President Obama’s invocation of the language of “responsibility to protect” to justify his use of military force against Libya has been exposed for what it was—political expediency.
As recently noted by Cliff May in “The Demise of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ at the UN,” the intervention in Libya marked the “apogee” of R2P, as the doctrine is known in shorthand. Ironically, R2P was invoked by the president to justify military force to prevent a situation that was merely threatened in Libya—a threat to attack civilians in Benghazi. In Syria, where actual atrocities have been committed, the R2P doctrine is notable in its absence.
Yet any use of force in Syria—whether against the Assad regime or ISIS—must be driven by U.S. national interests and not adherence to a doctrine dreamedt up at an international conference.
Although it has condemned the loss of life, the aministration still has not used the magnitude of deaths to justify military action in Syria. A reason for this is that the R2P doctrine explicitly states a series of steps required to make military intervention a legitimate R2P exercise. A critical step is the need for a UN Security Council resolution authorizing action. This was forthcoming in Libya, but has been repeatedly blocked by the Russians on Syria.
In any event, no U.S. administration should subscribe or give credence to the R2P doctrine. Advancing a doctrine that makes the legitimacy of use of force contingent on decision making at the Security Council or in regional organizations and arguably compels the United States to act to prevent atrocities occurring in other countries is imprudent. The United States needs to preserve its national sovereignty by maintaining a monopoly on the decision to deploy its military forces.
