Decline of Public Support for Humanitarian Intervention
One of the key differences when it comes to Libya and Syria is how western public perception of humanitarian intervention has shifted. In the few short months following NATO intervention in Libya, support for humanitarian intervention in the United States (US) shrunk substantially and in a democratic country taking unpopular moves like promoting another intervention is likely a prominent concern domestically. US President Barack Obama discussed humanitarian intervention with overwhelming fervour and confidence when it came to US involvement in the Libyan Crisis, displaying his self-assurance that the public supported protecting the citizens of Libya. In contrast, Obama’s announcement …show more content…
This contrast displays a clear trepidation that was unseen several years before when it came to Libyan intervention and this is largely indicative of the opposition that quickly grew out of the Libyan Crisis and NATO’s intervention into it. The degree to which this public opinion shift can be attributed directly to Libya is debatable, but it is almost certainly a factor considering its proximity and similarities.
Responsibility to Protect and Legitimisation of Intervention
The concept of humanitarian intervention as it stands today has its roots in the notion of the R2P, a commitment agreed upon by all United Nations (UN) member states to protect populations of foreign states from abuses of human rights in accordance with international law. While the concept has been a core element of the UN’s purpose from its inception, military intervention in order to achieve these goals is a more recent development. In the past, R2P solely entailed economic sanctions and words of condemnation primarily out of concern for preserving national sovereignty but since the early-to-mid 2000s full interventions have become far more common. Libya was an explicit example of the implementation of the R2P concept as there was evidence to suggest that Gaddafi had begun conducting …show more content…
Unlike the Syrian Civil War, the Libyan Government forces experienced mass defections to the rebel militias which helped maintain a fairly equal parity between the belligerents if not an advantage towards the rebels. Syria’s rebels on the other hand are largely composed of civilians and foreign nationals against Assad’s regime and thus are at an inherent disadvantage in the conflict. Although the Syrian Government has lost swathes of largely empty territory, they have been able to defend most major urban centres which is a key difference between Syria and Libya. This is a factor which is surely in the minds of western leaders as the rebels in Syria’s case likely require far more substantial support than those who fought against Libya’s regime. Considering the results of throwing too much support behind an uncertain rebel cause could be ultimately fruitless, the US in particular is likely being cautious of aiding a cause that is comparatively weak to that seen in
One of the key differences when it comes to Libya and Syria is how western public perception of humanitarian intervention has shifted. In the few short months following NATO intervention in Libya, support for humanitarian intervention in the United States (US) shrunk substantially and in a democratic country taking unpopular moves like promoting another intervention is likely a prominent concern domestically. US President Barack Obama discussed humanitarian intervention with overwhelming fervour and confidence when it came to US involvement in the Libyan Crisis, displaying his self-assurance that the public supported protecting the citizens of Libya. In contrast, Obama’s announcement …show more content…
This contrast displays a clear trepidation that was unseen several years before when it came to Libyan intervention and this is largely indicative of the opposition that quickly grew out of the Libyan Crisis and NATO’s intervention into it. The degree to which this public opinion shift can be attributed directly to Libya is debatable, but it is almost certainly a factor considering its proximity and similarities.
Responsibility to Protect and Legitimisation of Intervention
The concept of humanitarian intervention as it stands today has its roots in the notion of the R2P, a commitment agreed upon by all United Nations (UN) member states to protect populations of foreign states from abuses of human rights in accordance with international law. While the concept has been a core element of the UN’s purpose from its inception, military intervention in order to achieve these goals is a more recent development. In the past, R2P solely entailed economic sanctions and words of condemnation primarily out of concern for preserving national sovereignty but since the early-to-mid 2000s full interventions have become far more common. Libya was an explicit example of the implementation of the R2P concept as there was evidence to suggest that Gaddafi had begun conducting …show more content…
Unlike the Syrian Civil War, the Libyan Government forces experienced mass defections to the rebel militias which helped maintain a fairly equal parity between the belligerents if not an advantage towards the rebels. Syria’s rebels on the other hand are largely composed of civilians and foreign nationals against Assad’s regime and thus are at an inherent disadvantage in the conflict. Although the Syrian Government has lost swathes of largely empty territory, they have been able to defend most major urban centres which is a key difference between Syria and Libya. This is a factor which is surely in the minds of western leaders as the rebels in Syria’s case likely require far more substantial support than those who fought against Libya’s regime. Considering the results of throwing too much support behind an uncertain rebel cause could be ultimately fruitless, the US in particular is likely being cautious of aiding a cause that is comparatively weak to that seen in