Are We Really Willing to Wage War to Protect Civilians?

Is the West truly ready to commit to fight wars on the premise of protecting human life? The UN office for the protection of civilians UNPC has reiterated that article 4 of the Geneva Convention was adopted in 1949 yet we have most often failed to live up to that article. Indeed after the numerous failures throughout the 90’s and in the early millennium in stopping conflicts that resulted in massive losses of civilians the UN created this new office in 2005-06 to further demonstrate the need to protect civilians from unnecessary violence. Whether it was Rwanda, Democratic Republic of Congo or the Darfur region of Sudan, the world and the UN stood by and watched or talked until it was far too late to make a difference.

The last time the West agreed to stop a slaughter was in Kosovo when the US, Britain and Canada bombed Serbian targets in both Kosovo and in Serbia without a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force under the guise of protecting Kosovar Albanians who were fleeing to Macedonia and telling tales of mass executions, mass rape and mass graves. It turned out to be mass lies but that’s a seperate article all together. The point was the one time the West did act they were duped and had to move forward without a UNSC resolution because Russia and China refused to agree to use force (which didn’t stop the Russians from deploying a brigade of combat troops to the Pristina Airport).

Recent events in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, and Yemen suggest we still have mixed feelings on the issue and have responded very differently in each case.

In Tunisia I think the world was stunned and reacted after it was over, in Egypt the world stood by because after a few days of violence between the police and the protesters the Army took over and ended the violence. In Libya we acted quickly and at least initially with overwhelming force but as the debate over the justification of the actions and the Obama administrations unwillingness to lead the effort or provide the bulk of the military hardware has lead to a horrific number of unnecessary deaths as Muammar Gaddafi realized that NATO was unwilling to use ground troops and like the Serbs before them were more than capable of withstanding an air attack without the threat of ground troops (In Kosovo the Serbs held firm for almost 90 days until NATO troops massed in Macedonia, they then agreed to remove their standing army from Kosovo back into Serbia). I believe that the promise of NATO military support has emboldened the rebels in Libya but the reality of air power alone has ensured 100’s more have died in the fighting of which most have been civilians. It continues to be a stalemate on the ground with a trickle of deaths on both sides daily.

In Bahrain, we ignored the violence, ignored the fact that Saudi Arabian troops moved into Bahrain to put down the protests using deadly force and switched channels, why because Saudi Arabia is a friend perhaps? Or is it because a dozen dead doesn’t cut it anymore? In Syria, the estimates are over 200 dead and counting including an armed attack on a mass funeral procession on Saturday 23 April, yet the West barely speaks of the Syrian uprising, it’s hard to imagine why one group of civilians is more important to protect than another but here is a perfect example, you have a dictator who supports terrorist groups, has attempted to build a nuclear weapons facility and who has willingly ordered his security forces to use deadly force against unarmed civilians protesters yet nothing...we turned the channel and said Libya is enough to allow us to feel that we’ve done our duty.

In Yemen we have a cooperative dictator who was more than willing to allow the West to help rid his country of Al Qaeda in exchange for ignoring his abuses against legitimate protest over a lack of basic services being provided and a quality of life that is shrinking. Again nothing from the West beyond an honourable mention on the BBC once a week when they grow tired of the Japanese Nuclear disaster or the Libyan war.

It’s hardly worth mentioning the other disgraces in the world like Zimbabwe but we really need to decide a couple of things if we are going to advance our civilization. First are we willing to do something tangible to dissuade radicals who pervert religion or culture to encourage wanton violence against others and second are we willing to say no to the ability of dictators around the world to slaughter their own people, only acting when they decide killing their own isn’t satisfying enough?

These are tough calls and the UNSC is not structured properly to ensure a uniformed outcome so how do we truly live up to the idea that civilized nations living in peace can continue to do so without fear and all people’s living on this earth can do so freely and without fear of their own governments?

My first suggestion is that we need to do away with the P-5 veto powers. We also need to expand the P-5 to at least the P-8, adding Germany, India and Brazil immediately and then electing 13 nations to the council for 2 year terms with all 21 nations having an equal vote. Second the authorization of the use of force should require a super majority of at least 14 nations voting yes before force of any kind can be used and finally I believe it’s time to create a standing UN military force that is governed and controlled by the UNSC. This force can be created in two ways, one from donor countries as it is now or from creating a force that is within a unified UN chain of command which ensure that no donating countries can add caveats that limits the usefulness of their troops on the ground. This would also allow for common equipment, common training and a clear understanding for the soldiers that would make up the force of who they are fighting for. A Canadian joins the Canadian Armed Forces to defend Canada and her interests so when they are deployed to Croatia and find themselves wearing Blue Helmets and being used for target practise by all sides they aren’t very highly motivated to sacrifice for Croatia but if a UN soldier joins the UN standing army they know in advance that they are fighting for human rights and may find themselves anyplace on the planet defending those general rights.

While I don’t have all the answers I do know one thing, for too long the world has debated and discussed human rights and dignity while watching millions die horrifically while we pick and choose which conflicts are worthwhile and which aren’t. It’s time to believe in this world and that all peoples are equal and worth saving and that those who choose to slaughter the innocent will not be tolerated any longer regardless of who their friends are, what natural resources they may have to offer, what religion they practise or what colour their skin may be.

When Presidents Get Idealistic in the Middle East

Hillary Clinton was right, when during the primaries she featured the ad that about an emergency call in the middle of the night and asked if the guy answering would have the experience to make the right decisions. When a candidate runs for office they most often compare themselves to the sitting President and say one of two things, I’m going to be my own man but not make major changes or they say, this guy is taking us down the wrong path and I’ll change things, yet these initiatives rarely if ever are what a President is remembered for and it’s even rarer that a candidate has been able to avoid the early morning call or even guess what that call might be about. Sure they all say I’ll do this differently with this regime (insert any current or ongoing pain in the butt country here). If we are talking to them the candidate says I’m going to get tough on them and if we’re being tough on them and not talking or continuing to seek more sanctions the candidate says we need to use dialogue to achieve our foreign policies goals.

George W. Bush’s speeches during his primary run and then as the nominee show us a man very focused on domestic issues. When it comes to foreign policy some of his initiatives were to be ending the idea of nation building and getting out of Bosnia and Kosovo...why because President Clinton had US forces there long after combat operations ended and the US military wasn’t built for nation building. He also proposed a review of the US force levels in South Korea suggesting that we could cut more than half of the 50,000 troops and instead station troops in less expensive Japan and reinforce if necessary but really he wanted to turn over the task of protecting South Korea to South Korea, he also proposed cutting the European command to less than 100,000 troops centred on fewer bases and if possible down to less than 50,000 troops in all of Europe by the end of his first term. The savings would be used to replace the military’s heavy equipment designed for the cold war and to pay the troops more. All good stuff and none of it happened because on a bright fall day a group never once mentioned by either candidate (even though the very group attacked US targets 5 times during the 2 Clinton terms) during the 2000 election attacked the US. Bush’s Presidency changed in a heartbeat as his fathers had when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

President Carter didn’t like autocratic leaders who wouldn’t help their citizens, he demanded better of the government he told its leader that without reform the US could not and should not support him and then President Carter cut off aid to that country. Roughly a year later an unknown Mullah came to power and ordered his followers to take over the US Embassy. After decades of friendship Iran became the enemy of the United States and still is.

President Obama needs to look hard at Middle Eastern history and that of Africa. While we’d like to believe that when young people take to the streets asking for more freedom, what comes of it most often is more repression and more chaos. I would truly wonder what a young Pakistani would say about his country today. Is he happier under President Asif Ali Zardari than he was under General Pervez Musharraf? If President Bush had resisted the urge to tie aid to reform and forced General Musharraf to agree to step down as the head of the military and then pressured him to leave office would Benazir Bhutto still be alive, would the Taliban not have been increasing ignored while Musharraf ensured he wasn’t going to be overthrown in coup and let the Generals off the hook in going after the hard core AQ and Taliban elements living in his country in exchange for their support?

Today we see Cairo in flames and we’re shocked, we see young people in the thousands risking and losing their lives to say we want more freedom and that the government have allowed the police to go too far. They are increasingly corrupt and brutal in the way they ensure bribes are paid. In fact what is really going on is a reaction to the corruption reaching a tipping point. The police and local government officials have gone too far in their demands for bribes and as in Alexandra, the main police station was the primary target for those who complained of beatings when bribes weren’t or couldn’t be paid by business people and average citizens but and it’s a huge but, what is truly waiting to replace Hosni Mubarak, is it the Nobel Peace winner or is it the official opposition party, the Muslim brotherhood? President Bush learned a harsh lesson when he called for fair and free elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip thinking the Palestinians would support the moderate candidates that wanted peace with Israel, he bet on freedom and what he got was Hamas and more rockets being fired at Israel and elected opposition Fatah members running for their lives back to the West Bank. It’s hard to walk back from we trust the people unless the people vote for a terrorist organization. You really have a hard time with your freedom agenda if the people freely chose a terrorist organization.

President Obama in 2009 called for more freedom in Egypt and today we’re seeing the people step up and demand it. In 2005 President Bush made the same call and Egyptians responded by electing the largest number of Muslim Brother Candidates ever. President Mubarak learned from that election and rigged the next one to ensure he got 88% of the vote and that the Brotherhood only elected a handful of candidates.
While I believe that the peoples of the Middle East can prosper in a democracy it is certainly not going to be in a Western style democracy so we need to work behind the scenes to help improve people’s lot in life, not in public, for out of protest the most frequent result in Africa and the Middle East is chaos followed by brutal repressive regimes that make the past injustices look mild not to mention these regimes are often thrilled to thumb their nose at the US and Israel thus destabilizing the region.

Should President Obama make the wrong choices in the next 96 hrs and even hint publically or to the wrong people privately that he’s considering suspending aid we’ll see protests like never before and violence beyond anything to date and the result will not be a more peaceful and stable Egypt that remains indifferent to Israel but a country ripe for Al Qaeda and it’s cousin the Muslim Brotherhood and then folks we’ll really see what happens when a US President gets idealistic in the Middle East.