Argument of sovereignty of a nation and permanent borders. Russia made clear it will protect its Russian speaking citizens in East Ukraine. R2P policy of the UN and advocate at will by the US and NATO allies.
Moscow's Perspectives on War in Libya | Carnegie - March 31, 2011 |
Adopting the UN Resolution 1973, the Security Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians. The implications of this resolution, however, extend beyond North Africa and the Arab Countries only. The war in Libya entails significant consequences at a global level.
Focusing on the Russian Federation, three events require our attention: the Russian abstention from the UNSC resolution 1973; the contrasting declarations of Putin and Medvedev over the military attack; the firing of Vladimir Chamov - former Russian ambassador to Libya.
These episodes suggest the existence of contested and on-going debates at the heart of the Russian political elite in the realm of domestic politics and foreign policy. They are also key factors that let us glimpse into the future relations between Russia and the West as well as the domestic discourse in the context of the approaching presidential elections in 2012.
Russia has always been against military intervention, from Kosovo to Iraq. The reason of its strict adherence to the principle of non-interference is to be found in the Cold War and the post-1991 anti-Americanism. The Soviet statesman and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Andrei Gromyko, was nicknamed in the West Mr Nyet (Mr. No) due to his habitual attitude towards Western proposals and interventionist policies. The Russian cautious position persisted even after the end of the Cold War.
Recently, in 2008, The Economist published an article entitled `The return of Mr Nyet' after Russia had blocked the efforts to isolate and punish the despots of Zimbabwe. In contrast, in March 2011, on Medvedev's orders, Russia abstained from the UN resolution, refusing to use its veto which would have blocked its passage.
Putin Sidekick Rejects Boss' 'Crusade' Talk on Libya
Mr Putin had said UN Security Council Resolution 1973, which was adopted on March 17, was "defective and flawed" as it "allows for everything".
The resolution authorises "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya, but Mr Putin said there was no logic in killing civilians to achieve that end.
He said he was worried at the ease with which decisions to use force in international affairs were being taken.
Libya and the Future of the Responsibility to Protect - African and European Perspectives | Peace Research Institute Frankfurt - 2011 |
Although the UN Security Council had authorized the use of coercive measures to protect civilians before, it is the first time that the Council authorized the use of force for the purpose of human protection against the will of the acting government of a functioning state. Moreover, the broad language of the resolution left room for prolonged military action that resulted in the toppling of the Libyan regime.
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), developed by the International Commission of Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) ten years ago, and endorsed, albeit in rather general terms by the community of states at the World Summit six years ago, is finally put into practice. This watershed event will change the understanding and meaning of this hitherto contested concept in many respects.
For one thing, the events in Libya point to the continuing relevance of R2P. Despite the disastrous outcomes of the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and despite plummeting support for humanitarian intervention in many Western societies, Resolution 1973 and the subsequent military campaign indicate that the idea of humanitarian intervention has not been put on the back-burner.
Less easily predictable are the consequences of these events for the legitimacy of the concept of R2P.
Effect of Bias in Western Media: Poll NATO
Polls show Europeans' mixed feelings about Russia, NATO amid Ukraine unease
... other polls expose complex and diverging views Europeans have on the current escalation prompted by the Kremlin's troop build up around Ukraine.
More Slovaks, for example, blame NATO, rather than Russia (44% vs 34%), for tensions in Ukraine, a study found last week.
However, the attitude flips if age differences are taken into account. Slovaks aged 25-34 tend to blame Russia slightly more (42%) than NATO and the US (39%). Yet, among those older than 65, only 27.5% believe Russia is responsible.
An attitude split along historical and demographic lines appears to be present in Germany as well.
In East Germany, once part of the former Soviet bloc, more people (43%) blame the US for intensifying the conflict, compared to the 32% who point the finger at Russia, while in the West, the majority (52%) blames Russia, and only 17% the US, a Forsa survey found last Thursday (3 February).
Europeans' views also divert when it comes to who to trust, NATO or the EU to protect their interests if Russia invades Ukraine.
According to the new ECFR data, Poles (75-67%), Romanians (61-67%), Italians (65-63%), and Germans (53-50%) trust NATO more then the EU.
Meanwhile, people in non-NATO countries Finland (60-52%) and Sweden (67-64%) tend to trust Brussels more than the transatlantic alliance. The same is true in France (50-47%), where political leadership has long been critical of NATO.
Allies of `brain dead' NATO return fire to France's Macron
German Chancellor Angela Merkel defended the 70-year-old alliance as "indispensable" and said Mr Macron's "sweeping judgments" were not "necessary".
Standing by Ms Merkel's side, NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg warned that a weakened transatlantic alliance could "divide Europe", while US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, also in Germany, insisted NATO was "important, critical".
In the interview, Mr Macron decried a lack of co-ordination between Europe and the US and lamented unilateral action in Syria by Turkey, a NATO member. "You have no co-ordination whatsoever of strategic decision-making between the US and its NATO allies. None," he said.
"You have an un-coordinated aggressive action by another NATO ally, Turkey, in an area where our interests are at stake."
Is Libya NATO's Final Bow? | Brookings Inst. - Dec. 2, 2011 |
Perhaps the headline should have been NATO's Final Blow?
Contradicting the warnings from many experts and politicians in both Europe and the United States, the military intervention in Libya did not lead to a protracted stalemate.
The effectiveness of NATO's humanitarian intervention in the cases of Kosovo (1999) and Libya (2011)
In the 1990s, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) has emerged as an active international actor carrying out military interventions motivated by humanitarian purposes (Carati, 2017). Even when acting under the UN, NATO has been taking full control over the nature and scope of its military operations. The military operations of the late 1990's in the Balkans, and more recently in Libya, furthered NATO's role as an enabler of humanitarian interventions.
There are several reasons for NATO's increasing role as the maintainer of peace. Mainly, UN's deficiencies in managing several humanitarian crises and lack of military personnel enabled NATO to use its military to support UN missions.
Also, NATO's growing democratic character increased its status as a international peace keeping force (Carati, 2017). The emerging role of NATO as a key actor in fighting for humanitarian purposes has been accompanied by normative changes reinforcing that view.
Arguably, by the end of the Cold War, NATO adopted a crisis-managing approach which undertook a position beyond a mere defence alliance (Carati, 2017). This approach enabled the Alliance to serve as a legitimate actor fostering the R2P doctrine.
While the new image of NATO was emerging, the UN delegated various peacekeeping tasks to NATO which increased NATO's credibility and political prestige (Carati, 2017).
The intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina was the first military mission in NATO's history that served as a sort of "blue print" for future missions (Carati, 2017, p. 296).
Three years later, the intervention in Kosovo confirmed NATO's image as the humanitarian intervention leader.
NATO Acting Without the UN Sets a Dangerous Precedent ...
Kosovo, International Law and Humanitarian Intervention | Winter 2000/01 |
Democracy the American Way ...
Rudimentary remarks from the White House ...
The West has shut down all avenues for talks and diplomacy with Russia and Putin ...
Is the EU's failed relationship with Russia the member states' fault? | April 2014 |
Instead of splitting the ties of Russia with economic power China, US policy has caused a new power bloc to work together.
The Russia-China entente and its future
