Sponeck by muhamad fairuz

REGIME AND ACCOUNTABILITY by

HANS-C VON

SPONECK

UN Assistant Secretary-General (ret.)

here is no reference to “regime change” in the books of the United Nations, nor is there a norm of this kind in any international law.

Regime change is a term in the western dictionary of international relations. It is associated with a derogatory reference to national authorities not acceptable to certain western governments, especially to the United States. References to regime change carry with it the connotations of (i) conquest by a foreign power, (ii) External

assistance to carry out a revolution and (iii) Promoting coup d’ états. As history confirms, regime changes have never led to ending international conflicts. On the contrary, wherever regime changes have been attempted from outside, they intensified conflicts. The victims of such externally induced political changes have invariably been innocent civilians. While examples from various parts of the world could be cited (e.g., Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine) this presentation has selected two instances of regime change policies introduced by the Unites States, as the main supporter of regime change in Iraq and Libya.

Example 1: Iraq The US Congress and the President of the United States, Bill Clinton in October 1998 approved the so-called ‘Iraq Liberation Act’.1 Section 7 of the Act states: “…it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein.”

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, (H.R.4655) was approved by the US Congress and signed into law on 31 October 1998 by the President of the United States 1

JUNE 2015 CRIMINALISE WAR

Five years later, on 19 March 2003, the United States and its allies invaded the Republic of Iraq in order to effect regime change by force. The result of this military intervention, not sanctioned by the UN Security Council and therefore illegal, was the complete breakdown of order in the country, a continuous violation of humanitarian and human rights law by the occupation forces and an evolving sectarianism which has culminated in the presence of ISIS/Daesh in today’s Iraq.

funds were made available to anti-Qadhafi forces. This did not prevent the NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen to declare on 31 October 2011: “We have fully completed the historic mandate of the UN to protect the people of Libya, to enforce the no-fly zone and the arms embargo!”

Example 2: Libya

Two months later, the UN Secretary-General Ban Kimoon told the world: “The NATO action in Libya was carried out in strict accordance with UNSC resolution 1973!”

At the 2005 UN Summit the concept of “responsibility to protect” or ‘R2P’ was accepted by the UN General Assembly as a new element in international relations. It was agreed that under certain circumstances national sovereignty could be replaced by human rights as the issue that would define international reactions to conditions within individual UN member countries. The right to make such a decision would rest with the UN Security Council.

What in fact, the world witnessed was a complete breach of the agreement NATO countries had reached with the UN Security Council. In the process a potentially valuable new tool in conflict resolution, the R2P, was abused and this with serious implication for its use in other conflict areas. In 2015, conditions in Libya confirm that the 2011 NATO intervention has led to a break up of the country that is reminiscent of conditions in Iraq after the invasion of 2003.

Six years later, the UN Security Council decided2 to apply this new concept R2P and response to the deteriorating civil rights conditions in Libya. On 11 March 2011, the Security Council passed resolution 1973 in order to enlist international support not for regime change but for the protection of Libya’s diverse civilian population. The NATO-led ‘Operation Unified Protector’ quickly revealed that the R2P intervention had more to do with regime change than with the protection of innocent people. The African Union (AU) and the Arab League, worried about this development, decided to become observers on the sidelines.

This is not the place to present details of the impact of externally induced regime change interventions. It is clear is that they have caused, and continue to cause, serious structural, physical and mental damages.

Following the assassination of Libya’s leader, Col. Muammar Qadhafi on 23 August 2011, the Arab League recognized two days later, the National Transitional Council as the new authority in Libya. Already in April 2011, the heads of government in France, the UK and the US, Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama, made it clear that the UNSC-authorised military intervention in Libya was interpreted by them as their right to remove the leadership in Tripolis. In a joint article3 the three leaders wrote: “(Qadhafi) has to go and go for good”. It was thus first and foremost about ‘regime change’ and not about a ‘humanitarian intervention’ to protect innocent civilians. Contrary to the provisions of the UNSC resolution 1973, and therefore illegal, there were foreign boots on the ground, there was an inflow of military hardware in support of opposition forces, the declared no-fly zone was full with military aircraft from NATO and Arab coalition partners and while Libyan bank accounts of government were frozen,

2 3

What conclusions must be drawn? They are as follows – (a) the main victims of regime change are invariably innocent civilians; (b) the replacement of authority through regime change brings with it serious social and cultural destruction; (c) regime change damages have inter-generational implications and side effects that take a long time to overcome; (d) regime change affects the international security architecture at the regional and global levels; (e) the creation of interest groups and alliances are promoted by regime change and introduce barriers for the promotion of peace with justice; (f) international law is marginalised by regime change; (g) regime change promotes irresponsible journalism, misuse of media and fraudulent manipulation of facts. “Peace with justice” rather than “conflict with injustice” can only prevail when regime change is replaced by negotiations, dialogue and mediation. Good examples are the current conflicts with Iran and within Yemen. What road map to chose is not difficult. What is difficult has to do with the willingness of political leaders to opt for peace rather than narrow conflict-promoting selfinterests. The past 8 years have produced 18 major reports on reforms of the international governance structure and

See UNSC resolution 1973 of 17 March 2011, adopted by 10 votes and five abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India and Russia). Published by the Times of London, the LeFigaro and the Washington Post; see the Guardian of April 2011

CRIMINALISE WAR JUNE 2015

“

No doubt, it will be a tough travel on the road towards ‘peace with justice’. Whether this is a travel to ‘utopia’ or not depends largely on us, the people.

are awaiting consideration by UN member countries. The United Nations is not a bureaucratic dinosaur that needs to be abolished. What needs to be abolished are (i) policies and political arm-twisting to maintain present power imbalances, (ii) the might-based military backed decision making and (iii) the right to impunity. There will be the reaction: this is all very well, we have heard this before but what we need to hear is the “how”! Part of the ‘how’ will be civil society’s significantly enhanced role in national and global politics. From the vinegar revolution in Brazil to occupation wall street in the US to blockupy in Germany and elsewhere in Europe to Gezi Park in Turkey, the Arab spring and the many other ’springs’, there are signs of people’s determination to challenge established politics for inclusiveness. Most of the conflicts around the world have their origin in western capitals and have to do with hubris and the perception that the world cannot do without western, or more correctly, US leadership.4 With unilateralism and US exceptionalism waning, it is good to remember that

the western world comprises about 12% of the global population. The ‘other’ 88% have given notice that they are ready to play their leadership roles in global and regional politics and the creation of a new geo-political architecture.5 For these reasons, there are noticeable shifts of international decision making: The change from a G-7 to a G20, BRICS6, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization SCO), the new Infrastructure Investment Bank initiated by China, to name only a few major ones. This contributes to another element in the ‘how’. A third, and major, element of the ‘how’ has to do with the ending of impunity in political decision making. It is linked to civil society wanting to ensure that good governance is based on accountability. No doubt, it will be a tough travel on the road towards ‘peace with justice’. Whether this is a travel to ‘utopia’ or not depends largely on us, the people.

Zbigniew Brezinski, formerly US President Carter’s national security advisor, writes in his book ‘Strategic Vision -- America and the Crisis of Global Power’: “a stable global power ultimately depends on America’s ability to renew itself…”. 5 See Kishore Mahbubani: The New Asian Hemisphere, The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East . 6 BRICS – the alliance of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

JUNE 2015 CRIMINALISE WAR