webmaster
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2011
All rights reserved
From: Berhane Habtemariam (Berhane.Habtemariam@gmx.de)
Date: Mon May 16 2011 - 16:35:01 EDT
The Responsibility to Protect - The Cases of Libya and Ivory Coast
by Prof. Marjorie Cohn
http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverStoryPictures2/24799.jpg
<http://www.globalresearch.ca> Global Research, May 16, 2011
The United States, France and Britain invaded Libya with cruise missiles,
stealth bombers, fighter jets and attack jets. Although NATO has taken over
the military operation, U.S. President Barack Obama has been bombing Libya
with Hellfire missiles from unmanned Predator drones. The number of
civilians these foreign forces have killed remains unknown. This military
campaign was ostensibly launched to enforce United Nations Security Council
Resolution 1973 in order to protect civilians in Libya.
In addition, the United Nations and France have been bombing the Ivory Coast
to protect civilians against violence by Laurent Gbagbo, who refuses to cede
power to the newly elected president after a disputed election. UN Secretary
Ban Ki-Moon insists that the United Nations is "not a party to the
conflict." France, former colonial ruler of Ivory Coast, has over 1,500
troops stationed there. Ivory Coast is the world's second largest coffee
grower and biggest producer of cocoa. The bombing of Ivory Coast is being
undertaken to enforce Security Council Resolution 1975 to protect civilians
there.
The UN Charter does not permit the use of military force for humanitarian
interventions. The military invasions of Libya and Ivory Coast have been
justified by reference to the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.
The Responsibility to Protect is contained in the General Assembly's Outcome
Document of the 2005 World Summit. It is not enshrined in an international
treaty nor has it ripened into a norm of customary international law.
Paragraph 138 of that document says each individual State has the
responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic
cleansing, and crimes against humanity. Paragraph 139 adds that the
international community, through the United Nations, also has "the
responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other
peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to
help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and
crimes against humanity."
Chapter VI of the Charter requires parties to a dispute likely to endanger
the maintenance of international peace and security to "first of all, seek a
solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration,
judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other
peaceful means of their own choice." Chapter VIII governs "regional
arrangements," such as NATO, the Arab League, and the African Union. The
chapter specifies that regional arrangements "shall make every effort to
achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional
arrangements . . ."
It is only when peaceful means have been tried and proved inadequate that
the Security Council can authorize action under Chapter VII of the Charter.
That action includes boycotts, embargoes, severance of diplomatic relations,
and even blockades or operations by air, sea or land.
The Responsibility to Protect doctrine grew out of frustration with the
failure to take action to prevent the genocide in Rwanda, where a few
hundred troops could have saved myriad lives. But the doctrine was not
implemented to stop Israel from bombing Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009,
which resulted in a loss of 1,400 Palestinians, mostly civilians.
Security Council Resolution 1973 begins with the call for "the immediate
establishment of a ceasefire." It reiterates "the responsibility of the
Libyan authorities to protect the Libyan population" and reaffirms that
"parties to armed conflicts bear the primary responsibility to take all
feasible steps to ensure the protection of civilians. The resolution
authorizes UN Member States "to take all necessary measures . . . to protect
civilians and civilian populated areas" of Libya.
But instead of pursuing an immediate ceasefire, immediate military action
was taken instead. The military force exceeds the bounds of the "all
necessary measures" authorization. "All necessary measures" should first
have been peaceful measures to settle the conflict. Yet peaceful means were
not exhausted before the military invasion began. A high level international
team - consisting of representatives from the Arab League, the African
Union, and the UN Secretary General - should have been dispatched to Tripoli
to attempt to negotiate a real cease-fire, and set up a mechanism for
elections and for protecting civilians. Moreover, after the passage of the
resolution, Libya immediately offered to accept international monitors and
Qadaffi offered to step down and leave Libya. These offers were immediately
rejected by the opposition.
Security Council Resolution 1975 regarding Ivory Coast is similar to
resolution 1973 regarding Libya. The former authorizes the use of "all
necessary means to . . . protect civilians under imminent threat of physical
violence" in Ivory Coast. It reaffirms "the primary responsibility of each
State to protect civilians" and reiterates that "parties to armed conflicts
bear the primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to ensure the
protection of civilians."
The UN Charter commands that all Members settle their international disputes
by peaceful means, to maintain international peace, security, and justice.
Members must also refrain from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any
manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United
Nations.
Only when a State acts in self-defense, in response to an armed attack by
one country against another, can it militarily attack another State under
the UN Charter. The need for self-defense must be overwhelming, leaving no
choice of means, and no moment for deliberation. Neither Libya nor Ivory
Coast had attacked another country. The United States, France and Britain in
Libya, and France and the UN in Ivory Coast, are not acting in self-defense.
Humanitarian concerns do not constitute self-defense.
There is a double standard in the use of military force to protect
civilians. Obama has not attacked Bahrain where lethal force is being used
to quell anti-government protests because that is where the U.S. Fifth Fleet
is stationed. In fact, the Asia Times reported that before the invasion of
Libya, the United States made a deal with Saudi Arabia, whereby the Saudis
would invade Bahrain to help put down the anti-democracy protestors and
Saudi Arabia would enlist the support of the Arab League for a no-fly-zone
over Libya.
The League's support for a no-fly-zone effectively neutralized opposition
from Russia and China to Security Council Resolution 1973. Moreover, the
military action by the U.S., France and Britain has gone far beyond a
no-fly-zone. Indeed, Obama, France's President Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain's
David Cameron penned an op-ed in the International Herald Tribune that said
the NATO force will fight in Libya until President Muammar Qaddafi is gone,
even though the Resolution does not sanction forcible regime change.
When Obama defended his military actions in Libya, he said "Some nations may
be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United
States of America is different." Two weeks later, the Arab League asked the
Security Council to consider imposing a no-fly-zone over the Gaza Strip in
order to protect civilians from Israeli air strikes. But the United States,
an uncritical ally of Israel, will never allow the passage of such a
resolution, regardless of the number of Palestinian civilians Israel kills.
This is a double standard.
The military actions in Libya and Ivory Coast set a dangerous precedent of
attacking countries where the leadership does not favor the pro-U.S. or
pro-European Union countries. What will prevent the United States from
stage-managing some protests, magnifying them in the corporate media as mass
actions, and then bombing or attacking Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, or North
Korea? Recall that during the Bush administration, Washington leveled
baseless allegations to justify an illegal invasion of Iraq.
During a discussion of the Responsibility to Protect in the General Assembly
on July 23, 2009, the Cuban government raised some provocative questions
that should give those who support this notion pause: "Who is to decide if
there is an urgent need for an intervention in a given State, according to
what criteria, in what framework, and on the basis of what conditions? Who
decides it is evident the authorities of a State do not protect their
people, and how is it decided? Who determines peaceful means are not
adequate in a certain situation, and on what criteria? Do small States have
also the right and the actual prospect of interfering in the affairs of
larger States? Would any developed country allow, either in principle or in
practice, humanitarian intervention in its own territory? How and where do
we draw the line between an intervention under the Responsibility to Protect
and an intervention for political or strategic purposes, and when do
political considerations prevail over humanitarian concerns?"
The Responsibility to Protect doctrine violates the basic premise of the UN
Charter. Last year, the General Assembly's Fifth Committee declined funding
for the office of the new Special Advisor on Responsibility to Protect. Some
member States argued that the Responsibility to Protect had not been agreed
to as a norm at the World Summit. The debate will continue. But for many
States, this is a slippery slope that should be viewed with extreme caution.
Marjorie Cohn is the immediate past president of the National Lawyers Guild
and a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, where she teaches
criminal law and procedure, evidence, and international human rights law.
She lectures throughout the world on human rights and US foreign policy.
http://www.marjoriecohn.com <http://www.marjoriecohn.com/>
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----