even more divided, with less national identity, 20 percent
of population living under the poverty line, with a nightmare triple
administration plus international supervising governor.
In
Kosovo since intervention international community has worked over ten
years with capacity building of Kosovo administration. First idea was to
develop standards (of democratic state) before status (after being UN
protectorate), then after couple of years the slogan transformed to
“standards and status” and again after a couple of years “status before
standards”; now after unilateral declaration of independence the
standards have not been any significant issue in Kosovo and the outcome I
have summarized as follows:
“as
Serbian province, occupied and now international protectorate
administrated by UN Kosovo mission; as quasi-independent pseudo-state
has good change to become next “failed” or “captured” state; today’s
Kosovo is already safe-heaven for war criminals, drug traffickers,
international money laundry and radical Wahhabists – unfortunately all
are also allies of western powers”.
What
will be the result with last intervention to Libya remains to seen but
something tells the situation now in Tripoli where members of the Al
Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – LIFG, are now in control.
Their commander Abd Al-Hakim Belhadj, an al Qaeda veteran from
Afghanistan, now calls himself "Commander of the Tripoli Military
Council." So when U.S in the name of “war on terror” just killed
al-Qaeda leader OBL it now helps radical Islam groups gain power In
Libya in the name of humanitarian intervention.
One
reason for failures of R2P might be poor situation analysis due lack of
reliable information or as an intentional practice to avoid unwanted
deductions.
Intervener problem
My
conclusion is that the great powers implement interventions whenever
and wherever they see it beneficial for their military, economical
and/or political interests with or without UN approval while
humanitarian and legal aspects are serving only nothing but a facade.
One of the main problems with implementation of R2P is – in my opinion –
that so far U.S and NATO have been the main actors with or without UN
authorization. Public missions included e.g. the Implementation Force
(IFOR) and Stabilization Force (SFOR) in Bosnia from 1995 to 2004,
Operation Allied Force in Kosovo from March to June 1999 , the Kosovo
Force (KFOR) from June 1999, and the International Security Assistance
Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan since 2001 and the latest one is Operation
Unified Protector in Libya which began on 27 March 2011. In this
framework R2P has reduced to one extension of U.S foreign policy and its
needs and interests.
For
increasing credibility of R2P principle the role of NATO should be
minimized by strengthening capabilities of some wider organizations. The
most important actor should be UN with its related bodies.
From
European perspective the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE) forms good base to develop R2P capacity; OSCE is the
world’s largest regional security organization and the most inclusive
playing an essential non-military role in promoting peace and stability
and advancing democracy and human rights in Europe. The OSCE offers a
forum for political negotiations and decision-making in the fields of
early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict
rehabilitation.
It
is sad that EU has outsourced its foreign policy to U.S., it is blindly
following U.S. military suspicious strategies and cowboy policy only to
have good transatlantic relations - this keeps EU always as bystander
in international politics. However despite this the fact is that the EU
already belongs to the world’s largest providers of international
assistance so it could have a great role to play in responding more
effectively to protect civilians from mass atrocities and in assisting
other states and institutions to develop the capacity to do so.
Intervention logic should be applied
From
my perspective developing R2P from slogan to practice an intervention
logic should be obligatory and it should be transparent as only through
outside critics it can be justified as meaningful tool. I have some
doubts if intervention logic even exists related (humanitarian)
interventions during last decades.
In
my opinion R2P is similar like other development programs or projects.
There is identified crisis, problem that should be solved; objectives
are defined, outputs, activities, resources (inputs) are planned to
achieve immediate and finally overall objectives. This both ways
vertical logic should be checked at each level by the horizontal logic
specifying result indicators, control methods for achieving results, and
the assumptions and risks which will affect outcomes. This procedure
and its further developed forms – called as Logical Framework matrix or
LogFrame – is normal practice e.g. while channeling international aid
into field.
The
core problem from my perspective with R2P is that the slogan is serving
as facade of interventions not as principle supposed applied on the
ground. The logic will be thrown away when real aims of activities are
hidden. When the implementing power has economical, military and/or
political interests in the intervention region – in the operational
theatre – the problems and needs of supposed beneficiaries are minor
points similar way than collateral damages are only regrettable
side-effects during main mission. By applying logical framework approach
to R2P it is possible achieve more comprehensive approach to conflicts
including not only immediate intervention but also life after that.
¤ ¤ ¤
LogFrame for R2P figure can be found below and from LogFrameR2P
|
Intervention Logic for R2P by Ari Rusila
Ari Rusila's BalkanBlog http://arirusila.wordpress.com
|
| Intervention Logic |
Horizontal logic |
▲
▲
▲
▲
F
e
e
d
b
a
c
k
∆
╜
|
| Vertical levels |
| ↑↓ |
Overall objective: wider goal, a project is steered to its attainment. |
At all levels ►►►►
1. Narrative description
2. Indicators of achievement
3. Verification methods
4. Assumptions and risks |
| Immediate objective: a desired situation after completion of a project. It should be SMART (specific, measurable, accurate, realistic and time related) |
| Outputs are items of value developed by the project for the beneficiaries. With the aid of output resources, the beneficiaries should to achieve their immediate objectives. |
| Activities: to produce the outputs it is necessary to implement a number of certain activities ( tasks and actions) |
| Inputs are the material, human or financial resources for the completion of the activities |
More e.g. in my related articles:
Interventions in general: Multifaceted Intervention Practices , Is Peace more than absence of the War? and Peacemaking – How about solving Conflicts too?
U.S. practising intervention first in the Bosnian War 1992-95 and selecting terrorist/OC-groups to U.S. allies (More e.g. Srebrenica again – Hoax or Massacre? and Krajina – Victory with Ethnic Cleansing and the outcome Bosnia on the road to the EU, sorry to Dissolution )
Racak
fabrication and “humanitarian intervention” aka since WWII first ever
full scale bombing operation in center of Europe 1999 ( High pressure to fabricate Racak reports and 10th anniversary of Nato’s attack on Serbia)
About U.S. strategy in Afghanistan: Will COIN work in Afghanistan?
Other related articles: Libya Intervention is creating problems instead of solving them and Some framework to Syrian crisis
[/caption]
Todays picture about Srebrenica is still heavily manipulated. To me its clear that thousands of Muslims were killed in Srebrenica once this place fell to Bosnian Serbian forces as well that some of them were innocent civilians. It is clear too that thousand(s) Serbs were butchered around Srebrenica during Bosnian War 1992-95 e.g. by the 3rd Corps 7th Muslim Mountain Brigade lead by Bosnian Muslim leader of Srebrenica forces Naser Oric. To the Brigade mentioned were subordinated foreign Muslim fighters, also known as mujahedeen, who came from Islamic countries and it operated from “demilitarized safe area of Srebrenica”. This created a degree of hatred that was quite extraordinary in the region.” One possible scenario is that when the Bosnian Serb Army responded to this terror and atrocities the remaining fighters attempted to escape towards Tuzla, 38 miles to the north. Many were killed while fighting their way through; and many others were taken prisoner and executed by the Serb troops. More in my earlier article Srebrenica again – Hoax or Massacre?.
The documentary film "Srebrenica: A Town Betrayed" can be watched by clicking pictures left or from Here!
Srebrenica Historical Project
The fundamental objective of project is to rise above politics and propaganda and to create a contextual record of the Srebrenica tragedy of July 1995 which can serve as a corrective to the distortions of the last decade and a half and as a genuine contribution to future peace.
And here is a small selection of articles, documents and analysis, which are also telling the other side of story:
