I have one question, which arises out of Mr. Bailey's comments and his response to other questions.
In Libya the international community intervened when there was a threat of impending mass atrocity, through the UN Security Council and by invoking the “responsibility to protect” doctrine. With regard to Syria, even though there have been a series of recurring mass atrocities, with some 30,000 civilians in Syria already dead, the international community has not intervened—and we know why, in terms of the UN Security Council—and it has acted almost as if the R to P doctrine does not exist.
My question is this. As you put it, the Friends of Syria has effectively replaced the UN Security Council. What is stopping the Friends of Syria from invoking the R to P doctrine? It seems a threshold for that purpose has long ago been reached. Why can't they move for more protective initiatives in the form of safe havens, and even towards considering a no-fly zone, given the massive and indiscriminate aerial bombardment and the like? In other words, why is there not a more proactive position by the Friends of Syria invoking an R to P doctrine?