Gareth Evans, humanitarian intervention, A Responsibility to Protect Iraqis?

Politics

¿Hay responsabilidad de proteger a los iraquíes?

Jun 24, 2014 Gareth Evans

CANBERRA – La única razón (moral, política o militar) que puede aducirse para justificar una nueva intervención militar de Occidente o de otros actores externos en Irak sería cumplir la responsabilidad internacional de proteger a víctimas reales o potenciales de atrocidades a gran escala como genocidio, limpieza étnica y otros crímenes contra la humanidad, o crímenes de guerra graves.

Las poblaciones shiítas y no sunitas en general que se hallan en el camino de la avanzada del ISIS (Estado Islámico en Irak y Siria, un grupo cuya ideología y accionar son intragables hasta para Al Qaeda) tienen abundantes motivos para temer tales atrocidades. Macabras ejecuciones de soldados y otros cautivos han sucedido con certeza en Mosul, Tikrit y otras ciudades tomadas por el ISIS.

Pero, sobre la base de la evidencia disponible hasta el momento, sería prematuro concluir que ya se han producido (o que es inminente que se produzcan) hechos de violencia contra poblaciones indefensas de una magnitud tal que justifique una intervención militar extranjera.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 8 Comments on this article

Cam Jennings Jul 19, 2014

Gareth thank you for your opinion here regarding the current situation in Iraq and your closing statement highlights a point that is so important, if we are to not repeat the mistakes of Cambodia, Rwanda and Bosnia. The Middle East is a complex cauldron and it is our conundrum for a while yet.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rodrigo San Jorge Jul 6, 2014

Couldn't agree more, Mr. Evans. A pity your Prime Minister doesn't see it that way. He is currently returning would-be Iraqi, Syrian and Sri Lankan Asylum Seekers - who have survived the trek to Australia - back to their respective countries to face almost certain death. Actually, that's not correct - he says they have a 50/50 chance of survival. Even as I write, there are 200 "missing" Tamal Sri Lankans who were handed over to the Sri Lankan navy last week and are currently unaccounted for. So much for Australia preaching morality to the corrupt governments of the world.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Nathan W Jul 2, 2014

Generals know better than anyone how terrible war is. But their first concern is for their own soldiers, not enemy soldiers. Therefore, we should never look to them for moral direction.

I would not consider "moral, political, or military" as one reason. In fact, it troubles me that someone with such a long history of influence can so easily group together "moral, political and military".

Unless I misunderstand the argument and he's saying that only one of these criteria can be applied at the same time, due to contradictions in the differentiated conceptual lenses provided from these perspective.

In any case, if US or NATO troops end up back in Iraq, I certainly welcome the idea of adopting civilian protection as a first principle.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jun 26, 2014

Mr. Garreth Evans asks whether there is a "responsibility to protect" Iraqis. The UN doctrine - "responsibility to protect" or R2P - was born out of the humanitarian disasters of the 1990s in Kosovo and Rwanda. It was drawn up for use in cases if governments are either unable to protect their own citizens or are themselves a threat to them. The doctrine was supported by "150 heads of state and government at the United Nations" in 2005.
Yet there is no international court on hand, that can give the legal go-ahead to intervene militarily. In order to have maximum legitimacy, the use of force to protect civilians should be authorised by the UN Security Council. So far there was only one case that took the "form of Security Council-authorized military intervention, as happened in 2011 in response to the behavior of Muammar el-Qaddafi’s regime in Libya". Although over 160.000 had died in Syria, there is no appetite for another UN Resolution 1973, which ultimately led to the death of Gaddafi in October 2011.
Many Syrians are embittered by the callousness of world leaders, who have done nothing to stop Assad from slaughtering his own citizens. Western governments argued that in the case of Syria, - unlike Libya - there was no request from regional organisations like the Arab League and the African Union for UN intervention. The mercurial Muammar Gaddafi was not respected and popular among world leaders. On the other hand Bashar al-Assad has Iran as a staunch ally in the region and Russia in the UN Security Council. China has been vetoing all resolutions that it sees as an interference in others' domestic affairs.
Besides the Libyan experience had had a negative impact on China and Russia. Since Gaddafi's ouster, Moscow has vowed to veto against any resolution that will lead to a regime change. The most important argument had been Syria's strategic location. Should Assad's regime fall, instability would spill across the borders to Iraq, Lebanon and Israel. Today the dynamics of sectarian violence in Syria are deeply felt in neighbouring countries.
Even if the ISIS poses an existential threat to Iraq and all of the criteria for a UN authorised military action were met, it would not resolve the sectarian strife, once extremism is decimated. Iraq needs a political solution. The question is whether the leaders of the Shia-led government are willing to share power with others and whether the ethnic minorities - Sunnis, Kurds and others - have the patience to help develop a decades-long process to democratise their country.
- Cam Jennings Jul 19, 2014
  
  Gareth Evans raises some good points to consider regarding the current situation in Iraq. Also, J. VON HETTLINGEN has an interesting reply that also address some thought provoking points. Thank you to the writer again for this piece.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
m r Jun 25, 2014

This article, rich on all that would be nice to do but should NOT be done is devoid of what is there to do- hence just a self- indulgent diatribe. May be thus we should leave the disease alone as the possible "external" cures are sure to be much worse. Patients also have rights and are NOT just the doctor's meat.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Johnson Jun 25, 2014

"in favor of a broad-based Shia-Sunni-Kurdish administration, determined to govern inclusively and create an effective, non-political national army. Massive diplomatic effort certainly should be mobilized to achieve this goal."
Wouldn't it make more since to try and push for 3 new countries as you describe in the article?
- Edphil Kenneth Jun 26, 2014
  
  David you just helped to Say it all.The Iraqi debacle encompasses more than the U.S fit-for-all approach can solve.The divisiveness is deep and the motivation is visceral.Peace would not be at a distance if the country is divided on the basis of this motivations.It would help stabilize not just Iraq but the entire region as well.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/cqDMh3hes

¿Hay responsabilidad de proteger a los iraquíes?

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

¿Hay responsabilidad de proteger a los iraquíes?

Subscribe to PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification