Does World's Responsibility to Protect Civilians Justify a Syria Strike?

Anti-war protesters gather on College Green outside the Houses of Parliament on Aug. 29, in London, England. Lawmakers there voted against plans for a UK military response to chemical weapons attack in Syria. (Dan Kitwood/AFP/Getty Images)

globalpost.com - by Benjamin Shingler - August 30, 2013

The architects of the UN's 'Responsibility to Protect' doctrine say it gives countries a mandate to attack Syria in order to stop mass atrocities.

MONTREAL, Quebec — As US President Barack Obama pushes to muster foreign support before dropping bombs on war-ravaged Syria, options for a broad international coalition are shrinking.

Joining naysayers Britain and Germany, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Thursday Canada won’t take part in military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces, even if Western powers blame them for the Aug. 21 deadly chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb.

France is the only remaining ally, as of Friday morning, on board for a strike.

Yet prominent Canadian diplomats who helped make the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) a United Nations doctrine say getting more countries on board could give a US military operation in Syria a greater sense of legitimacy.

(READ COMPLETE ARTICLE)