World’s responsibility to protect no more than empty rhetoric

The carnage that was looming over Idlib province — the last armed anti-Assad opposition stronghold — has been averted for now. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan have agreed to set aside a demilitarized zone along the Idlib border. They have agreed to create this buffer zone in order to separate government forces from rebel fighters based there and, by that, avoid, or at least defer, an all-out attack on it by forces in support of the Assad regime. 

The news came as a great relief to the 3 million civilians who would have been caught in the crossfire. Several days earlier, Jens Laerke, of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, warned that, in Idlib, the world was potentially facing the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century, “because that is frankly what it looks like, if (the regime and its supporters) go ahead with a full-scale military operation.” 

Certainly any move to prevent a full-scale offensive against Idlib is welcome news to almost everyone, as an onslaught by Assad’s military, backed by its Russian and Iranian allies, would have meant both a humanitarian disaster and most likely also a military confrontation with Turkey. This temporary agreement has given those who are directly involved, as well as the rest of the international community, some necessary breathing space to rethink how to ensure the Syrian war will not end in the way it has been conducted for more than seven years — with utter disregard for the human rights, well-being and the dignity of the Syrian people.

Innocent and vulnerable people — men and women, young and old — have been mere pawns on the chessboard of their own government and a few foreign powers who have supported the fighting factions. For years, the Syrian people have been on the receiving end of chemical weapons, barrel bombs, shelling and torture, while millions have lost their homes and been displaced in their own country, or become refugees in neighboring countries, while the world has done very little to help and support them.

There is an expectation that those who oppose the Assad regime will soon be defeated, and the war will come to an end. Assuming that this is the case, all those who have had their fingers in the messy Syrian pie will be jockeying for position to ensure that their “investment” in this war has not been in vain, and that their interests are secured. Long after the fighting has died down, foreign forces will be deeply involved in this devastated country, and the potential for clashes between them will remain real. Consequently, a prolonged period of instability, with a weak government in Damascus, will ensue. The presence of Russian, Iranian and Turkish forces, as well as some Western military elements and Israel watching from the other side of the border, all with conflicting interests, will carry with it the constant threat of a flare-up. 

A short and long-term political arrangement for post-conflict Syria and its rebuilding is still not in sight, yet there are two questions that must be addressed. First, the international community needs to give an honest answer to this question: How is it that, in the 21st century, a murderous regime, with the support of unscrupulous foreign governments, has been allowed to massacre hundreds of thousands of its own population, while torturing and maiming many more? And the second question, the corollary of the first and equally important, is: Can there be justice for the victims of this bloody war? Can anyone reassure them that transitional justice will prevail and those who have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity will face the International Criminal Court (ICC) and be dealt with accordingly? This is a matter of deterrence as well as justice.

The post- World War II collective security system was designed to avoid exactly this kind of atrocity, but tragically has failed humanity time and again. Not only has it not managed to prevent major outbursts of mass violence, but it has also failed to regulate conflict to ensure that civilians do not become embroiled and end up as the main victims. 

Moreover, in the aftermath of the Cold War and its “end of history” fantasy, we were all led to believe that mass atrocities belonged to the past. Instead, genocide and crimes against humanity in places such as the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sudan and Syria, among others, have left us under no illusion that the enforcement of international law and, with it, the standards of decent behavior in international affairs have had no more than very limited success. 

The notion of the responsibility to protect (R2P), albeit formulated with the best of intentions, remains no more than empty rhetoric. The ICC, created in order to bring justice to the many millions of victims of war crimes while also deterring future war criminals, has not yielded what its creators hoped for it: That all countries and leaders would be held accountable for their actions. Instead, the voluntary nature of international jurisdiction is leaving some of the worst war criminals at large.

In the next few months, perhaps even weeks, the fate of the 3 million Syrians of Idlib will be decided. It will be a test for everyone involved, and the entire international community, to prevent civilians becoming mere items of collateral damage, caught between the conflicting interests of powerful men; and also for the combatants to respect the laws of war. 

As was recently poignantly stated by the UK’s ambassador to the UN, Karen Pierce: “There are more babies in Idlib than there are terrorists and I think that should give those engaging in military action pause for thought.” Moreover, what happens in Idlib will be a precursor to what Syria might become the day after the weapons fall silent. At present, this is a country in need of transitional justice even before its reconstruction begins.

• Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations at Regent’s University London, where he is head of the International Relations and Social Sciences Program. He is also an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. Twitter: @YMekelberg