The International Community Still Failing to Protect After Srebrenica

There was slight justice and humanity on the 22nd of November 2017, when Ratko Mladić was sentenced to life in prison by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). If you are not sure who Mladić is, he was the Chief of Staff of the Bosnian Serb forces during the time of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were killed by Bosnian Serb troops, and the four year siege of the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo.

Mladić was indicted by the ICTY in 1996, but was only captured in 2011 and transferred to the Hague. After a long four year trial, he was found guilty of 10 out of 11 charges, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Along with the conviction of the former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadžić in 2016, who was sentenced to 40 years imprisonment, some form of justice for the victims families and the Bosnian nation has been found. It has been over 20 years since the Srebrenica massacre and the siege of Sarajevo, but these two verdicts placed on two of the most senior figures in the genocide will be welcomed, but the underlying effect of preventing future or halting present acts of genocide and crimes against humanity still seem beyond the international community.

The atrocities committed by all sides during the wars in the former Yugoslavia, along with the Rwandan genocide, just to mention a few, are still felt today, with genocide and crimes against humanity still occurring in the 21st century. In the years preceding the Bosnian war and the Rwandan genocide, the international community declared “never again.” Over two decades since these atrocities, genocide and crimes against humanity are still been committed in Syria, Myanmar and in many other countries.

Myanmar as a point in case, where thousands of Rohingya Muslims have been killed and hundreds of thousands fleeing to escape the bloody hands of the Myanmar military. The situation in Myanmar has been occurring for decades, with the international community basically sitting on its hands, unwilling to intervene and stop the ongoing ethnic cleansing. A fear that too much pressure on the Myanmar military or civilian government led by Aung San Suu Kyi, would be counter productive in democratising a former military ruled country. But allowing the military to conduct indiscriminate attacks on Rohingya Muslims may also be counter productive in bring peace and human rights to a country which has suffered decades of violence and abuse in the hands of the military.   

As for Syria, the ongoing conflict over the past six years has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, with millions fleeing the violence, and a nation in ruin. This civil conflict could have possibly been prevented from escalating, if not for a lack of consensus and individual national interests of major international and regional powers. All sides to the conflict have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, though Bashar Al Assad’s forces have committed some of the most horrific  atrocities, when deploying chemical weapons on his own people. It will be seen if Assad and others are ever brought to trial in the Hague. Somehow this seems unlikely.   

Holding perpetrators to account decades after such atrocities brings a sense of justice for the victims families and humanity in general, but there needs to be more emphases in finding greater political will and consensus, especially at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), to prevent and to intervene in cases of occurring genocide and other acts of atrocities.

U.S strikes against Assad's forces have only complicated the Syrian conflict

The unilateral strikes by the United States on a Syrian air base have only further complicated an already messy conflict, rather than offer any strategic outcome on the ground in Syria or chance for peace.   

                                               

The decision to take this course of action seemed to be based on domestic consideration — perhaps also  to show Russia and even China — that President Trump is willing to use unilateral action when required, and for America's national interests. It may have been a coincidence that China's President Xi Jinping was on a visit to America, at the same time as the strikes were occurring, but I thing this was not the case. I think Trump used the strikes against Assad's forces as a pretext to outline to President Xi, that America could take similar action against North Korea, if China does not begin resolving the nuclear arms issue. This is in light of Trumps earlier warning for China and North Korea.

Perhaps even domestic issue played into Trump's calculations. Conducting a military operation against Assad's forces  have turned focus away from Trumps decreasing popularity and Russia's links to the Trump campaign. Media attention have been on the administration's foreign policy, rather then Trump's problems at home.      


Since Tuesday’s chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun, the U.S and other western countries have blamed Assad’s forces where’s Russia had argued that Syrian jets had hit a rebel controlled chemical weapons facility located in the town. As we know, getting any viable facts out of Syria is extremely difficult, with all sides posting misinformation. Due to this lack of viable facts or information, an independent investigation should have been concluded before Trump ordered unilateral strikes on a Syrian airbase.

The strikes against Assad’s forces will not change the situation on the ground or Assad’s overall aims. As there is no independent evidence of the true perpetrator(s) of Tuesday’s chemical attack, Assad will unlikely change tact and halt his forces from continuing their combat operations against opposition forces. This action by the U.S could just embolden Assad to step up conventional attacks on rebel and civilian positions. As the former British ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, has said, Assad has no military advantage from using chemical weapons, and that we can not rule out that the attack was staged by opposition forces. Until we have clear independent proof of who conducted the chemical attack, we can not accuse the Assad regime or opposition forces.

Trumps decision to order the strikes could well further strain relations with Russia, and drag America and it’s allies deeper into the conflict. The Russian President, Putin, and other officials have condemned the unilateral strikes. They have so far refrained from offering any plans for retaliation, which is understandable, as they will not want to escalate the situation further.

The question now is what happens next? The likely answer will be no major change on the ground in the short term, though in the long term, this unilateral action could well damage future peace efforts, and any cooperation between the U.S and Russia. The only way that this strike will have any purpose is if America changes policy toward Assad and militarily and politically begin regime change in Syria. This seems unlikely as there is no wider support within America or it's western allies. 

As for Assad, he could reconsider his regime position concerning peace talks with opposition groups. He may decide not to participate in future talks, especially if Russia and Iran steadfastly remain in support, which will likely be the case. Russia and Iran could well increase its military and/or economic support.    

Another Failed Ceasefire in Syria

It seems that another ceasefire in Syria is crumbling even before it could get off the ground.

At the start of the cessation of hostilities on the 12th August, hopes that this attempt at peace, even just for a short period could at least last for the seven days, as was its intention, but this has not been the case. In the last few days, tragic incidents of violations by all parties to the conflict has meant that the ceasefire has failed in its stated goals. The most recent violation – been the targeting of aid convoys on their way to delivering urgent supplies to civilians in Aleppo – has all but destroyed any chance of a ceasefire renewal.  

The aim of months of negotiations between the United States and Russia, was for a cessation of hostilities between Syrian armed forces and opposition groups – excluding so called Islamic-State and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham – for seven days. As part of the agreement, humanitarian aid was to  be allowed to be sent to ease the suffering of civilians in the besieged city of Aleppo, and other areas of Syria. If the violence ceased for seven days, and there was access for humanitarian aid, both the U.S and Russia agreed to coordinate joint strikes against ISIS and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham.

When the agreement was announced, I was a little sceptical on the purpose of such a narrow and limited negotiated terms. Firstly, there seemed to be no plan for what would happen after the seven days, even if they were successful in their stated goals. I would assume that the U.S and Russia may both honour their agreed joint cooperation in targeting ISIS and other extremist groups – but what about Assad's siege of Aleppo – and his forces deliberately targeting civilians? Secondly, let's say humanitarian aid was sent to Aleppo, and other parts of Syria – but how long would lets say 20-30 trucks of food, water and medical supplies last – especially as Assad’s forces begin bombing again?  

As safe passage of humanitarian aid has not occurred and there has been violations of the ceasefire, the conflict looks likely to intensify over the next few days. I don’t think that the ceasefire will be renewed by either Assad or any of the opposition groups, especially as all sides have put blame on each other for its failure.

 

All that has seemed to occurred, is that mistrust between the U.S and Russia has deepened, especially since U.S-led forces accidentally bombed and killed 62 Syrian soldiers on Friday. This agreement was the first time in this conflict that both countries were planning to cooperate in joint action against jihadist groups in Syria. Although it would not resolve the main issue of ending the fighting between Assad and opposition parties, but at least it was a first step, that could lead to negotiations on the future governance of Syria.

Also, what the last week has signalled, is that  both these countries may not have as much influence over their respective groups they support, as we once thought. Russia has been unable to persuade Assad to allow access for humanitarian aid, a major point in the agreement. And as for the U.S, trying to make the more moderate opposition groups distance themselves from jihadist, seems difficult.

The question now is how can a new path towards peace be found in a conflict with so many complexities? The recent failed attempt towards peace, has only antagonised more mistrust between the U.S and Russia, and this will affect any future negotiations. What is required now is for both countries to renegotiate a new plan towards cooperation to jointly fight ISIS and other Jihadist groups, without unrealistic conditions. If U.S and Russian forces can fight together against ISIS – at least one element of the conflict could be resolved – perhaps leading towards a political solution in Syria. The main problem or sticking point in the conflict has been the jihadist fighters amongst more moderate groups, which has become a major concern for a lack of peace. Perhaps if extremist forces could be defeated or weakened, Assad might be willing, with persuasion from Russia, to reconsider his role in the future governance of Syria.   

More Global Cooperation Required to Fight ISIS and Bring Peace to Syria

On  24th November, a Russian Su-24 jet fighter was shot down by the Turkish military on the border between Turkey and Syria. This is the first time a Russian military aircraft has been in an incident over the skies of Syria, since began its operations in support of Syrian government forces, against Islamic State and other rebel groups in September.

This shooting down of a Russian fighter jet by a NATO member has shown the risks that a lack of cooperation between all actors, either state or non-state has in the theatre of war. It was inevitable that this sort of incident would occur, when you have so many parties involved in the fight in Syria. Apart from the United States led coalition and Russia deploying military resources in Syria, there are also the Syrian government, ISIS and many other rebel groups fighting for their own interests. It seems that all these different actors have their own agenda for fighting and in some cases targeting groups with similar interests.

The civil war in Syria is in its fourth year and many other actors have been drawn into to conflict since it began in 2011. The most divisive has been the so called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), who have occupied large territory in both Iraq and Syria. ISIS seems to be fighting on a number of fronts and against a number of actors or states. They have declared war against anyone who does not support their extremists’ views and have committed many atrocities in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Paris and many more places.

The dimensions of the Syrian civil war have changed over the past few years, with an increased focus in defeating ISIS, and even more so since the latest attacks in Paris, Beirut and the Sinai Peninsula. Since these recent terrorist attacks, member states of the United Nations Security Council have voted to call for the international community to use "all necessary measures" to fight ISIS. Russia has also since September this year in support of the Syrian government started targeting ISIS and on many other occasions attacked other rebel positions. Also, since the 13^th November terrorist attacks in Paris, French has sent an aircraft carrier to the region, doubling their efforts against ISIS. In the United Kingdom, there is a debate on if RAF jets should begin participating in targeting ISIS in not just Iraq, but also Syria. Speculation is that the UK will have to get involved, although some politicians and commentators are still sceptical of this action. 

With so many different groups and countries involved in the Syrian civil war, the issue of how to end the conflict and defeat ISIS and other extremists is becoming more urgent, but also difficult, as the years and months go by. There have been opportunities for the international community to step in and halt the conflict, but concrete action has failed every time. The United States and its western allies, who support the moderate Syrian rebels, want Bashar al-Assad to step down, and for a transitional government to take over, but Russia disagrees with this plan, as they view Assad’s government as the only group to keep stability and order in Syria. Also, Russia has other more economic and strategic interests in maintaining support for Assad.

The options that I think will need to happen to bring peace and stability to Syria, is, first a global effort that includes Russia and Iran to work as a coalition of nations to combat the threat of ISIS around the world. Second, for renewed efforts from all actors involved in the Syrian conflict to find a peaceful resolution. All that ISIS are doing is using the political vacuum left because of the Syrian civil war to create a so called caliphate in the middle East and attack its enemies.

To prevent further incidents like the one on Tuesday there needs to be a better understanding and cooperation between NATO members and Russia. Having two separate operations to combat ISIS will not be effective and may lead to further cases of shooting down of each other’s aircraft. The issue is that the western coalition does not agree with Russia’s support of Assad, which is undermining efforts to bring peace to Syria. So until there is more cooperation between all sides, defeating ISIS and bringing peace to Syria may be a lot harder to achieve.       

Changing Dimensions of the Syrian Conflict

The conflict in Syria is over four years old, with no signs of an end in the increasing violence and death toll.

The continuing conflict has forced millions of people to seek protection in other countries. As Europe has witnessed large amounts refugees from Syria, bringing to the realisation that it is not just a regional concern but also an international one. As I have written about in earlier posts, the international community has not effectively found a solution to ending the conflict. The United Nations Security Council has been divided, with Russia and China vetoing four key resolutions aimed at putting pressure on the Syrian government to put an end to the violence and negotiate peace.

Now we have a situation where the Assad regime has managed with the support of Russia to keep control of much of the strategic areas of Syria, including the major coastal towns and cities. Reports over the last few weeks have speculated increasing assistance to the Assad regime by Russia, as a number of jets, hundreds of personnel and other military equipment have been sent to an airbase in Latakia. The Russian's have claimed that these forces are not intended to support Assad's forces, and even the U.S Secretary of State John Kerry stated that this increase  is just for protection of Russian forces already in Syria, although Kerry was concern of future intentions of an increasing Russian military presence in Syria. This concern by America seems more of a risk that the U.S led coalition and Russian forces could accidentally come into conflict, rather than issue of Russian troops and equipment present in Syria. This renewed military buildup by Russia comes at a time when the U.S and its allies step up their own campaign not against the Assad regime, but Isis, who have been gaining a foothold in the continuing violence and instability.

The conflict in Syria has changed the dimensions of the international community’s response, with focus turning to combating extremist forces within Syria, rather than trying to remove Assad or finding a solution to ending the conflict. This war against Isis has become the key strategy of the international community with increasing emphasis by the U.S and other countries including Australia and the UK. In respect to Australia, in the last few weeks Royal Australian Air force jets have begun bombing Isis forces in not just Iraq, but also Syria. The UK on the other hand limited its role to just fighting Isis in Iraq, but there is speculation that in the next couple of months Parliament could decide to authorise airstrikes within Syria. It’s all well and good that the international community is fighting against extremists groups like Isis, but this is only one actor in the conflict, there needs to be a refocus towards  either renewing pressure on Assad to step down or working with the Assad regime to finding a solution to bring peace to the people of Syria.    

The case of Syria is now proving that if conflicts of such a nature are not solved early, even though from the beginning this war had many dimensions from multiple actors internally and externally, there should have been a larger emphasis for the root causes of the spread from protest to all out civil war. These causes in my mind was Assad and his regime. The sad thing with Syria, was that Russia has been a longtime supporter of Assad and his regime, meaning that the UNSC were unable to influence the Russians to support the stance of majority of the international community towards placing pressure on Assad. Even China's long term policy of non-intervention played a key role in its decision not to agree with the resolutions tabled by the west.

So the outcome at present is that we have an outside extremist group in ISIS which stems from the occupation of U.S led forces and conflict Iraq, increasing its hold on large parts of both Syria and Iraq. The extreme  views and violent tactics of ISIS have become more of a concern to the international community, leading many countries to be dragged into a U.S led coalition to fight extremism from the air. This conflict in Syria and the instability in Iraq has spread from a mostly regional issue to an international concern. Europe at present is witnessing the fallout of such a spread of violent conflicts, with hundreds of thousands of refugees from Syria fleeing to the continent.

In the last week or so, many world leaders or senior foreign advisers have come out and stated that for any future peace in Syria, will require the international community to negotiate with Assad. The possibility of a transitional government with Assad as part of it has been considered for any future peace in Syria. I think in the reality of the present situation in Syria, dropping the opposition to Assad by much of the international community would be wise for future peace and stability. Assad seems to be in a strong position, especially with Russian forces inside Syria, and he has shown that although the west are against him, he still has enough allies in Russia and Iran to hold on to power. It’s hard to predict in what capacity Assad would contain in any future transitional government. Course you would think that Russia and Iran would want Assad and this regime to contain much of the control and decision making positions. On the other hand, the true Syrian opposition forces and the west would want Assad and his government to maintain a limited position. Thus, any future negotiations would require a delicate balance, which would legitamise the concerns of the majority Sunni population, as well protect the many minority groups, including the Alawite’s. The next few months will be decisive on how the Syrian’s achieve with assistance from the international community a path of long term peace and stability.  

Europe's Refugee Crisis Needs More Cooperation

Over the last couple of month hundreds of thousands of refugees have been travelling to Europe seeking somewhere safe to escape war revenged countries or persecution. Most of the recent arrivals are from Syria, but also from Afghanistan, Iraq and Africa.       

Europe at the present and will do for the foreseeable future be dealing with a tragic refugee issue, with predictions that hundreds of thousands more will travel seeking refuge. Europe is facing a humanitarian crisis which seems to have brought division within the European Union (EU), on a how to cooperate on finding a solution. Germany and Sweden were the first member states to open their doors, allowing in tens of thousands, and in Germany’s case hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees. Many other countries including French, Austria and now the United Kingdom have offered to take in a limited amount of refugees over the next few years.

   

In the case of the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron announced that 20,000 Syrian refugees over the next five years can come to the UK. The catch is that they will only come from the refugee camps in the countries neighbouring Syria, not the ones already in Europe. I agree with this policy of only taking in Syrians that have not made the dangerous journey and in some cases paid people smugglers to come across to Europe. Though the amount of Syrians allowed in is pitiful seeing that there are millions in need of help. The reason why I agree is because we need to put a halt to the smugglers trade, who are just praying on vulnerable people and are just interested in the quick cash rather than helping refugees. It seems the best way of doing this is to stop the need for people to pay to travel to Europe or other regions. As such, there needs to be a global effort from all countries to assist and cooperate to take in as many legitimate refugees as possible, so to prevent refugees from making the perilous journeys in hope of seek protection.  

  

    

Although, I agree with the UK government stance, the issue of what to do with the hundreds of thousands of refugee’s already in Europe requires cooperation from all EU member states, not just the few. Although there is a Common European Asylum System placing some rules on member states, each country has its own national policies which determines if or how many refugees/asylum seekers they will take in. Because of the debating and shrugging off responsibility, the crisis has got out of hand and we have witnessed a scramble by many European governments to relive the pressure on Hungry, Italy and Greece. The German policy of allowing large amounts of refugees to enter via the Balkan states and Hungry, although a moral cause, is not the answer to resolving the long term situation and sends the wrong message to other refugees. What will happen now is tens, if not hundreds of thousands more refugees will risk the dangers and come to Europe under the understanding that they can seek protection. But how many are the people of Germany and the government willing to help?

   

Although I am critical of Germany’s policy, I do find the desperate situation of many men, women and children distressing, but I do disagree with how the issue has been dealt with by many governments and the general public. It’s sad that governments and society in general let the situation get to this stage, where thousands already this year have died trying to come to Europe in desperation, leaving their homes to escape violence and persecution. When the first load of refugees arrived by boats on the shores of Italy and Greece earlier this year and when large numbers began crossing through the Balkans, the EU member states should have debated less and taken more urgent action. The conflict in Syria for example has been going on for over four years, with millions of people living in underfunded United Nations refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. I think that all the EU member states should have taken responsibility and offered to take in a share of the refugees living in camps around Syria, so that this dangerous mass migration that both the refugees and Europe are facing would not be at such a desperate stage. But as there are still hundreds of thousands of refugees in Hungry or still travelling via Italy, Greece and the Balkans, all EU member states now need to cooperate at a EU level to share the burden and taking in extra refugees. But also member states need to form a workable consensus to persuade refugees in camps along the Syrian borders to prevent them from making the perilous journey.    

The Agreement over Iran’s Nuclear Program is a Good Place to Start

Last week Iran signed a deal with the international community, which will see them halt some of their nuclear program for six months, in return for over $7 billion of sanction relief. The plan is that this short term agreement will lead to a more permanent deal over Iran’s nuclear program. For more then three years, western powers have placed sanction on Iran, as they suspected that the program was for building nuclear grade weapons and not for peaceful means, as been stated by Iran’s officials. 

This deal, although not perfect has allowed for a more open dialogue in a long standing stalemate between Iran and the international community. The agreement also will allow more inspections on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) during this six month period. Hopefully if Iran does keep its word, which I think they will, the country and its people will benefit greatly from increased investment and status in the world.

Since the signing of the agreement last week, many politicians in both Israel and the United States have been skeptical of such a deal, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said, “Today the world has become a much more dangerous place, because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world.” And US Republicans and some Democrats are concerned that the deal has not remove Iran’s nuclear capacity.

I understand the concerns of what has been labeled a soft agreement by many, but in reality, the deal is better then further stalemate. In the end, nothing would be able to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability, other then military force, which in light of the current situation in Syria and other parts of the region, a military option would be unwise. Even President Obama seemed reluctant to go down that path. So a deal although soft in content, will hopefully lead to more future transparency by Iran on the issue of their nuclear program, and with such a big step for the conservative Clerics to agree to this deal in the first place, the signs seem good for a more permanent deal that will satisfy both Iran’s ambitions and the international communities concerns. And you never know this may bring better relations between the US and Iran.  

The Workings of the United Nations System

The United Nations System (UN) was founded in 1945 in the aftermath of two world wars, and was the brainchild of the three victories nations of WW2,  the US, UK and Soviet Union (Russia), aimed at saving future generations from the scourges of war. The objectives of the newly formed organisation of states are to protect international peace and security by preventing the need for war, through a notion of cooperation and collective security. To achieve these objectives, the UN has two main organs (institutions), the United Nations Security council (UNSC) and the General Assembly (GA), along with a number of departments and agencies that deal with a range of issues from human rights to providing aid and development across the globe. The GA is in a way a world parliament, with almost all nations represented. Each member state has one vote, with a two-thirds majority required for any decisions on key issues such as admission of new members and UN budgets. Also decisions are non-binding.

The UNSC on the other hand does bind all member states to any decisions made by the council, and is the main organ given the powers to achieve the objectives of international peace and security. The UNSC is made up of 15 member states of which 5 are permanent, known as the P-5 (US, UK, French, Russia and China) and 10 non-permanent members who serve for two year terms. The UNSC is the main decision making body in the UN and has the role of deciding if the international community will intervene in certain conflicts by either adopting sanctions or deploying peacekeepers. For any resolution to be adopted requires 9 council members agreeing, although the P-5 can veto any decisions made in the council.

Finally there is the Secretary-General (SG) who is elected by the General Assembly on the advice from the Security Council. Their main role is mostly as the chief administrator of the organisation, although the charter does give the power of the SG  to bring to the attention of the UNSC of any issue that he or she thinks is of concern relating to international peace and security. The SG and his office also play the role of chief diplomat promoting international peace and security.        

The international community need to intervene in Syria

When will the international community finally step in and actively halt the civil war in Syria? It has been over two years, since opposition forces began their campaign against the Bashar al-Assad regime with no end in sight. The United Nations estimate that almost 100,000 people have been killed and many more been injured.

In the last few days the UN refugee chief, Antonio Guterres, has reported that the conflict in Syria has become the worst refugee crises facing the world since the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Guterres estimates that over 6000 Syrians are fleeing the conflict every day, with Turkey, Jordan and Iraq being the main destinations. On top of this figure, the UN further estimates that over 6 million people are in need of aid supplies.

This report from the UN is quite disturbing, seeing that I would have thought, and I assume others would as well, that the international community would have learnt its lesson after the Rwandan genocide, but this does not seem the case.

I think that with all the recent reports over the last few months, of chemical weapons been deployed by both sides, that’s if the information is correct, and now with the ever increasing death toll and refugee crises, outside intervention may need to be examined even further.  The small amount of light military and other supplies to the opposition forces by the United States and European nations does not seem to be giving an advantage to the rebels, especially since government troops are being supplied with heavier weaponry from Russia.

The best option to end this conflict is through peace talks, but this has failed in the past and is unlikely to happen in the near future. Both sides seem content on fighting to the death and innocent civilians are becoming by-standers suffering the most. The only option that I can see to bringing peace is for more concerted effort by the outside world to actively intervene. To achieve this option would be for a meeting to take place between the all five permanent UN Security Council members and other nations from the region to discuss and hopefully come to a better solution to ending the conflict, then what has been proposed in the past.

The report by the UN on the scale of the violence and instability caused to millions of Syrians will I hope motivate more concerted action by the international community, before more innocent lives are lost. 

The crisis in Syria is slowly becoming a regional conflict

A couple of months ago I wrote a post on the deteriorating civil war that has been taking place in Syria for almost two years. I discussed the lack of action by the international community in bringing in a resolution to the conflict and since then, the situation in  Syria and the region in general have not been getting any better, and the issue of the many differences between all sides in the conflict have not being resolved.
Unfortunately in the last few months since my last post on this issue, there has been more civilian deaths (over 80, 000) and President Assad tightening his grip on power.

In the last few weeks the conflict has further escalated internally with suspicion that the Assad regime has been using chemical weapons against his own people, although this has not been confirmed. The US and the UK intelligence agencies have stated that there is unconfirmed evidence that civilians have been attacked using nerve gas, but this has not led to further action by either country to remove Assad. Externally, the surrounding regions are slowly being sucked into the conflict, either on purpose or because they share a common border with Syria. On 11th of May for example, Turkey suffered a spate of bomb attacks in a town close to the border with Syria, for which the Turkish authorities blamed on the Assad regime. Also, only in the last days, Israeli defence forces have retaliated to gunfire from Syrian Army units in the Golan Heights. This incident comes in conjunction with Israeli air strikes on a  convoy, suspected of sending weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

From these events over the last few months, as the conflict in Syria gets worse, peace does not seem a likely outcome any moment soon. The international community keeps arguing that their hands are tied due to differences in how to solve the problems, and most nations are unwilling to risk a military intervention at this point.

The world needs to realise that the conflict is not just an internal affair any more, as the last few weeks have shown, Turkey, Israel and other countries in the region have been caught up in the politics of the civil war, and have at this stage refrained from escalating the situation, although, this could change if they are further provoked by the Assad regime and could turn into a regional war, if not resolved soon.  

The Syrian crises no closer to a solution

The crisis in Syria has taken another turn, with the United States (US) new Secretary of State John Kerry announcing that America, along with other nations are planning to give further aid to the more moderate faction of the opposition rebels to help them overcome President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Kerry has stated that no weaponry will be given to Syrian rebels, in fear that they may end up in the hands of the extremists, instead armoured vehicles and training could be provided.

As a meeting in Paris is about to take place between Syrian opposition representatives and the international community to discuss giving further aid to the rebels, the fighting does not seem any closer to ending, in a conflict where about 70,000 people have been killed.

Increasing humanitarian aid and providing limited military material to a divided opposition with many different interests is all well for the present situation on the ground in Syria, but long term strategies are needed to prevent further deaths and regional instability. The body armour, vehicles and training been reported to be included in the assistance package could assist in saving the lives of the rebel fighters from attacks on the ground, but would not help them from strikes from the air.

Although I do agree that weapons should not be provided to the rebels, I do however think air cover, in the name of a no-fly zone, similar to the one put in place over Libya by British and French fighter jets, should be provided by the international community. Half the battle would be won, if rebel forces did not have to worry about being attacked from the air, and a no-fly zone could pressure either Assad to back down and negotiating with the opposition coalition or bringing the conflict to a quick military ending.

I acknowledge the fact that Russia as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) supports the Assad regime and have vetoed past efforts to install a no-fly zone and for foreign military intervention in Syria, arguing that outside military interference will not solve the conflict, but instead inflame the already volatile situation. However, I disagree with Russia’s argument, as over the last 18 months or so, rebel groups have not got any closer to ousting Assad and peaceful negotiations have failed after many attempts. Although the reasons for Russia’s support stem from them having a naval base in Syria, more effort by the international community to persuade Russia to support a no-fly zone over Syria and to pressure Assad to negotiate with opposition forces should be a major priority.