The briefing Mali: Preliminary findings of a four-week mission. Serious human rights abuses, issued in the run-up to the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force in Mali next month, is the result of a research mission carried out in May and June in the country.

“The Malian security forces’ human rights record since January is, simply, appalling. They continue to violate human rights with apparently no fear of being held accountable,” said Gaëtan Mootoo, Amnesty International researcher and member of this research mission.

During the visit, Amnesty International documented dozens of cases of detainees being tortured or ill-treated after being arrested for having alleged links with armed groups. The organization also documented more than 20 cases of extrajudicial-executions or enforced disappearances.

Mohamed Lemine and Mohamed Tidjani were arrested by the Malian security forces on 28 January this year, the day the French and Malian armies entered the city of Timbuktu.

Their bodies were found a few days later and a relative told Amnesty International: “Both wore the same clothes and shoes they had on the day of their arrest, Mohamed Lemine had a white boubou [robe] and black pants while his friend was wearing a boubou. We preferred not to displace the bodies and recovered the tomb with sand.”

Amnesty International’s delegates were able to speak to more than 80 of the 200 detainees held in the capital Bamako, most of them charged with acts of terrorism and other offences.

Many of them said they were tortured or ill-treated and some were reportedly denied medical treatment. A number of them had marks and scars of burnings and cuts – including on their backs, chests and ears.

At least five detainees died in the facility in April 2013, most of them apparently as a result of the appalling conditions of detention and lack of medical care.

When Amnesty International visited the detention center, several child soldiers, some as young as 13 years old, were being held with adults.

The authorities in Mali recognized that some human rights violations had been committed and said a number of cases were being investigated, but so far no one has been brought to justice.

“Ensuring that all those responsible for human rights abuses face justice will not be an easy task but it’s the key to a lasting stabilization and rebirth of a country torn apart for more than 18 months,” said Mootoo.

The organization is also concerned that French military, as well as West African (AFISMA) troops – including forces from Chad and Niger – handed over prisoners to the Malian authorities when they knew or should have known the detainees were at real risk of being tortured or ill-treated.

During the mission, Amnesty International’s delegates also collected testimonies of abductions and arbitrary killings committed by the armed opposition group Mouvement pour l’unicité du djihad en Afrique de l’ouest (MUJAO, Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa) against civilians accused of supporting the French and Malian armies.

Armed opposition groups, including MUJAO and the Tuareg Mouvement national de libération de l’Azawad (MNLA, National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad) were also accused of sexually abusing women and girls and using children to carry weapons, control checkpoints and cook. Some children were also sent to the front line.

“In the run up to the deployment of the UN Stabilization Mission in Mali, it is essential to ensure that the Malian army and any other armed forces respect and protect human rights so people living in the north of the country can be reassured they will be safe,” said Mootoo.

“The security situation remains fragile – and demands urgent actions,” Mr. Ban said as he briefed the Council.

Referred to as the Intervention Brigade, the proposed force will have the ability to conduct, with or without the Congolese national army, offensive operations against all armed groups that threaten peace in the eastern part of DRC – a region that is prone to cycles of violence and consequent humanitarian suffering.

It will be established within the UN Organization Stabilization Mission in DRC (MONUSCO) for an initial period of one year, as proposed by the Secretary-General in a special report submitted to the Council on the DRC and the Great Lakes region.

“This enforcement capacity, which was initially called for by the regional actors, seeks to address the imminent threats to stability and will provide the most appropriate response to the active conflict environment in which MONUSCO has been operating for several years,” Mr. Ban told the Council.

“The Intervention Brigade will be tasked with containing the expansion of both Congolese and foreign armed groups, neutralising these groups, and disarming them. This will provide much needed capacity to our peacekeeping operation.”

The establishment of the brigade is designed to further support the political objectives of the Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework for the DRC and the region – the peace deal signed last month in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

The UN will serve as a guarantor of the agreement, together with the African Union, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the International Conference on the Great Lakes region (ICGLR).

“All of us understand that signing the Framework is a beginning, not an end,” said Mr. Ban, who will soon appoint a special envoy, who, together with the concerned stakeholders, will support the implementation of the agreement.

Speaking to reporters after the meeting, the Secretary-General said the UN has done its utmost to broker an agreement that can finally break the horrendous cycles of violence. “The onus is now on the signatories to show strong, consistent and sustained leadership.”

Nearly a million people were displaced in the province of North Kivu during the clashes between the fighters from the rebel M23 group and the Congolese national army (FARDC) late last year, bringing the total number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in eastern DRC to 2.6 million.

While the fighting has stopped, insecurity prevails, and is growing in other areas of the DRC, Mr. Ban noted.

“Perhaps some would dismiss the recent unrest in the eastern DRC as yet another cycle of violence in a long-plagued region of the world; but we have it within our hands to break that cycle and shape something different,” he stated.

Also today, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) called for a further $70 million for its operations in 2013 to help thousands of displaced civilians in the Great Lakes region. The money is for people uprooted by conflict in North and South Kivu last year, as well as anticipated displacements this year.

In a unanimously adopted resolution, the 15-member body called on Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to provide, at once, military and security planners to the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the African Union (AU) and other partners to help frame a response to a request by Mali’s transitional authorities for such a force, and to report back within 45 days.

Upon receipt of the report, and acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Council said it was ready “to respond to the request of the Transitional authorities of Mali regarding an international military force assisting the Malian Armed Forces in recovering the occupied regions in the north of Mali.”

Chapter VII of the Charter allows the Council to use force in the face of a threat to peace or aggression, taking “such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security,” including blockades and other operations by the forces of Member States.

In August, the Council urged ECOWAS, in cooperation with the transitional authorities, the AU Commission and regional countries, to prepare detailed proposals for a stabilization force to restore the territorial integrity of the country.

Fighting between Malian Government forces and Tuareg rebels broke out in the country’s north in January. The instability and insecurity resulting from the renewed clashes, as well as the proliferation of armed groups in the region, drought and political instability in the wake of a military coup d’état in March, have driven 500,000 Malians from their homes, 270,000 of them to neighbouring countries.

In addition, Islamist militants currently control the country’s north and have imposed strict Sharia law, including amputation of limbs as punishment.

The Council called on Malian rebel groups to cut off all ties to terrorist organizations, notably Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and affiliated groups, and expressed its readiness to adopt targeted sanctions against those groups which do not do so.

It also urged the Transitional authorities, rebels and other legitimate representatives of the local population in the northern Mali to engage, as soon as possible, in credible negotiations to seek a sustainable political solution in conformity with the country’s unity, and demanded that all groups in the north cease all human rights violations such as attacks against civilians, sexual violence, recruitments of child soldiers and forced displacements.

Today’s Council resolution reiterated “grave concern” at the continuing deterioration of the security and humanitarian situation in the north of Mali, the increasing entrenchment of terrorist elements including AQIM, affiliated groups and other extremist groups, and its consequences for the countries of the Sahel and beyond.

In addition, it strongly condemned the abuses of human rights committed “by armed rebels, terrorist and other extremist groups, including violence against its civilians, notably women and children, killings, hostage-taking, pillaging, theft, destruction of cultural and religious sites and recruitment of child soldiers,” and stressed that some of these acts might amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Over the last few weeks we’ve been bombarded with “Responsibility to Protect” rhetoric; we’ve been reminded of the (U.S.) need to intervene in Syria to weaken Iran, as well as Hezbollah and Hamas; we’ve been told of all the positive effects a new Syrian regime would have for the region; we’ve been pointed out how useful regional countries (e.g. Turkey) would be in a potential intervention; how Russia would care, but not so much as to cause problems, and so on. It is as if everyone stopped thinking rationally and stopped weighing the costs and benefits. To be honest though, depending on one’s perspective of the situation, the costs and benefits could be entirely different. What would be the objective of an intervention, really? Would it be Iran? Would it be Hamas and Hezbollah? Would it be the Russian interests in the Middle East? Would it be the protection of the Syrian people under the “Responsibility to Protect” umbrella? Or is the “Responsibility to Protect” just the moral cover-up – and the ultimate immoral means – for the achievement of all previous, and more, objectives? I would vote for the latter. In any case, an intervention – if it were to take place – should be about the people. But the fact is that there is no scenario in which the Syrian people – or the region, for that matter – would benefit from an intervention. There are at least five main reasons for that, briefly presented below, which are linked to the simplifications put forward by the intervention advocates.

1. The perspective: Most analyses about Syria come from a U.S., or European, (“moral”) perspective. It is easy to say “intervene” when you live half a world away (or if you are Israeli). It is easy not just because of the long distance (U.S.) but because of the geopolitical opportunity as well (for the U.S., E.U., and Israel). The “Iran-Syria-Hezbollah” triangle, and their comrade, Hamas, have been bothering the West for quite some time. Further, the Syrian crisis emerged at a time when the “westerners” are having serious problems with Iran and its nuclear program. How does that have anything to do with the suffering of the Syrian people, and how does that entail a plan for a just post-intervention transition in Syria? It doesn’t.

2. The Russian factor: Syria has been compared to Kosovo and to how Russia, despite its criticism of the NATO bombings, did not react in 1999. However, the U.S. is not the superpower it used to be, and Russia is now over the post-Soviet/post-traumatic stress. Moreover, Syria is very important for the Russian interests in the Middle East; much more important than Libya was. Downplaying the Russian factor, is a crucial mistake; one that would eventually have real costs only for the people of Syria.

3. Turkey: There is a widespread misconception that Turkey wants to intervene in Syria or that it would be unconditionally supportive of a western intervention. But what about the Kurds and the PKK in particular? Are you not seeing the mounting violence within Turkey and the government’s efforts for a political solution? Don’t you think that if Turkey wanted to intervene in Syria it would have already done so? Yes, Turkey wants Assad to go, but it realizes the dangers that come with an intervention. What Turkey is concerned about right now is the settlement of the Syrian crisis without further destabilization and without an intervention – which would again lead to destabilization. If Turkey, along with other regional countries, were to intervene in Syria, it would have to be under certain conditions: Turkey would have to take the lead, it would have to somehow justify the intervention to Iran so as to avoid another confrontation, and Russia would have to back down, or at least adopt a neutral stance. These are no simple conditions. And again, they have nothing to do with the moral need of helping the Syrians.

4. The “history of intervention”: Assuming there were no problems at all; what “successful” case of intervention should the West keep in mind as it carries out its intervention in Syria? Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? Not to mention the Balkans. It is true that, for example, Saddam and Gaddafi are gone, while some argue that Iraq is now “a better place”. Need I remind you, though, that the “reconstruction” of Iraq was not the reason of the intervention in the first place? And is it so hard to see that Iraq is anything but a stable state? It is ridden by sectarian problems and the indirect control of external – mainly regional – powers. At least the Libyans called for an intervention, although the result is still a “new Iraq” in the making: secessionist movements, tribal fights, etc. It is time to realize that there is more to it than just toppling a dictator, which, again, is irrelevant to the real and long-term needs of the people, but rather relates to geopolitics and economics.

5. Operations: The final reason why there cannot be a military intervention, favorable for the Syrian people, regards the operational dimension of the debate. Indeed, the Free Syrian Army has no significant territory under its authority; its fight and man power is limited whereas the regime is still strong (unlike the case of Libya). The revolts have already spilled over into Lebanon which means that an intervention would not leave Hezbollah indifferent. Iran has already showed its support to the Syrian regime while it has been reported that arms are being transferred from Iran to the Syrian government through Iraq. The Russian interests have already been mentioned, let alone the reports for alleged Russian military assistance to the Assad regime. An intervention could easily initiate a large scale proxy, or even direct, war between all these actors. This would in no way benefit the Syrians or the countries of the region. The possibility alone of such a development should be enough for people to stop thinking of a military intervention in Syria.

Although no one outside Syria has the right to speak on behalf of the Syrians, it seems that an intervention would cause more harm than good. Because of what has been analyzed above, articles, as well as politicians, that advocate intervention in Syria, are rather dangerous. There is much more at stake here than just the western/U.S. interests in the Middle East, or the regional balance of power. The objective is the long-term well-being of the Syrian people. Again, unquestionably Assad must go. Preferably the infrastructure of the regime must go with him; but this is very difficult as the cases of Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, and even Libya, showed. There has to be a political/diplomatic solution which will result in regime change. Alternatively, if the Syrian revolt were to become a revolution, then, I humbly believe, the Syrians should be the ones to take the lead and be in control.

—

Zenonas Tziarras is a PhD Candidate in International Politics at the University of Warwick, UK, and a Junior Research Scholar at Strategy International. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of any organization.

Opposition to US involvement in Syria crosses party lines. Majorities of Republicans and Democrats say the US does not have a responsibility to get involved, and reject airstrikes or the shipment of arms to anti-government forces. Fully 62% oppose bombing the Syrian military and 63% are against sending arms and military supplies to those fighting the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Current views about possible US involvement in Syria are similar to opinions about the prospect of US military action in Libya last year, shortly before the U.S. and its allies launched air strikes in support of anti-government rebels.

A year ago, 63% said the US did not have a responsibility to do something about fighting in Libya; a nearly identical percentage (64%) now says the US does not have a responsibility to act in Syria. In the current survey, 68% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats say the US does not have a responsibility in this area.

Last year, prior to the allied military mission in Libya, 69% opposed arming anti-government rebels and 77% opposed bombing Libyan air defenses.

After the allies launched air strikes against Libya last year, there was modest public support for the military operation; 47% said the airstrikes were the right decision while 36% said they were the wrong decision. In September, even after the rebels took control of Tripoli and Gadhafi went into hiding, fewer than half (44%) said that the airstrikes were the right decision.