Libya, Sri Lanka and Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
Repost This Article
Muammar Qaddafi, Libya’s leader, speaks at an equestrian show at the Tor di Quinto cavalry school in Rome, Italy, on Monday, Aug. 30, 2010. Italy’s 2008 apology to Libya for three decades of colonial rule is paying dividends for Italian companies including Eni SpA and Finmeccanica SpA. Photographer: Victor Sokolowicz/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Libya is the model of the new interventionism and is the latest, successful mode of application of the doctrine of R2P says Paddy Ashdown, writing in The Times.
“…This is what the future probably looks like. Better get used to it” according to Mr Ashdown, who posits it as “a new way of intervening and giving strength to a new strand of international law… Many of us thought R2P would never be more than a piece of well-meaning rhetoric. But Libya has given R2P both form and precedent… Now Libya has offered us a third option. Support R2P with force where it’s possible. Find other means where it isn’t. Assemble a coalition wider than the West. Obtain the backing of international law.” (‘Ray-Bans and pick-ups: this is the future; Iraq-style intervention is over. The messy Libyan version will be our model from now on’, The Times, August 26, 2011).
Influential individuals in the West have begun to refer to Sri Lanka in the same texts, indeed the same paragraphs as Libya. Take for instance, an article in perhaps one of the two most influential publications of world affairs, the Foreign Affairs Quarterly, published by the Council on Foreign Relations. The essay dated August 26, 2011, is by Stewart Patrick, a former Policy Planning Staffer of the US State Department, currently a Senior Fellow and the Director of the Program on International Institutions and Global Governance at the Council itself. Entitled ‘Libya and the Future of Humanitarian Intervention’, the article deals, as the subtitle indicates, with ‘How Qaddafi’s Fall Vindicated R to P’. In a particularly ludicrous but pernicious passage, he writes: “…To be sure, the atrocities Qaddafi orchestrated in Libya prior to the intervention pale in comparison to those committed during the course of other recent violent conflicts. In Sri Lanka, for example, the government killed thousands of civilians while finishing off the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in 2009”.
Stewart Patrick provides a valuable service by drawing our attention to a brand new policy document of cardinal importance that takes the doctrine of R2P to the next level. He discloses that ‘Lest one imagine that the Libyan case is a one-off, on August 4 the Obama administration released the Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities (PSD-10). The directive defines the prevention of mass atrocities as both “a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.” PSD-10 is a groundbreaking document and represents a huge victory for NSS Senior Director Samantha Power, a leading administration hawk on Libya. The PSD-10 recognizes a simple truth: the United States will inevitably confront atrocities that cannot be ignored. The directive expands the menu of policy options available in such cases, which should range from complete inaction to sending in the marines. This escalatory ladder is meant to encompass preventive diplomacy, economic and financial sanctions, arms embargoes, and ultimately coercive action. Realist critics have bemoaned it as a blueprint for interventionism run amok, anticipating meddling in foreign conflicts on a grand Wilsonian scale.’
What are the lessons of Libya for Lanka? The main lesson derives from the very essay that makes the ludicrous and dangerous mention of Sri Lanka. Listing the reasons for the success of the Libyan intervention as a case of R2P, author Stewart Patrick reminds us that “…Qaddafi…had managed to alienate…his erstwhile Arab and African allies…the members of the Arab League, Organization of the Islamic Conference, and Gulf Cooperation Council all endorsed the UN’s declaration of a no-fly zone over Libya, including the use of “all necessary means” to prevent mass atrocities.”
Fareed Zakaria makes quite the same point in his August 23rd essay on Libya, captioned ‘A New Era in US Foreign Policy’. He lists as the second most crucial factor in the success of the Libyan intervention, “Locally recognized legitimacy in the form of the Arab League’s request for intervention”.
The lesson here is manifestly clear, especially when viewed against the success of Zimbabwe, which had the support of its influential large neighbour South Africa. De-stabilisation, hegemonic intervention and regime change are possible only if there is a breach in the wall of neighbourhood solidarity. Already in the sub-region, comprising Sri Lanka’s ‘greater Northern’ neighbourhood, voices redolent of ancient animosity are being raised.
Is there a place for deterrence in Sri Lanka’s strategic options? Our Northern borders are acutely vulnerable for two reasons and from two types of threat, which may interact: a disaffected minority adjacent to a historically hostile and intervention prone area, and exposure of our assets and dispositions to stand-off weapons and aerial strikes. Our advantages lie in a large, patriotic population, a tough armed forces and a proven capacity to fight even in the demographically inhospitable North. A credible deterrent or ‘second strike’ capacity would entail the possibility of protracted asymmetric warfare along a long ‘border’.
This must involve the offsetting of our Northern vulnerability with a strategic reconfiguration of the adjacent Eastern province, in a manner that makes it solidly defensible or a credible jumping off base for Northern operations.
Our deterrent capacity cannot depend upon a vastly expanded army of almost half a million, as a former commander mistakenly called for, because the economic costs would sink the country. Nor should anyone envisage compulsory national service in the form of a draft because the USA itself learnt to its bitter social cost that the best army is an all-volunteer army. However, a recent successful experiment has been conducted in Sri Lanka with the armed forces’ support, for an orientation course of university entrants. In preparation for a worst case scenario, that model could be expanded to provide a huge youth/student populace, including women, trained in the use of weapons, and which could make any invader, secessionist or irredentist puppet regime (and its ‘rebel army’) bleed from death by a thousand cuts. As Fidel Castro once said when Cuba was under threat of intervention, “we shall arm even the cats!”
Sri Lanka must protect itself against two erroneous schools of thought, both of which sin against Realism. One fails to comprehend the basic conflict of interest between Sri Lanka’s national interests and those states that call for so-called accountability hearings. These states are driven by Tamil Diaspora lobbies, contempt for national sovereignty (except for their own) and an emerging Cold War competition with China. The pseudo-pragmatic school of ‘professional’ capitulationists and appeasers fails to perceive the threat from this quarter and the requirement of global resistance. The other school of thought is that of those who fail to understand the imperative need for compromises and concessions on the secondary and the tactical, so that a strong protective ring can be reconstructed on our perimeter, i.e., our neighbourhood, thereby protecting that which is essential: Sri Lanka’s sovereignty, unity, territorial integrity and the gains of the historic military victory.
The most durable defence against interventionism is by simultaneously changing our ‘target profile’ and ‘target hardening’. This can be done only by repairing our internal fragility; removing the discontent and disaffection of the minority at our strategically sensitive Northern periphery. But can that be done and how can it be done? The best answer is in The Fear of Barbarians by Tzventan Todorov, Director of Research at the Centre National de la Recherché Scientifique (CNRS), Paris. In this book, described by the great scholar of international relations, Prof Stanley Hoffman of Harvard and Science Po, as “more than a masterpiece, [it is] a treasure”, Prof Todorov speaks of the need to replace or transform an ethnocracy into a modern democracy: “a modern democracy is to be distinguished from an ethnocracy, i.e., a state in which belonging to a particular ethnic group ensures you of privileges over the other inhabitants of a country; in a democracy, all citizens, whatever their origin, language, religion or customs enjoy the same rights.” (p 67)
Could any imperative be more patriotic? Could any patriotic task be more urgently imperative?
Dear DJ,
What is the official stance for war crimes in SL , please check this out.
http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/sri-lanka-to-probe-human-rights-violations-by-its-army-personnel/209519
‘The fear of barbarians is what risks making us barbarian. And we will commit a worse evil than that which we initially feared. History teaches us this lesson: the cure can be worse than the disease. Totalitarian regimes presented themselves as a means for curing bourgeois society of its failings; they created a more dangerous world than the one they were fighting against. The current situation is probably not as serious, but it remains disquieting; there is still time to change direction’ Tzvetan Todorov The Fear of Barbarians – Beyond the Clash of Civilizations
I think the author is right to point out that in reality, Responsibility to Protect (R2P) means responsibility for nations to protect their own interests. Those who will risks their own lives & the lives of their loved ones (here meaning one’s own nation or group) for the sake of others are very rare indeed. Consequently those who advocate the R2P doctrine at international level are generally trying to deceive the world, in my opinion.
Nations protect their own citizens with police, armies, etc & make alliances and draw up treaties with other nations for mutual support and self-protection. This has been the way for thousands and thousands of years and there seems to be no indication that any different means for nations to protect themselves are emerging.
The global South and developing nations should therefore be extremely cautious regarding advocates (such as Stewart Patrick & Paddy Ashdown) from powerful nations who are trying to convince weaker & smaller nations of the alleged advantages of R2P doctrine. They are doing so only to try to further delay the decline in Western power and influence. After all, if they really wanted to help protect weaker nations & communities they would be advocating redistributing political & economic power from the strong to the weak, which, of course, they do not do.
A good analysis of the problem by Dayan Jayatileka. What is particularly interesting are the references to Zimbabwe and the orientation course for university students.
The solution could follow the path prescribed by the writer, which may end up like Zimbabwe (impregnable) as long as we have the support of regional powers.
The population, may however prefer a different path to the one prescribed, once the costs of the stance become evident, although the regime will not.
There is huge difference between Libya and Sri Lanka. The former had been ruled by a dictator for 43 years whereas the latter had regular elections to change their leaders since independence on regular basis, however much the process is flawed.
The reaction of the west to the Libya was a result of two forces; their national interest and the notion that they are the leaders of the free world protecting human rights of the others. The origin of the R2P doctrine is a combination of those two.
When the people protested against Mubarak the west took the side of the people abandoning the ‘much-loved dictator’ because they sensed the direction to which the Arab world is heading. Therefore, if somebody says that the reason for the west to interfere in Libya is purely oil or anything else it contains only half truth. The west felt they would be in the wrong side if they continued to support the dictators in the Arab World especially when there is a significant popular opposition.
This will never happen to Sri Lanka. People like DJ are trying to put fear into the people’s mind and by doing do they will find excuses to justify the activities of the MR regime and ensure their survival with all the perks and privileges accompanying them.
It is utterly wrong to compare Libya with Sri Lanka or any other such nation for that matter. Our problems with the west would never incite them to launch a Libyan style invasion. Invasion of Sri Lanka is not for their national interests. We do not have oil or any other precious commodity apart from the strategic location in the Indian ocean. The only problem the pundits highlight is our closer relationship with China, which may not warrant any wrath from the West as the other countries which have closer relationships with China do not have any problems with the west. Ultimately the west and China (and India) are part and parcel of the Global Capitalist Enterprise.
As DJ correctly pointed out the only possibility of an invasion would be the protection of the human rights of the Northern and Eastern Tamils. However, the way the west reacted during the ‘War’ letting the GoSL to do whatever they wanted shows us that is also a very remote possibility.
The truth is that the West, India and China helped the GoSL to crush the Tigers. If they wanted they could have prevented the LTTE leadership being annihilated by dropping few bombs in the army installations. They did not want to do that.
Therefore, expecting a Libyan style invasion in Sri Lank, according to my reading, is seeing crocodiles in a glass of water.
Paranoia: You definately have this if you think 4 foot Cubans are surrounding your house with machine guns (with a minor modification from the Urban Dictionary).
Heh Heh Heh,
In a particularly ludicrous but pernicious passage, he writes: “…To be sure, the atrocities Qaddafi orchestrated in Libya prior to the intervention pale in comparison to those committed during the course of other recent violent conflicts. In Sri Lanka, for example, the government killed thousands of civilians while finishing off the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in 2009”.
“Our deterrent capacity cannot depend upon a vastly expanded army of almost half a million, as a former commander mistakenly called for, because the economic costs would sink the country….
“…for an orientation course of university entrants. In preparation for a worst case scenario, that model could be expanded to provide a huge youth/student populace, including women, trained in the use of weapons…”
Prof Todorov speaks of the need to replace or transform an ethnocracy into a modern democracy: “a modern democracy is to be distinguished from an ethnocracy, i.e., a state in which belonging to a particular ethnic group ensures you of privileges over the other inhabitants of a country; in a democracy, all citizens, whatever their origin, language, religion or customs enjoy the same rights.” (p 67)
If I understand DJ from my past readings, I guess I should say, ‘nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more’.
1.Dj has no shortage of work as the GoSL keeps anihilating the Northeast AND warding off the international community by the old ploy of ”appointing” commissions and now a new ploy of replacing emergency regulation with ”anti-terrorism” law (already a draconian PTA is there – what is that it can’t do and is going to be done by the new law?).
2.Last December Kandy Buddhist Chapter told the visiting French Ambassador that everything is fine in the North. So what is DJ talking about ”removing the discontent and disaffection of the minority”?
DJ is brainwashing the society by flooding the social media into making sure that they fully accept what MR does without question.
”repairing our internal fragility; removing the discontent and disaffection of the minority” is to avoid R2P and not to serve justice to all citizens?
Not out of humanistic and universalist politics??
http://www.srilankaembassy.fr/index.php/Media-Releases/Page-7.html
Ward, you deserve to be admitted to one ( and you know what kind), because I have been publicly advocating ( in print) the removal of the disaffection and discontent of our minorities, decades before anyone thought of R2P!
DJ is the same guy who just a few weeks ago went around telling everyone in these forums that the West was struggling in Libya, disregarding the fact that the West deliberately chose to stop with aerial bombings.
And now he invokes the same paranoiac Sri Lankan mindset, something shared by Sinhalese nationalists and VP alike, that has consumed the lives of generations of youths. Such a charlatan!
http://www.nation.lk/2011/02/20/newsfe5.htm
… A study on the working of Provincial Councils in Sri Lanka was conducted recently by the senior researchers of Institute for Constitutional Studies (ICS). …
The main topic that figured at the discussions was the powers of the Governor of a Provincial Council. Governors being appointees of the Executive President would naturally play the role of representatives of the President and the central government. A governor is in a position to execute his executive powers directly or through the Board of Ministers or the officials. He is empowered to exercise his discretion in the discharge of any function and the Governor’s decision is final. And his decision cannot be challenged in a court of law.
Despite being armed with such executive powers, most Governors in carrying out their duties fall in line with the views of the Board of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister. As a result, clashes between them are reported to be minimal. However, Education Minister of the Eastern Provincial Council Wimalaweera Dissanayake complained that their Governor has become a stumbling block to the smooth functioning of the Provincial Ministries including his. He charged that the Governor did not allow him to recruit teachers or even transfer a teacher despite his being the Minister of Education. If he had no power even to affect the transfer of a sanitary labourer, what is the purpose of his being a Minister, he asked. A former military officer, the Governor is trying to run the Provincial Council too in the military style, the Provincial Minister alleged.
Chief Secretary Western Provincial Council Lalith Kannangara, Opposition Leader Kithsiri Kahatapitiya and PC member Mahesh Almeida said that their Governor Alavi Mowlana, despite being a politician himself does not interfere in the administrative affairs of the Council. PC members and officials from the UVA PC also said that their Governor Nanda Mathew too was non-interfering.
http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=14340
A publication of the Institute for Constitutional Studies, ‘Twenty Two Years of Devolution – An Evaluation of the Working of Provincial Councils(PCs) in Sri Lanka’, launched on 21 December 2010 says:
‘’… Recentralization is the hallmark of the system. Today, PCs have become a means by which the centre controls regional resources. They have also become the avenues through which the centre consolidates its political power. …. Two reform imperatives need to be addressed: the first is to consolidate democratic governance and the second, to deepen the accountability of PCs as providers of
services’’
Luckily for Dayan in his current arguments, most Sri Lankans have very short memories. Unluckily for Dayan in his previous (Geneva SL Ambassador) job, his Lords and Masters in the foreign office and president’s office in Colombo also have short memories!
Neighbourhood solidarity:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10746321
Armed, dangerous and building their own empires, 20 August 2011:
‘’Military forces across South Asia are flexing their commercial muscles to create ventures that rival private firms and threaten to militarise civil society.
In Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indian and Sri Lanka defence chiefs have interests in everything from airlines to sugar factories, banks to bakeries, from power plants to ports. Investments worth billions of dollars are controlled by a military elite that is eclipsing civilian bureaucracies and, in some cases, corrupting the services.
Dear Dr Jayatilleke,
You’ll be aware that one of the most successful R2P operations in modern times was when the Vietnamese armed forces finally invaded Cambodia in December 1978 and in two weeks crushed the certifiably genocidal Khmer Rouge maniacs.
The response of the ‘international community’ (e.g. US, US etc) was “instead of backing Vietnam, most member countries of the United Nations denounced the Vietnamese use of force against Kampuchea, and even moved to revive the battered Khmer Rouge organisation that once governed the country with such brutality.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_War
How times change, no?
Why did Gaddafibecome such a pain in the back to the West – even more to France and ENgland than USA.
Swelling numbers of diaspora, ready to produce affidavits with many tales to get into the political refugee category gave sufficient reason to win votes at UN for economicsanctions on a country witha alluring massive peetrochemical resources. That outweighed all the overtures made to the rulers by Quaddafi introducing a form of self rule with Jamihiriya, compensating for bombing the airline and killing Police woman etc.
In the scale of cruelty exercised by the ruler to ruled by dictatorships I wonder whether Gaddfi is the worst. A former Soviet state has a dictator who has boiled his opponents but yet remains a favourite in theWest who find theoil resourcesalluring. With regard to minorities the way Saudi Arabia treat their females and ethnic minorities and migrant workers, Brunii, Timor or Indonesia’s treatment of their minority communities are worse.