R2P in the Gulf: Saudi Manipulation of the Humanitarian Intervention Norm

• In Event: Norms in International Security

Abstract

Since the Arab League’s 2011 support for the NATO-led effort culminating in regime change in Libya, the question has been raised: to what degree have Arab regimes adopted the 2005 Responsibility to Protect (R2P) humanitarian intervention norm? Particularly since 2003, there has been increased criticism of Western-led interventions proclaiming to save populations from violent conditions of authoritarian rule in the Arab world. Yet, little attention has been given to the ways in which Arab regimes have taken a leading role, as opposed to a joint international role, in overt military interventions since the uprisings in 2011. This article thus examines the Saudi-led Gulf Cooperation Council efforts in Bahrain (2011) and Yemen (2015-ongoing) as distinct cases of full-scale military interventions initiated and led by an authoritarian Arab regime. I argue that Saudi Arabia has selectively manipulated the humanitarian discourse of R2P to justify its unprecedented use of military force in order to stop democratic regime change in the Gulf. In doing so, I seek to shed light on how (1) the Responsibility to Protect norm has been used in the Arab world by Arab regimes rather than simply imposed from the outside on Arab regimes and (2) how this poses problems for the original intent of R2P, which is to prevent crimes against humanity and genocide by governments against their own people.
In contrast to the skepticism towards R2P generally ascribed to postcolonial and non-Western states fearful of any challenges to territorial sovereignty, Saudi Arabia has shifted and adapted its own iterations of sovereignty in the wake of international, regional, and domestic change since 2011. The cases of Bahrain and Yemen are selected based on the leading role of an Arab regime in these interventions, as opposed to Libya and Syria, which involved significant Western and Russian roles. Finally, these cases raise similar policy questions as the 2003 US-led intervention in Iraq: on the perils of well-intentioned international humanitarian norms that are subject to distortion by states to rationalize war.

Author

• Caroline Tynan, Temple University