Was R2P a viable option for Syria? Opinion content in the Globe and Mail and the National Post,2011–2013

Abstract

In the spring of 2011 the Syrian civil war emerged as a late chapter of the “Arab Spring,” a chapter that in retrospect has turned out to be the most complex and potentially most serious. How such crisis events are framed in press coverage has been identified as important with respect to possible responses the international community makes under the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P). By most indicators (number of casualties, number of refugees, plus the use of chemical weapons against civilians), Syria certainly qualified as a candidate for the application of a UN Security Council authorized R2P reaction response; yet during the first two-and-a-half years of the war no such action was forthcoming.

This research examines editorial and opinion pieces on Syria appearing in two leading Canadian newspapers, the Globe and Mail and the National Post, from March 2011 to September 2013 in terms of assessing how the civil war was framed regarding the appropriateness of an R2P military response on the part of the international community. The research has both quantitative and qualitative dimensions. The former examines whether framing promoted or discouraged international involvement (i.e. a “will to intervene”), as well as whether diplomatic and especially military actions such as a “no-fly zone” or more direct military attacks would be likely to result in success or failure. Qualitatively, the major positions taken and arguments presented regarding R2P, and whether it should be invoked for Syria, are reviewed.