1. The latest developments from the
ongoing civil war in Syria show a great humanitarian crisis. According to the
UN, since the beginning of the civil war (22 months ago), more than 60.000
civilians have lost their life and another 1.100.000 people have abandoned the country so far. What could be the “red line” for Bashar al-Assad’s
future in power? Would the latest incident, related to a “possible” chemical
weapons attack against the opposition, be the begging of the end of his
governance?
The question, as I understand it, is
really about foreign intervention to put an end to the Assad regime, with the
expectation that the departure of President Assad will put an end to the
humanitarian crisis. That was the premise of the Franco-British intervention in
Libya but, in that case it is questionable whether the humanitarian crisis has
come to an end simply because Col Gadhafi was removed from power.
Moreover, political decision-making
has rarely been based on humanitarian concerns. The Rwanda genocide of the
mid-1990s was probably the catalyst that brought the international community to
the point of accepting that it should be the duty of States to intervene
(legitimately) in the internal affairs of other states on humanitarian grounds.
However, States have been applying this emerging rule of international law very
selectively. I would argue that in the case of Syria, as in the cases of Libya,
Iraq, Afghanistan, former Yugoslavia and many others, States invoke this rule
as justification for intervention which is in fact aimed at protecting or
promoting their own interests. This leads me to conclude that the real red line
in Syria would be when the key economic, political or strategic interests of
those States which have the power to intervene, are seriously threatened or
when those States see an opportunity to enhance their interests significantly.
