Philippe Bolopion holds the position of UN Director at Human Rights Watch. In a column in the LA Times, he says that Nato has, for many countries, failed a certain test in Libya. It has done so by not keeping the protection of civilians (as envisaged in R2P) distinct from the goal of regime change. Bolopion writes:
The Libya operation has strengthened the case of those questioning the concept that the world has a responsibility to protect citizens from their rulers, and the backlash is already contributing to tragic consequences.
In Syria, where security forces have killed more than 2,000 protesters and arbitrarily arrested and tortured thousands, including children, people are clearly in need of protection. If the Security Council were to take its responsibility to protect seriously, it would have long ago used the many nonmilitary tools at its disposal to put pressure on Bashar Assad's regime. It could have passed a resolution demanding an end to the violence, the creation of a commission of inquiry, an arms embargo or an array of sanctions targeting the leadership of the government or the oil sector.
There are many reasons for this disturbing failure to act: the opposition of veto-wielding Russia and China, the silence of the Arab League, the presence in the Security Council of Lebanon, which is a virtual hostage of Syria. But a crucial factor against action has been that key votes in the council - India, South Africa and Brazil - are missing. Behind closed doors, their diplomats have explained that they are reluctant to go down the Libya road again. Of course, nothing in a draft resolution initially offered by the Europeans even hinted at military action or regime change. But for India, South Africa and Brazil, it's payback time. The Syrian people are paying the price for what some countries see as NATO's overreaching in Libya.
I won't say anything here about the reluctance to countenance regime change where the regime in question and to be changed is plainly criminal, guilty of violating the most fundamental human rights norms that the UN is supposed to uphold. Readers of this blog will be familiar with my views on the topic. But it is worth noting how Bolopion slides down a standard slope of contemporary left-liberal apologetics - as is unfitting in an official of a human-rights organization but not, unfortunately, unprecedented. The votes of India, South Africa and Brazil have been missing, according to his own report, even though nothing even approaching military action in Syria has been mooted. Rather than just criticizing the three countries concerned for their wrong-headed opposition to non-military measures against the Syrian regime, he eases the burden of R2P obligation on them by reference to Nato's perceived military overreach in Libya. However, even if that supposed overreach was wrong in principle - as I would contend it wasn't - this doesn't excuse India, South Africa and Brazil for being opposed to other forms of action against Syria. Nobody else than themselves is responsible for the stance of those three countries.
