Humanitarian Intervention in Syria: A Critical Analysis

Abstract

In academic and intellectual circles, Humanitarian Intervention (HI) and the duty to protect have historically been seen as morally and ethically right because of its contentious practices have been at the forefront of international relations discourse in recent years. Having failed to come up with a consensus set of rules, parameters and principles to justify intervention, the Just War logic of Humanitarian Intervention falls flat on the face of the sovereign rights of the states. In this milieu, this article critically examines the rationale of humanitarian intervention in Syria and evaluates the concept of just war to claim that it is outdated and its application in the name of humanitarian intervention needs to be assessed. This study adopts the theory of social constructivism to decode the liberal perspective of Humanitarian Invention as a just war or socially constructed to manipulate world public opinion and address the inherent national interests of involved countries or the diplomatic failure of the United Nations Organization.

Introduction

The ongoing Syrian crisis is undoubtedly one of the greatest human disasters of world history, which according to the UN report has pushed Syria back to 40 years (2013). It has not only destroyed human capital, health and infrastructure but also displaced millions of people, and pushed them to live in abject poverty. This crisis which started with pro-democracy demonstrations in the country’s southern city of Daraa, demanding the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad was instigated by outside forces that led to the indiscriminate use of military force which consequently resulted in the Syrian war between the Assad regime and different military groups that include Kurdish, Jihadists, FSA rebels. Furthermore, a major contributing factor to the conflict’s escalation was the involvement of outside forces in starting the Syrian Civil War. To illustrate, Shia-majority countries of the region like Iran, Iraq and Lebanon have extended their active support to the al-Assad regime of Syria. In fact, Shia terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and others have been fighting on the side of the Assad regime. However, the Sunni-majority nations in the area, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, rejected al-Assad and provided backing to the violent groups who fought him. Importantly, extra-regional powers like Russia and the US also have directly taken part in the Syrian war. Russia has openly supported the al-Assad regime while the US strongly opposed the al-Assad regime and provided active support to the militant organizations fighting against al-Assad. Even Lebanon and Iran extended their military support to the Assad government whereas Israel, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have supported the militants fighting against the al-Assad government (Aljazeera, 2018). The Syrian government and opposition forces engaged in a civil war as a result, with the goal of controlling as much Syrian territory as possible. This unprecedented involvement of outside powers is believed to have escalated the Syrian crisis further. For instance, Russia, which has military bases in Syria, backs President Assad. Iran has also come to the rescue of the Assad regime because of religious brotherhood. Interestingly, countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel have extended their support to various anti-regime groups only to counter Iranian influence. The US involvement is for democracy and against Russian involvement in the war. The UK, France other European powers are opposing al-Assad only because America opposes him. Therefore, the Syrian civil war is different from other wars and cannot be projected as a just war from the outset as the US claims. It is different in the sense that a peaceful pro-democracy protest against high unemployment, corruption and lack of political freedom under the Assad government 10 years back has resulted in a full-scale war with the involvement of regional and international actors including foreign terrorist groups. The war at the outset may have germinated from domestic issues but what seems to be at the heart of the war is the relentless struggle for power between the US and Russia and the regional countries like Iran, Iraq and Lebanon on the one hand, and Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Israel on the other as stated above. Therefore, this study applies the theory of social constructivism to understand the intentions of the powers involved and their inherent interests in the humanitarian intervention in Syria.

Setting the Milieu: Humanitarian Intervention

The usage of the term ‘Humanitarian Intervention’ (HI) is rooted in natural law. Hugo Grotius the ‘father of international law’ is known to have applied laws naturally to regulate international relations. Subsequently, to promote international order, the ‘just war’ doctrine evolved, which required particular legal (justified) moral reasons for waging war. As such HI increasingly got linked with legitimate resistance even interference at times to oppose any kind of brutal violation of human rights. The Grotian idea of HI gradually gained momentum by the end of the 19th century. It was also reflected in the balance of power and the European concert with a number of interventions taking place between 1827 and 1908 on grounds of humanitarianism. Since then, the legitimacy of HI has been widely accepted barring the World War years. With the Pact of Paris in 1928 and the adoption of the UN Charter in 1945, the issue of humanitarian intervention gained legal-moral ground for its indiscriminate use after the end of World War II (DIIA, 1999).

In fact, the use of force and the rule of international law determining the threat and use of force in international relations was well laid down in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which in turn provides a legal framework for HI. The Charter granted the use of force for protecting the rights of individuals and self-defence, in response to an armed attack against a state (Article 51 of the UN Charter). The second is the use of force, mandated by the UN Security Council in the case of a threat, which breaks down international peace and also acts as aggression (Chapter VII, Articles 39 and 42 of the UN Charter) (UN, 2016). Humanitarian intervention means:

The use of force across borders by a State or group of states aimed at preventing or ending widespread and grave violations of the fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens the permission of the government of the State within whose territory, force is applied. (Holzgrefe & Keohane, 2003, p. 55)

The UN General Assembly proclaimed the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as an international crime that was punishable on 9 December 1948 (UN, 1948). The US immediately signed the seminal treaty, which came into force in 1951 (Rice & Loomis, 2007).

During the Cold War period, due to nuclear deterrence, nobody took the risk of intervention even for humanitarian purposes. The majority of UN members identified that the notion of HI is a relic of colonialism. The violation of Human Rights including genocide leads to a strong moral challenge for public opinion and governments as discussed in the International Law Association in the 1970s (DIIA, 1999). In 1978, Human Rights Watch was launched to regulate the conduct of Eastern European countries. The concept of humanitarian intervention was used during the 1990s when the state had the dual responsibility to protect human welfare and to maintain national sovereignty. For instance, in the case of the Gulf War I of 1990 when the Iraqi troops crossed the border to Kuwait, immediately the UN mediated the conflict to create pressure to withdraw the Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The UN passed Resolution 678 on 29 November 1990 to authorize the use of force against others in such crises that arose in the future (UN, 1990). During the Gulf War in 1991, at least 600,000 Kurds fled before the Iraqi army retreated (UNHCR, 2004) creating an unprecedented refugee crisis. This has propelled the UN for the first time to come up with measures to regulate the sovereignty of the state and maintain international peace and security. The United Nations Security Council established a concept of international peace and security by adopting an act that upheld both national sovereignty and civilian populations. On 23 January 1992, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 733 in Somalia for the Kurdish Crisis and peacekeeping mission. UNSCR 814 was passed on 26 March 1993, while UNSCR 837 was passed on 6 June 1993 to approve the extension of the mandate to hold those responsible for attacking UN forces (UNSC, 1992). In April 1993, the UN General Assembly voted for establishing the international civilian mission for Haiti to control human rights violations and to provide financial and technical assistance (UN, 1993). The United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda was a peacekeeping mission force deployed in Rwanda. Subsequently, several resolutions were passed for Kosovo, Darfur and others for the purpose of protecting human rights. At the start of the 21st century, it remained a subject of intense debate whether or not to intervene to save civilians and when and how to combat atrocities.

To note here, Humanitarian intervention means an intervention on humanitarian grounds. The state is the primary actor to protect human rights. But if the state fails to discharge its duties of upholding law and order, in this situation another actor’s intervention is needed. In that case, every country including the US is subjected to law-and-order issues and indiscriminate killing of the ‘Blacks’ and gross violation of human rights in Iraq and Afghanistan also invites humanitarian intervention. But no one including the UNO is talking about the US involvement in genocides and war crimes instead eulogizing the US action as protection of human rights and promotion of democracy. Further, the ICISS report states that the UN-authorized intervention can be carried out only when the situation reaches two thresholds—mass killing and ethnic cleansing. But in reality, interventions are taking place only in the case of the poor and underdeveloped nations while the crimes of big powers whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Chechnya are whitewashed. That is why the intentions of HI are questionable given its double standard based on power parity in the global political pyramid.

From Humanitarian Intervention to Responsibility to Protect

The idea of humanitarian intervention has changed as per the changing international circumstances. In the 1990s, the concept referred to ‘safe areas’ developed for protecting civilian populations and internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the state. Noting that the UN Security Council has not designated any safe areas since 1999, there have been several problems including a fear of the use of ‘Safe Areas’. Second, there were problems in their execution including, especially in the Srebrenica safe area of Bosnia in 1995, where at least 8,372 Bosnian were massacred (Orchard, 2014, p. 1). Moreover, the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 exposed the inaction of the UN leading to the failure of the peace process. Similarly, military intervention in Kosovo in 1999 without the approval of the Security Council was worrisome and fueled the civil war. Mr Kofi Annan, the General Secretary of the UN in the 54th session of the UNGA in September 1999 has reflected upon the prospects of human security and intervention in 21st century (Evans et al., 2001, p. 2; Seybolt, 2008). Although, the primary responsibility for the protection of its people rests with the state itself, but when the state fails or expresses unwillingness or inability to prevent internal wars, insurgency, repression or suffering of the people, it automatically qualifies as per the UN Resolution to the international responsibility to protect (UN, 1994). It is a guiding principle for the international community of states and relates to obligations inherent in the concept of sovereignty, the responsibility of the Security Council. Article 24 of the UN Charter is especially devoted towards the maintenance of international peace and security, specific legal obligations under Human Rights declarations, covenants and treaties, international humanitarian law and national law for the protection of human rights. The three key elements of R2P are:

• 1.

The responsibility to prevent.

2.

The responsibility to react.

3.

The responsibility to rebuild (Evans et al., 2001).

The R2P has basically three main objectives. First, the state is responsible for the prevention of violence against the citizens and while doing so, the state must adhere to the peaceful methods of development and diplomacy to prevent conflict escalation. Second, it is the responsibility of the UN to react to halt the abuse through diplomatic sanctions and military interventions. Third, it is the responsibility of the UN to rebuild the region in the aftermath of the war. ICISS also provides criteria for military action to halt atrocities that can be considered legitimate and on the basis of this, ICISS has recommended three alternatives. The first alternative is the mandate of the Security Council with due approval of the General Assembly to deal with emergency situation as used in the case of the Korean War. If this fails then action should be taken under the jurisdiction of a relevant regional organization under the UN Charter. Second, the power of the Security Council for military intervention as a last resort in the event of genocide and any large-scale killings is part of the collective international responsibility to protect as mandated by the Secretary General of the UN (2012). In May 2005, Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General in his report, ‘argued that challenges were not to find alternatives to the Security Council but to make the Council work better’ (Wood, 2020). Third, ‘the UN has authority to respond to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity as adopted in the UN Summit Declaration of 2005 (Rice & Loomis, 2007)’. Thus, the Security Council is empowered and authorized by the UN mandate to take collective action in a timely and decisive manner to ensure peace and protect the population in the warring zone.

Further, the Resolution 63/308 adopted in the 2005 World Summit advocated in favour of the establishment and acceptance of the regional and sub-regional arrangements intended for the responsibility to protect (UNGA, 2005). In fact, ‘Chapter VI in Article 33(1) refers to resorting to regional agencies or arrangements as an option for parties to a dispute while Chapter VII in its Article 47 (4), notes that the Military Staff Committee after consultations with appropriate regional agencies may establish regional sub-committees (UNGA, 2005)’. However, Chapters IX and X based on economic and social matters make no references to regional arrangements. This perhaps to a certain extent led to the failure to address the role of regional organizations and their capacity for economic and social development, as well as maintaining peace and security in a region. Further, lack of clarity with regard to the rationale of national and international organizations ‘responsibility to protect’ and delay in delegation of power of region and sub-regional organization to the national level contributes to the inability of the leaders to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and their incitement. In 2006, the Security Council in its Resolutions 1674, 1894 in 2009, 2117 in 2013 and 2150 adopted on the 20th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda acknowledged the role of regional and sub-regional arrangements in the prevention of genocide and R2P along with maintenance of peace (UNGA, 2014). Nevertheless, R2P has faced several criticisms due to the way the intervention was carried out in Libya and the UN action in countries like Myanmar and Sri Lanka. Although a consensus existed about R2P as a concept based on its 2005 World Summit articulation yet the lack of sufficient mechanisms for the smooth implementation of R2P during violence renders it helpless.

Theoretical Framework

This study adopts the theoretical framework of Liberalism, Realism and Social Constructivism to examine the justification of Humanitarian Intervention in the name of just war and therefore to examine whether interventions are to be accepted as moral and legal. The revision of the Realist paradigm necessitates the state to view any intervention from outside as aggression and a threat to its sovereignty therefore waging war is moral. Amidst these contradictory theoretical paradigms, the epistemology and ontological analysis under social constructivism tell us that the perceptions of what we do are based on what we know, and what we know is socially constructed is adopted to evaluate the genuineness of HI and R2P and poses serious questions to its application only in case the country is underdeveloped and poor. Let’s look at these theoretical paradigms in detail.

The Doctrine of Just War

The doctrine of just war was pioneered by Saint Augustine in 1470 in his book the City of God. As a philosopher and theologian, St. Augustine advanced the moral Christian doctrine, proposing peace and humility as fundamental virtues. The theory makes the assumption that human soil and, by extension, society, exist in an ideal state. It held that all people are good at heart and that each person has the power to change. As a result, it felt that society may improve and that better relations can exist between countries. The concept of dynamic history—which starts with the creation of the world and progresses to its end—was introduced by Christian history. In an effort to bring about perpetual peace, the liberal paradigm, which is a continuation of Christian thought, is predicated on the linear notion of an ongoing improvement of international relations. Political theorists from the Middle Ages to the Present were impacted by this viewpoint, which led them to create their own versions of the Kingdom of Heaven on a national and worldwide scale. Augustine, who is regarded as one of the father founders of the church and one of the earliest significant theorists in politics and international relations, used Christian teaching to explain how people behave, which in turn explained how states behave. In his writing, he said, ‘Those who have fought in accordance with God’s will or in compliance with His laws have represented public justice or the wisdom of government in their person and have thus put the wicked man to death’. According to him, therefore, following God’s commands was the legitimate justification for going to war and killing people. According to St. Augustine, ‘the wise man will wage just wars’. If he recalls that he is a man, he will regret the need for just battles because he would not fight them and would be spared from all conflicts if they were not just (Augustine, 1470/2003). And in the name of HI, the UN adopts this moral theory of just war, giving it legal validity in its Charter.

Statism and Survival

The origin of the Realist school of thought can be traced to Thucydides (who provided the realist account of the Peloponnesian War of 431 BC). Chanakya’s Arthashastra, Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, Machiavelli’s The Prince, Hobbes’ Leviathan and Rousseau’s The Social Contract further helped in building the Realist theoretical traditions in the 18th and 19th centuries. Thereafter, scholars like Reinhold Niebuhr, Kenneth Thompson, Arnold Wolfers, Fredrick Schuman, Nicholas Spykman, George Kennan and others contributed significantly to this discourse. However, it is Hans Morgenthau for his seminal contribution to promoting this theory is considered the father of realism. For Realists, the most reliable form of power is military power. Moral behaviour is very risky and undermines a state’s capability to protect itself. Humanitarian Intervention in recent years has been used as a political tool by the big powers either by interfering in poor and backward countries’ internal affairs for their greater good in relation to their rivals. It rejects any sort of moral aspiration and its application to state action.

Social Constructivism

For constructivism, international relations are not material, they are not a materialist. Wendt challenges the standard theories of international relations’ materialist presumptions. In the social reality of international affairs, thoughts are just as potent as tangible objects. Under the anarchic system, states do not always act rationally; instead, they react differently under similar circumstances. Some states can prefer competition while other states, in this same situation, can prefer cooperation. Why do they behave differently in similar situations? This is because the perception of reality differs, and perception is a fundamental notion in the constructivist theory. The determinant of state behaviour is not the objective reality but the image and perception that the states or the leaders of the states have in their minds. And states have different perceptions. This different understanding of the realities stems from different histories and cultures. This is the fundamental benefit of constructivism in the study of international relations.

Syrian Crisis

Bashar al-Assad has been a firebrand people’s leader from the very beginning. His oratory and enlightened speeches captivated people. His open criticism of the policies of his father and initiation of several reform measures and promises to reform the economic and political structures testifies to his transformative and developmental outlook. His declaration of State bureaucracy as the major obstacle to development and a clarion call to ‘Do not depend on the state; there is no such magic wand’ shows his progressive and people-centric mindset. To him, ‘the process of change requires elements that are not the preserve of one person; Authority without responsibility is the cause of chaos’ (Lesch, 2013, p. 4). He opposed the Western type of democracy and asserted that the economy was stagnant due to rampant corruption and repression. Syria too has adopted the authoritarian system operational in other Middle Eastern countries called Mukhabarat—a state intelligence service for controlling the population and defending the regime against internal and external threats through military domination (Lesch, 2013).

To illustrate, mukhabarat is the ‘keystone’ in Hafiz al-Assad’s ‘political arch’ (Rathmell, 1996). In addition to their crucial role in buttressing Asad’s authoritarian rule, the intelligence services have played major roles in Syria’s foreign affairs. Their involvement in terrorism is most well-known, yet they have become the leading arbiters of foreign policy in Lebanon in their own rights (Rathmell, 1996). Similar to this, the al-Assad family has been using the Shabiha, a fervently pro-Bassar al-Assad gang of smugglers, to intimidate Syrian dissidents against their government since 2011. The Shabiha is afraid of retaliation if the al-Assad regime topples because of its strong ties to the al-Assad family, its history of ruthless behaviour, and its membership in the minority Alawite Islam sect. Because the continuation of the al-Assad dictatorship is intrinsically linked to the survival of the Sunni Syrian population, they therefore rationalize the widespread use of violence against them. The Shabiha are feared by common Syrians due to their harsh and vicious attitude. Since the beginning of the uprising against Bashar al-Assad in 2011, the Shabiha has been linked to numerous gruesome civilian killings (CTID, 2012).

To testify, the Syrian society to be fair is completely different from the Middle Eastern polity. The country is divided into religious and community lines. The Arab Sunnis comprise nearly 70% of the total population and the other minority communities include Alawite Arabs, Christian Arabs, Kurds, and Druze minorities. Assad family belongs to the Alawite minority section in Syria but the government has been a Christian, Druze and Sunni coalition, comprising largely the urban middle class of the country (Lakitsch, 2018). While the coalition regulated the socio-economic and security affairs of the country, people were left largely to depend on agriculture for their living. Agricultural crisis, frequent droughts, large-scale migration from villages to the urban centres, mass unemployment and abject poverty led to simmering tension which in turn fuelled rebellion and civic unrest in Syria. On the other side, the Arab Spring in neighbouring countries like Egypt and Tunisia encouraged the rebels in Syria to rise in rebellion against the Assad regime. The protest spread from the periphery to the inner areas. Initially, the protests were non-violent but soon turned violent. The agenda changed gradually in the name of human rights and freedom. It was a sectarian civil war of the Sunni majority against minorities. Kurdish people put forward their agenda of securing an autonomous region. The Sunni majority threatens to dispossess them. In 2011, Ehud Barak’s Ministry of Defense predicted that the Asaad regime would fall short. On 10 July 2012, the defence leader was killed in a suicide attack, which indicated that the regime was in a difficult situation and would fall soon, but the results turned out to be different. A new General Tantawi was appointed to strengthen regime capability and was more dynamic than his predecessor. When the rebellion began, it came as a surprise for the regime, but the security forces could not control it due to a lack of training. The movement gradually escalated, and rebel forces were divided into groups on ideological and sectarian lines, along with personal interests like Kurdish demand for autonomy of their region, ISIS’s intention to expand its territorial hold in Syria, and Assad’s political objective to save his regime from the rebels played a key role in germinating the conflict.

The leadership tried to reunite the rebels but failed. Free Syrian Army represents the secular forces, while the Islamic State has been close to Al-Qaeda and other Jihadist groups operating from Iraq. The violent struggle between Jihadist groups and the Free Syrian Army began in the 2nd half of 2013 in north Syria. Hezbollah was involved in a combat battle for the city of Al-Quasar rear Homs and the regime pushed them back and subsequently regime victory over rebellion and control of the area of Damascus, Homs and the coastal region by June 2013. The regime used chemical weapons in Damascus on 21 August 2013, resulting in hundreds of civilians’ deaths. The US threatened Syria, but the threat posed a risk as Syria is an ally of Russia (Brom et al., 2014). According to UN mission reports, 1,400 people died in the chemical attack that employed surface rockets. After the attack, the US hardened its position against the al-Assad regime and Obama drew a ‘Red Line’ in August 2012. In April 2013, the White House wrote a letter to Congress for further examination by the UN within 48 hours and a plan to strike the regime with cruise missiles on 2 September 2013. The anti-regime stand of the US has prompted al-Assad to seek support from Russia which the Kremlin has happily agreed to as it served the agenda of Moscow too in drawing a global balance of power in the soils of Syria.

Countries Involved in the Syrian Crisis

In the Syrian crisis, primarily two traditional supporters of Syria are Iran and Hezbollah called the Axis of Resistance. In the Syrian war, neighbouring countries, superpowers (US, Russia), and separate communities (Jihadist, Kurdish, Sunni, Shia) were involved in domestic conflicts that became a threat to Syria’s unity. Russia is continuously transferring arms and weapons to Syria to help and defend the regime (for strategic importance). In international platforms too Russia stands with Syria and provides strategic and security help and support whenever needed. From the beginning of the war, a humanitarian crisis took shape in Syria and in the neighbouring countries. There were more than 10,000 casualties by June 2013, and an average of 5,000 people have died every month since July 2012. Syrian Observatory for Human Rights estimated 36,000 civilian causalities by July 2013, of which 8,000 were children. Four million people were internally displaced, and nearly 7 million needed humanitarian aid. The conflict began in the neighbouring states—Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon was a humanitarian cost lost in Syria. UN High Commissioner for refugees estimated that in late summer 2013, 1.9 million fled from Syria, out of which 38% were children under the age of 12. By the time the brutality escalated, it was estimated that nearly 6,000 refugees fled daily. There are 14,000 refugees in North Africa, 106,000 in Egypt and 150,000 in North Iraq registered (Brom et al., 2014).

The United States

In the Syrian proxy war, the US’s strategy was to send thousands of soldiers in various operations. The US presence in the Syrian war began during the presidency of Obama in March 2011. The US demanded international diplomacy, political transmission, sanctions, humanitarian aid, non-lethal aid coordination and arms shipment to Syrian rebels. In the proxy war, Assad used security forces against the rebels. The state escalated the violence with the involvement of the army and security forces. The US acted against the Syrian government, followed by retaliation from the Assad regime with armed forces and using chemical weapons. The investigation into the chemical weapons attack led to the government’s request for a neutral international investigation that was rejected on 4 September 2013. Furthering the crisis, Obama gave a statement at the Stockholm conference warning the Syrian war as a threat to world peace. He said,

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation. (CNN, 2012; Kanat, 2016, p. 99; Kovács, 2017)

He also added that,

I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria: it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people. (Washington Post, 2013)

The US indirectly opted for military options against Syria. Kerry argued that extremist groups are fighting against the government. President Obama spent annually 1 billion dollars to arm the anti-government forces, for which the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was responsible. It trained thousands of insurgents to fight against the regime. US-supplied Free Syrian Army rebels the non-lethal aid before 2013. In 2011, two US programmers tried to assist and train the rebels and equip 15,000 Syrian fighters, which were later cancelled in 2015. Officially, the US has supported the FSA against Tabhat Al Nusra, Al Qaeda (Hashemi & Sahrapeyma, 2018).

Russia

When the Arab League decided to impose sanctions on Syria because of Assad’s brutality on civilians, Russian leaders refused to follow the mainstream and ignored the ‘regional legitimacy’. Russia sought support from China and also coordinated with other BRICS states (Allison, 2013). The European members of the UNSC drafted a resolution in April 2011 regarding the ongoing crisis but Russia rejected it and argued this is the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Responding to a joint statement by Germany, the UK, France, US calling Assad to ‘stand down, the Russian ambassador argued that “prominent calls for regime change” had undermined any possibility of a political settlement’. By September 2011 Russia’s draft was ‘called on the Syrian Government to implement the reforms they had promised but did not include any threat of sanctions’ (Gifkins, 2012). In October 2011, Western states drafted a resolution calling for a ‘Syrian-led political process and condemned grave and systematic human rights violations’ but China and Russia voted against it. In February 2012, China and Russia voted on the new draft resolution, including BRICS members 13 other security council members supported the resolution (Allison, 2013).

Russia is a big player involved in the Syrian crisis and has been a supporter of the Assad regime from the onset of the conflict in 2011. But its military intervention began only in the spring of 2015. The reason behind the intervention was ISIS expanding its territory by seizing the city of Palmyra and the extremist group Jabhat al-Nusra’s assault on the regime in the northwest of Syria. Valery Gerasimov (the chief of the Russian General Staff) says ‘If we had not intervened in Syria, what would have happened? Look, in 2015 just over 10 per cent of the territory remained under government control. A month or two more, by the end of 2015, and Syria would have been completely under ISIS’(Charap et al., 2019). In the Middle East, it was the biggest airstrike to combat terrorist groups in September (Stent, 2016). Russia supported the Syrian regime both militarily and diplomatically when the regime faced difficulties building a strong military against the rebel forces (Allcock, 2016).

UN and International Response to the Syrian Crisis

The UN Security Council members attempted to reach an agreement on a number of problems in April 2011, but the effort was unsuccessful, and Syria saw it as an attempt to meddle in its domestic affairs. During that time, Brazil, India and South Africa strongly opposed it citing the earlier misadventure of NATO’s intervention in Libya. The BRICS countries, particularly Russia claimed that NATO actions from a ‘No Fly Zone’ to regime change had exceeded Resolution 1973. After several months, the UNSC again attempted to build a consensus and circulated a draft prepared by the UK, France, Portugal and Germany in late May 2011. The draft was discussed for nearly two months in June and July 2011 reminding the Syrian government of its duty on citizens. China and Russia threatened to veto the draft due to its controversial nature whereas Brazil, India, South Africa and Lebanon dissented from the Resolution because the Resolution advocated military force/intervention and regime change as was carried out in Libya. The UN Security Council condemned the Syrian President’s statement calling to use force against civilians. On 27 August 2011, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and the League of Arab States (LAS) urged the warring parties to end the violence in Syria. On 18 August 2011, the US, Canada, France and Germany issued a joint Statement asking Assad to ‘step down’.

The UK’s draft asked for negotiations to include the freezing of assets of key Syrian government figures. Russia’s draft asked the Syrian government to implement reforms. More people supported the UK draft than the Russian draft. The Russian draft was supported by Brazil, India and South Africa. A report issued by UNHRC in November 2011 from their Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria stated evidence of arbitrary arrest, torture and crime-enforced disappearance, including sexual violence and violence against children. In a communiqué published on 20 November 2011, LAS stipulated that in order to hold a presidential election within the following three months, the president had to hand over authority to his deputy and establish a unity government within two months. Assad refused to accept the proposal. The LAS then urged the UNSC to support it, and the UN created a new draft resolution which was initiated by France, the UK and Germany. The final draft was supported by LAS to call for a political transition in Syria, leading to regime change.

Russia and China vetoed the Resolution on 4 February 2012, demanding an amendment to the resolution. The first amendment was that Syria must maintain distance from the violent extremist groups and second the anti-government armed groups must stop attacking state institutions. That amendment generated multiple interpretations by the UNSC. The US Ambassador called the two vetoes disgusting. British Ambassador stated that China and Russia have failed to live up to their responsibility as permanent members of the UNSC. Navi Pillay (UN High Commissioners for Human Rights) said that the veto assisted the regime, resulting in the violence’s escalation.

Although the draft was vetoed twice by the UNSC members yet it received their support after certain modifications in February 2012. Initially, India and South Africa abstained from voting, later on, Brazil and Lebanon also abstained in October. In February 2012, the UNGA issued a similar resolution for implementing the LAS plan and 137 countries voted in favour of the resolution (UN, 2012a). LAS and the UN appointed Secretary-General Kofi Annan as a special envoy in February 2012 for conducting negotiations. In order to do this, Assad unveiled a six-point strategy that included displaying peace, allowing journalists and aid workers to enter the area, and launching a political process led by Syria (Reuters, 2012). Annan’s mediation plan without regime change was accepted as can be seen from Assad’s presidential address on 21 March 2012.

In April 2012, the US and Russia both put their draft resolution ‘in blue’ ready to deploy unarmed troops to support Annan’s six-point plan. The US proposal denounced violations of human rights. Additionally, the Russian draft indicated that the Syrian government should endorse the six-point proposals. The US draft was passed on 14 April 2012 with the support of the UNSC members as Resolution 2042. Thirteen months later, violence began and France and the UK initiated another resolution in the UNSC. The draft resolution stated that 300 unarmed groups would be deployed as an observer mission to Syria under the supervision of the United Nations (UNSMIS). On 21 April 2012 with sufficient support, Resolution 2043 was passed. The key difference between the two drafts was that the European draft threatened to impose sanctions if Syria did not obey Resolution 2042 while the Russian draft had no such threat or sanction provisions. The results turned out to be a compromise between these two parties. The permanent Security Council members did not agree to impose sanctions on Syria (Gifkins, 2012).

By May and June 2012, violence escalated. Concerned statements were issued by UN observers over the worsening circumstances in Syria. The United Kingdom, the United States and France demanded in May 2012 that Syria face penalties in the event that it disregarded Resolutions 2042 and 2043. However, Russia and China objected to it (Lee & Chan, 2016). By June 2012, the UN observed that the violence escalated with full-fledged fighting, and the UN team was targeted, leading to the suspension of its activities.

The conflict divided the UNSC into two blocs. The US-led group claimed that the government was abusing human rights and killing people, including children, while the Syrian government claimed that the government was fighting with the terrorist groups (Explained in February 2012). India, Brazil and South Africa supported the Syrian government. The different opinions created a problematic situation for the UN to find a solution. The UN responded to the situation by taking action, but the use of force, regime change and sanctions was contentious. Russia and China vetoed the UN’s proposal to sanction the Syrian government on 4 October 2011. The second resolution was also voted by Russia and China which was put forward by LAS (Gifkins, 2012). After two months, violence again escalated. In September 2013, resolution 2018 was passed to destroy chemical weapons and convene peace talks. However, during the conflict of February 2014, parties involved have taken the help of resolution 2139 to access humanitarian aid and renewed it by Resolution 2191 with a developed mechanism to control the conflicts.

The Security Council took more effective action regarding Syria, but China and Russia used their veto powers to block the Security Council’s resolves. As of 1 October 2011, the Resolution against the Syrian government to immediately ceasefire and crackdown army against the civilians and sanctions were also removed. The second February resolution of 2012 calling for an immediate end to violence and retaliation and proposal for assistance to the Arab League for a peace plan bring to an end to the fighting was again blocked by Russia and China. Similarly, the third resolution of May 2014 proposed by France demanding accountability on the crime committed in Syria to be placed before ICC was again blocked by Chinese and Russian veto (Kenny, 2016).

Interrogating Humanitarian Intervention in Syria

The idea of Humanitarian Intervention is deeply rooted in a Liberal international tradition dating back to the days of Christian philosophy, the early Renaissance and the early enlightenment in Europe. It is Christianity that gave birth to fundamentally different morals and ideals in comparison to the ancient tradition. It has promoted humility as a basic virtue and peace as a moral concept. For Christians, morality includes following the laws that have been proposed and brought about by the Christian religion and Jesus Christ. They consequently held that obedience was the most essential personal quality and that it ought to serve as the foundation for governmental policy. Furthermore, Christian doctrine presupposes the presence of an ideal state for society and human soil. Like liberals who came after them, Christians held the concept that every person can change and become a better person as a result of their beliefs. Therefore, it makes sense to work towards improving society. Additionally, improved civilizations will interact better with one another, therefore improved societies will also improve international relations. Immanuel Kant predicted ‘the idea of perpetual peace’, which can come to pass if the states are decent and do not need to battle one another. The ‘Idea of Dynamic History’ moreover sprang up from this new intellectual movement within Christianity which is based on the linear idea of permanent advancing of international relations, in an attempt to achieve an eternal peace. The political philosophers of the Middle Ages and the Modern Era were further impacted by Christian doctrine, leading them to create their own conceptions of the ‘Kingdom of Heavens’ in both the domestic and global spheres. Therefore, the message of the early liberal and Christian approaches to international relations was centred on creating the earthly equivalent of the kingdom of heaven and altering human existence because, from the Christian perspective, these changes are necessary and should be made in order to appease God. Considered one of the father founders of the church, Priest Saint Augustine lived in the 4th century AD and was among the first significant political and international relations philosophers. He began by applying Christian doctrine to the explanation of human behaviour. He then applied it to the states’ conduct. In The City of God, a work written by Saint Augustine and published in 1470, he stated that those who have fought for God’s cause and in accordance with His laws have personally embodied the wisdom of governance and public justice, and they have executed evildoers. Such persons, St. Augustine writes, have by no means violated the commandment, you should not kill. So, for him, the just reason for war, the just reason for killing was the obedience to the commandments of God. So, St. Augustine was in the very beginning of the Christian and later liberal explanation, heralded the doctrine of ‘Just War’. In contrast to the contemporary notion of a just war being founded on the law, Christian scholars believed that a just war was founded on morality and God’s precepts. Recall that the conflict required no ideological justification in the classical tradition of ancient Greece. Conflicts of interest, such as those arising from women’s claims to land, were not a very good justification for war. Christians made much more progress. They sought an intellectual justification based on morality for any violent acts committed by one group against another. In his book The City of God, St. Augustine predicted that the wise man will fight just conflicts. If he recalls that he is a man, he will regret the need for just battles because he would not fight them and would be spared from all conflicts if they were not just.

The unprecedented human sufferings in Syria since February 2011 and indiscriminate violation of human rights, and the appalling sufferings inflicted on women, children and ordinary men are unacceptable and therefore draw the attention of humanitarian intervention to wage a just war. However, the difference of opinion among the P5 members and their locking horns over regime change in Syria has certainly posed serious questions over the liberal interventionism that has been quite active since 1991. Further, the discredited humanitarian interventions in Iraq in 1991, Kosovo and Sierra Leone in 1991 and 2000, respectively for political and security reasons has degraded the notion of humanitarian intervention, especially after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Therefore, the moral and logical position of the liberal West was challenged by Russia and China in unison in the Security Council. Unlike Darfur and Libya, the bottom line in the Syrian crisis is that ‘whereas in Libya in 2011, the US superpower, encouraged by its French and British allies, was prepared to go to war to topple the regime of Muammar Gaddafi (who had no friends), in Syria it was not prepared to do the same to get rid of Bashar El Assad (who has many, including the Russians)’ (Aaronson, 2014). The wishful thinking of the US and other liberal countries of regime change in Syria has led to block politics instead of just war for the protection of human rights. This has tempted us to know that in spite of the gross violation of human rights in Syria where the West went wrong in intervening and why failed to garner the support of other UN members including Russia and China.

In fact, the interrogation of the legality of the UN, US and Russian intervention in the Syrian civil war between the democratically elected government on the one hand, and a group of armed rebels on the other further takes this discourse beyond the logic of responsibility to protect and humanitarian intervention as claimed by the UN and the US (including the Western world). A serious reflection on the crisis results in three pertinent questions: who will decide what a just war is? Can any outside state intervene and wage war against any armed group without the consent of that state? Whether the state (in this case Syria) has the right to protect itself from any armed rebellion or not? Addressing the first question is curious as war can never be just yet if wars are fought on lines of justice, then the query is who will decide what is just and unjust as human nature so also the objectives of the state are self-centred. Second, how far the US is within the law to interfere in the internal matters of Syria and wage military attacks on non-state actors without the consent of Syria while criticizing Syria for similar attacks on the rebel armed forces and demanding UN action against the Assad regime. Third, the state reserves the right to protect its sovereignty from any internal or external armed rebellion. In this case, Syria under al-Assad is well within the law to fight against the armed groups fomenting trouble in the name of democracy. Finally, an evaluation of the stands taken by various countries on Syria including the UN tells vivid stories about the so-called humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect as a white man’s burden shouldered by the West and its democratic false narrative. This wishful thinking of the West led by the US and their wrongdoings in the name of humanitarian interventions in different parts of the world has led to the marginalization of the humanitarian dimension in the Syrian crisis and derailed the impeccable statement of R2P demanding obligation from the state in case of violation of human rights. In the case of Syria, the power struggle between the US and Russia and sectarian politics of the UN and the Security Council denigrated the purpose of HI and R2P.

Conclusion

The Syrian civil war undoubtedly is one of the greatest human disasters of world history, which certainly has pushed Syria back to 50 years. It has destroyed human capital, infrastructure and health infrastructure, displaced millions of people, and pushed people to live in poverty. It has spiralled out of control and given rise to many humanitarian questions. This crisis started between the government of Bashar al-Assad, and different military groups that include Kurdish, Jihadists, FSA rebels and others has resulted in the use of military force, sanctions and use of chemical weapons by the al-Assad government. Moreover, the direct and indirect involvement of regional countries and P5 members of the Security Council in the Syrian Crisis has escalated the human suffering. For instance, Russia, which has military bases in Syria, backs President Bashar al-Assad. Iran has also come to the rescue of the Assad regime attributing to their religious affinity. On the other hand, the US, the UK and France supported the rebel groups fighting against the Syrian military whereas countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel have extended their support to various anti-regime groups to counter Iranian influence.

Therefore, the right of humanitarian intervention and R2P fundamentally eulogized by the UN and the West remains highly contested and controversial and therefore questionable without a clear-cut provision of distinguishing between intra-state conflict and transnational conflicts. Therefore, international bodies like the UN and UNHRC need to be careful in designating areas where intervention is justified and areas where the state is allowed to prevent anarchy and protect its sovereignty. Importantly, the group politics in UNSC and ideological division in world politics have always been far removed then reality. The case of Syria is a classic case of big power engagement where the West led but the US on one hand and Russia in collaboration with China on the other have turned the civil war-ravaged country into a grand chessboard to settle their scores and redraw the global balance of power in their favour. Therefore, the civil war in Syria was used as a geopolitical tool by both sides for the social construction of propaganda suiting their national and international political interests.