Was R2P a viable option for Syria? Opinion content in the Globe and Mail and the National Post, 2011–2013
| Author | Tom Pierre Najem,Walter C. Soderlund,Sarah Cipkar,E. Donald Briggs |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020702016662796 |
| Date | 01 September 2016 |
| Published date | 01 September 2016 |
| Subject Matter | Scholarly Essays |
International Journal
2016, Vol. 71(3) 433–449
!The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0020702016662796
ijx.sagepub.com
Scholarly Essay
Was R2P a viable option
for Syria? Opinion
content in the Globe and
Mail and the National
Post, 2011–2013
Tom Pierre Najem
University of Windsor, Canada
Walter C. Soderlund
University of Windsor, Canada
E. Donald Briggs
University of Windsor, Canada
Sarah Cipkar
University of Windsor, Canada
Abstract
In the spring of 2011 the Syrian civil war emerged as a late chapter of the ‘‘Arab Spring,’’
a chapter that in retrospect has turned out to be the most complex and potentially
most serious. How such crisis events are framed in press coverage has been identified
as important with respect to possible responses the international community makes
under the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P). By most indicators (number of
casualties, number of refugees, plus the use of chemical weapons against civilians), Syria
certainly qualified as a candidate for the application of a UN Security Council authorized
R2P reaction response; yet during the first two-and-a-half years of the war no such
action was forthcoming.
This research examines editorial and opinion pieces on Syria appearing in two leading
Canadian newspapers, the Globe and Mail and the National Post, from March 2011 to
September 2013 in terms of assessing how the civil war was framed regarding the
appropriateness of an R2P military response on the part of the international community.
The research has both quantitative and qualitative dimensions. The former examines
whether framing promoted or discouraged international involvement (i.e. a ‘‘will to
Corresponding author:
Tom Pierre Najem, University of Windsor, Political Science, 401 Sunset Avenue, Chrysler Hall North,
Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada.
Email: tnajem@uwindsor.ca
intervene’’), as well as whether diplomatic and especially military actions such as a
‘‘no-fly zone’’ or more direct military attacks would be likely to result in success or
failure.Qualitatively, the major positions taken and arguments presented regarding R2P,
and whether it should be invoked for Syria, are reviewed.
Keywords
Canadian foreign policy, civil war, Globe and Mail, international intervention, Middle East,
National Post, R2P, Syria, UN, US foreign policy
The 2001 Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State
Sovereignty, ‘‘The Responsibility to Protect’’ (R2P), sought to redirect the
world’s attention from the traditional but increasingly problematic emphasis on
state sovereignty to the responsibilities of both nation states and the international
community to provide for the human security of states’ inhabitants.
1
More specif-
ically, it sought to reduce the impediments to collective action when no other means
of protecting people from egregious violence were available. It laid on the inter-
national community the well-known three-fold responsibility to prevent such
occurrences, react to them when prevention failed, and rebuild after any reaction
that was necessary.
R2P did not seek to provide carte blanche for international military operations in
any and all instances of humanitarian crisis. It emphasized, in fact, that resorting to
a military reaction should only occur when all other methods of intervention had
been exhausted, and then only under strict conditions—such as confidence of suc-
cess and assurance that forceful methods would not worsen the situation. The form
ultimately endorsed by the United Nations in 2006 also made clear that the
Security Council would be the arbiter of if, when, and how R2P would be
operationalized.
2
In a strict sense, therefore, R2P changed little. The same body as before
remained charged with dealing with challenges to the conscience of humanity
according to the same methods as existed prior to its appearance. This said,
R2P’s greatest virtue might be that it takes a fairly significant step in the direction
of human security. It may have altered little in a procedural or legal sense, but it
undoubtedly elevated the principle that the protection of human beings must
become a central focus of international efforts to create a better world. That in
itself increases the pressure on all governments to respond in a positive manner to
1. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, ‘‘The Responsibility to Protect:
Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty,’’ International
Development Research Centre (IDRC), 2001, http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%
20Report.pdf (accessed 28 July 2014).
2. See Theresa Reinold, ‘‘The responsibility to protect—much ado about nothing?’’ Review of
International Studies 36 (2010): 61; see also Aidan Hehir, The Responsibility to Protect: Rhetoric,
Reality and the Future of Humanitarian Intervention (New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2012).
434 International Journal 71(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial