Denver Journal of International Law and Policy

Syrian Protests (Reuters)

On Monday, Syria rejected the Arab League’s plan to end violence within the country.  Violence between protestors and opposition forces demanding an end to President Bashar al-Assad’s regime has been ongoing in Syria since March 2011, resulting in over 5,400 deaths during the ten-month time-span. On Sunday, the Arab League voted to extend the observers mission in Syria for an additional month.

Syria rejected the proposal, which stated in part, that Syria was to establish a national unified government within two months. Specifically, the government was to hold free parliamentary and presidential elections monitored by the international community. The statement also called for Assad to give his vice president full power to cooperate with the new government in order to work under the transitional period. Syria fervently asserted that that the Arab League’s proposal violates its state sovereignty.  Syria also alleged that the plan interferes with its internal affairs.  Opposition groups also opposed the Arab League plan, but for differing reasons.  For example, the Local Coordination Committee (LCC) opposition group stated that the plan gives the current Syrian government a new opportunity and additional time to “bury the revolution” and arrange for peace; the LCC supports the notion of UN intervention in the violent revolution.

As protests continue, the violence persists.  People have taken to the streets in protest of the current regime, with 60,000 protestors in Douma, currently protected by army defectors.  Reports state that there were 23 civilians deaths in Syria on Monday, and yet the reports could not be confirmed due to Syria closing its borders to foreign journalists. Other reports estimate at least 36 deaths.  Also noteworthy is the fact that in Northern Syria, unknown gunmen killed an emminent leader of the opposition, Radwan Rabih Hamadi, during an ambush.

Many within the international community have cried out against Syria’s quick refusal of the Arab League’s proposal. The United States and the European Union both backed the Arab League plan; with U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland stating that it was regrettable that Assad rejected the League’s transition proposal “almost before the ink was dry.” The European Union extended its sanctions against Syria after news spread that the country rejected the Arab League’s proposal, which added 22 more officials and eight companies to the blacklist.

It appears that the next step will be UN Security Council action against Syria. The British mission to the U.N. supports bringing the issue before the Security Council for resolution stating that, “we continue to believe that the Security Council must act in response to the ongoing violence taking place in Syria.” The German ambassador to the U.N., Peter Wittig, said that the Arab League’s decision to seek the help of the international body was a “really bold step.” He went on to assert that, “we believe now more than ever that we will need strong council action, a clear message to both the Syrian regime and the Syrian people.” Secretary-General Nabil el-Araby declared that the Syrian government has failed to comply with the Arab League’s agreement to end the violence and that swift action appears to be imminent.

As civilian deaths continue to mount in Syria because of the violence, the international community is becoming increasingly involved. With Syria’s failure to agree with the Arab League’s proposal to end the violence and establish a new government, the international community will surely take further steps to end the brutal killings of the Syrian people. The U.N., supported by many powerful Member States, is bound to take action against Syria soon.  Without such action, an end to violence in Syria appears out of sight as the revolution proceeds well into 2012, stronger with each passing day.

This Saturday, the University of Denver Sturm College of Law will be holding its annual Sutton Colloquium.  This year’s topic is  “Arab Spring and Its Unfinished Business: Law & Policy Issues.”

While the speakers and their academic interests are diverse, I think that all of the speakers should address one underlying and generally unasked question: Why should the audience, and Americans in general, care?  And, if Americans should care—as I imagine all the speakers will argue—is the Arab Spring a good thing for the United States?  Is the “democratization” (if that is what the Arab Spring can be called) of this region a good thing for the United States?

The Arab Spring

From my perspective, it is not.  As it relates to international relations, and international law, the Arab Spring has no effect on the United States because it will not affect the underlying balance of power in the region or worldwide, and it likely will not change our relations with those countries who participated in the Arab Spring.

First, the Arab Spring does not affect the United States because it will not change the underlying balance of power in the region—one State is not going to grower larger or more powerful because of this regional unrest.  And, theoretically, while Arab Spring States may engage in bilateral or multilateral agreements, they are unlikely to affect any power balance in the region.

Second, there will likely be no improvement in United State’s relations with the Arab Spring States because there is yet no showing that the Arab Spring will actually bring democracy to these States.  For example, recent news out of Egypt suggest that the military hold on power is tightening, possibly leading a military led dictatorship instead of a military leader led dictatorship (as Mubarak was a military leader prior to becoming president).

And yet, while Tunisia recently held elections shows progress, as the Iranian Revolution shows, electing Islamist parties doesn’t automatically mean peace and democracy.  While some scholars say that the Arab Spring will bring an era of post-Islamic States, implying a reduction in the threat of terrorism, the unrest in the region doesn’t necessarily mean more safety for now.

Therefore, when the Sutton Colloquium begins on Saturday, I hope the speakers take the time to tell us why it matters, because for the United States—as it stands now—it doesn’t seem like it does.

By: Brenden Desmond

Sources: BBC, Washington Post, NY Times, US State Department

Last week, the United States pulled Ambassador Robert Ford from his post in Syria, raising more questions about the role of ambassadors in areas of unrest and the role of international law in protecting the safety of diplomats.  While not recalling him formally, Mr. Ford left Syria after “credible threats against his personal safety.”  Having already been “briefly trapped in his office by pro-Assad demonstrators,” and “pelted with eggs and tomatoes when visiting an opposition” earlier this year, this continues the saga of both the impact of the Arab Spring in Syria and the United State’s involvement in such unrest.

The United States government stated that while there was no specific threat levied against Ambassador Ford, there was a concern about Syria inciting violence against him by “the tone of several recent items in the government-controlled Syrian media.”  Haynes Mahoney, the charge d’affaires at the US embassy in Syria, cited articles calling Mr. Ford the leader of death squads in Iraq and stating that he was attempting “to provoke a civil war in Syria.”  However, Mr. Mahoney stated that Ambassador Ford “was doing a very important job on the ground and giving significant support to the Syrian people,” and hoped the “Syrian government will stop this incit[ment],” the Washington Post quotes.

The Syrian government responded that “if [other countries] don’t provide security to our missions, we will treat them the same way,” pointing to protests at their embassies in Germany and Switzerland.  This continues the role embassies and diplomats have played in the uprising the New York Times reports.  Earlier this year, Ambassador Ford categorized the Syrian regime as intolerant, and the State Department summoned the Syrian Ambassador for their embassy’s role tracking dissidents in the United States.

These events raise the question of the role of diplomats in countries experiencing unrest.  Traditionally, international law requires host countries to guarantee the protection of foreign ambassadors within their borders.  Syria’s incitement of violence against Ambassador Ford clearly violates this custom.  However, traditionally, US ambassadors are to work with the chosen government of the foreign country to advance US interests, and not to work with opposition groups to overthrow the current regime—as Ambassador Ford has been doing.  It therefore looks like both sides are in unusual territory during this period of unrest.

Source: the New York Times

On March 28, 2011, President Obama laid out two principles for any U.S. action in Libya. The first is that America has the responsibility to stop “looming genocide” in Libya. The second is that when the safety of Americans is not directly threatened, but where action can be justified, America will act only on the condition that it is not acting alone.

When President Obama made this speech, he was criticized as leading from behind. In recent weeks, the President’s policy seems to be effective, and may prove to be a model for the use of force. The U.S. used its military power, including providing cruise missiles, aircraft, bombs, intelligence, and military personnel, as part of a larger NATO coalition, to begin airstrikes and create a no-fly zone over Libya. American officials have argued the Libya strategy worked because it was perceived as an international effort, and not a unilateral action by the American military.  U.S. efforts in Libya have also been criticized because of the continued use of American warplanes after control of the air war was given to NATO in early April.

Since the Libyan intervention, the Obama administration indicated it will respond to the Arab world’s revolts against its dictators on the basis of “moral imperatives”. This approach has led to criticism of the Obama administration’s response to Syria. Deaths in Syria have risen to 1,400 over four months of clashes. The U.N. has not condemned the violence in Syria, and the U.S. has not named those countries supplying Syria with arms and financial wherewithal. The lack of action or results in Syria is frustrating to both the international community and Syrian citizens.

However, experts caution that the time may not be ripe for multilateral NATO action in Syria. Robert Malley, head analyst for the Middle East and North Africa at the International Crisis group said: “What distinguishes Syria from Libya is there is neither regional nor international consensus on Syria. There’s no specific area of the country to come in and defend.” Instead of using military force to intervene in Syria, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested the broadest possible diplomatic pressure could ultimately have an effect, and potentially lay the foundation for more aggressive action.

The multilateral action taken in Libya and contemplated in Syria adds to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine debate in international law.  The R2P doctrine arose as a result of the global community’s failure to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and human rights violations, and it outlines the international community’s response to such violations should the states involved abdicate their primary responsibility. The R2P doctrine has been strongly criticized in the past. However, in the past ten years, the doctrine has gained wider acceptance in the international community. In particular, the idea of sovereignty as responsibility to protect one’s people has begun to take hold. If Libya and Syria’s leaders abdicated their responsibility both to their citizens and to the international community, multilateral action may be justified as the R2P doctrine’s influence grows.