Libya and the responsibility to protect
Stewart Patrick argues that the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (R2P) that informed the Obama administration's intervention in Libya's revolution has been vindicated, even if it may not be replicated anytime soon:
By setting overall strategy while allowing others to shoulder the burden of implementing it, the Obama administration achieved its short-term objective of stopping Gadhafi's atrocities and its long-term one of removing him from power. This was all done at a modest financial cost, with no U.S. troops on the ground, and zero U.S. casualties. Meanwhile, as the first unambiguous military enforcement of the Responsibility to Protect norm, Gadhafi's utter defeat seemingly put new wind in the sails of humanitarian intervention.
Does it now? The Globe and Mail reports:
About half a dozen mass graves have been discovered so far in Tripoli, and reporters noticed many more bodies lying beside the road. It is assumed that most of these killings were inflicted by pro-Gadhafi forces â?? but in a few cases, it appears that somebody executed loyalists whose hands were tied behind their backs with plastic cuffs.In other places, it's unclear who killed whom.
The allegations against Col. Gadhafi's forces are unsurprising; along with his senior followers, he already stands charged with war crimes by the International Criminal Court.
But for the rebels, every new report of atrocities inflicted by their side adds to concerns about whether they can keep control of the country. Loyalists continue to hold major towns, such as Sirte and Sabha, and will become more reluctant to surrender if they believe they will be mistreated.
What I would like to know from the Libyan war's humanitarian champions is the extent of America's "responsibility" to continue protecting Libyans from themselves now that Gaddafi is on the run.
(AP Photo)
