What could transpire from the Trump and Kim summit?

After a year of “Rocket Man” and “Dotard,” President Donald Trump and Chairman Kim-Jong-un have meet each other at a summit in June, in Singapore. It is the first time a sitting American President has met with a North Korean leader — President Clinton came close to visiting Pyongyang in 2000, but he declined in the end. 

This summit (or show) was an on-off and on-again affair, with a week before the planned summit, Trump cancelled it. After a rush of shuttle diplomacy between U.S and North Korean officials, both sides buried their differences for the good of international peace making. 

As expected, the summit came with lots of hype, but not much else. A vague joint statement was signed, but no plan to achieve any of the aims of what was discussed or verbally agreed — only just reaffirmed Kim’s intentions of denuclearisation and peace on the Korean peninsula.  On the other hand, Trump, the next day gave away a major concession of military pressure by cancelling future U.S-South Korea war games, stating financial reasons. Kim has seemed to have got the most out of the summit, by just meeting with a sitting American President — something his father or grandfather never achieved. In propaganda terms, this was a major coup for Kim and his regime. The days after the summit, the North Korean media was plasted with photos of the meeting and the handshake between the two leaders. The Kim regime had finally got want they wanted. So, what next? 

It has been over six weeks since the summit between the two leaders, but there has been no further progress in terms denuclearisation. President Trump has just been tweeting all sorts of self-gratitude on how he will rid North Korea of its nuclear weapons and bring peace to the Korean peninsula. As for Kim Jong-un, he has not publicly mentioned any further details about denuclearisation. Since the summit there has been another visit by the U.S Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, who was met with calls of “gangster-like mindset” by the North Korean officials. The Secretary of State did not even meet Kim, as planned, as he had on previous visits to Pyongyang.

                                                                     

Such an historical event ran the risk of failing to bring about an acceptable outcome for both sides. Even though Kim had told the South Koreans that he is willing to denuclearise if he was given security guarantees by America, there is no evidence or signals that he would hand over all of the weapons and allow access to international inspectors. Difference in definition of denuclearisation is another stumbling block to a peaceful resolution. North Korea view denuclearisation as a Korean peninsula free of all nuclear threats, where the U.S see the prism as North Korea must approach the issue as a Complete, Verifiable and Irreversible Dismantlement (CVID) of its nuclear programme.   

why would Kim do such a thing? North Korea has spent decades defying the international community, in light of increasing sanctions to build a nuclear and ballistic missile capability, which has become the regimes guarantor of survival. Perhaps the latest sanctions have finally impacted the North Korean economy to such a state that the Kim regime has decided to seek negotiations with America and the international community? The latest UN sanctions have almost placed a total import and export ban on most goods, although issues of implementation have allowed some illegal goods to enter and leave North Korea. 

As for America, are they in a position to offer a workable security guarantee, meaning that Kim feels safe that America will not try to attack North Korea or bring about regime change, as had happened to Colonel Gaddafi in Libya and Saddam Hussein in Iraq? The only meaningful guarantee would be the removal of American troops from South Korea (and possibly Japan); and a formal peace agreement, bringing the Korean war to an official end. The stumbling block would be the removal of American troops in the region.  

China would welcome news of a U.S troop withdrawal, but this would mean an American pivot away from the region and could lead to souring relations with South Korea and Japan, (and we can’t forget Taiwan). The U.S has been for over seven decades the security guarantor for both Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, offering a nuclear umbrella, but a deal with Kim Jong-un could dismantle these alliances. If this situation does occur, China will be in a much stronger position, why’ll America will be weaker. China will have free reign on their doorstep to become the sole regional power, dictating future geopolitics in East Asia. 

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.    

Russia is taking on the West again and is winning: but for what?

The situation in Ukraine has become a major concern for Europe, if not the rest of the world. Russia, after over 20 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union is flexing both its diplomatic and military muscle in a region which they view as their sphere of influence. The last few months has shown the international community and more specifically Europe and to some extent the United States, that Russia has reemerged from its post Cold War slumber and it means business.

President Putin must be under the view that with Russia’s control of oil and gas supplies too many European countries that he has them wrapped around his little finger, and he would be correct. Even with sanctions against members of his regime, Putin has not backed down taking on Europe and the US, and currently seems to be winning. The European Union is divided on taking further, more aggressive action because of oil and gas, and the only thing that is preventing a full invasion by Russian forces is NATO. Although Ukraine is not a member of the organisation, many surrounding states are, and NATO is indicating, even without officially stating, that they are willing to intervene, militarily if necessary. Since March this year NATO aircraft have been patrolling and monitoring close to the Ukraine Border, and member states have been conducting training exercises in the region, including 600 US paratroopers. 

The current state of affairs in Ukraine, are indicating, that Russia acknowledges that although Europe and the US are looking weak over the situation in the region, that openly deploying Russian troops into Ukraine  will only strengthen and encourage stronger action by the EU and NATO. President Putin is playing a smart game of warfare, by supplying and encouraging pro-Russian rebels, even sending troops without insignia on their uniforms to assist, claiming, "It's all nonsense, there are no special units, special forces or instructors there,". The rest of the worlds of course dismiss this claim, as the rebels are well armed and trained.

I do not understand why Russia and more importantly Putin is staying on course with its actions in Ukraine. Putin speaks of protecting Russian speaking Ukrainians, but would he be still staying on course if Europe and the US were taking a more aggressive approach? I would say no. Does Putin want an all out civil war in Ukraine? Because as it stands it looks like becoming one, unless Russia backs away or Europe and the US take more active action against Russia.  

What a Mess in Crimea

The situation between Ukraine and Russia is becoming messier day by day. Both sides seem to not want to back down on their positions on the future of Crimea, but are causes not to inflame into all out conflict, which would not benefit either country. The issues that have deepened the ongoing political divide has turned from Ukraine removing its former pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in February, to an almost invasion of Crimea, a sovereign area of Ukraine by Russian forces and more recently a referendum on the future of the Crimean peninsula.

The referendum held on Sunday was a convincing coup for Moscow with almost 98 percent of the 1.8 million eligible voters deciding to break away from Ukraine and rejoin the Russian Federation. The only problem now is that Ukraine and its western supporters have declaired the referendum and outcome as illegal and that the international community will not recognise a independent Crimea or reunification with Russia.

Since Sundays vote, the United States and the European Union have placed economic sanctions on a number of key politicians and other individuals from both the Ukraine and Russia, in a bid to punish and put pressure on Moscow. In a statment from the White House which stated, "Today's actions send a strong message to the Russian government that there are consequences for their actions that violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including their actions supporting the illegal referendum for Crimean separation.'' All is well that sanctions have been placed on some Russian politicians, but there effects on resolving the political and military stalemate I think will not succeed. Although some key members of Russian politics have been targeted, the major decision makers in Moscow including President Putin have not been punished. These sanction, I think are just a token gesture of support for Ukraine and a limited act in a changing global power shift. The US and it European allies have shown how powerless they are in resolving the situation in the Ukraine and Russia know that their actions will probably not face any major consequences.

As to date, the people of Crimea have decided that they want to be part of Russia, and Moscow supports this action. From the view of the international community, I think that they are not in a position to confront Russia or prevent Crimea from gaining its independence. At this stage, to much is at stack for many European states who have economic and political interests in Russia and would likely prevent any further action other then what is in place.

I think that the only way to resolve the current situation is for the international community and Ukraine to allow Crimea to break away from, as been decided by majority of the population. Although western government will need to booster support for Kiev in a bid to strengthen the economic and political relationship between Europe and Ukraine. Where for the best interest of Russia, they should take the vote on Sunday as a victory and remove all its military forces, as well as stop meddling in Ukraine's politics.

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.        

Will peace finally come through Israeli-Palestinian negotiations?

Finally, after almost three years of stalemate over resuming talks over the peace process in the Middle East,both Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have decided that over the next nine months both sides will aim for a “final status” agreement (a final plan to bring peace).

The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, who has been mediating with both sides over the last few months, said "the two sides have agreed that all the final status issues, core issues, are all on the table for negotiation.” The thorniest of these are overcoming the status of Jerusalem, where the Palestinians want the Eastern part of the city to become their new Capital under a two state solution, but Israel have long argued that they are unwilling to divide the city. Also, the problem of drawing up a border to accommodate a Palestinian state, and the issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank are major concerns for the negotiations. .As there are many core issues that will make the next nine months difficult for both sides to agree to a negotiated peace, but after decades of violence and mistrust, a final solution needs to be found.

I am no expert on the issue, but from what I have read and understood, there needs to be an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and if both Hamas and Fatah can agree to unite, the Gaza strip as well. Only two separate states will bring peace to the region, as history has shown there is too much animosity between both sides for them to co-exist in the same country.

As for the issue of Jerusalem, Israel will need to agree to a divided city, where by any new Palestinian state would have East Jerusalem as its capital and the rest staying a part of Israel. The Palestinians would probably not agree to any peace plan that does not involve their new capital been East Jerusalem, as two holy Islamic buildings, the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa mosque are located there.  

Another major problem will be the drawing up of a border of a new Palestinian state, and incorporated in this is the issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. I think to overcome this issue, two situation will need to happen, firstly, Israel will have to halt all new construction of settlements, and secondly, for both sides to agree to land swaps. This could be difficult for Israel, as many right-wing coalition members in the government and settlers are unwilling to budge from their stance on not leaving the settlements, but for any peace deal to aspire this will have to happen.

I hope for future peace and stability in the region that these negotiations will not end like the Oslo Accords, where instead of agreement, there was mistrust on both sides, leading to a failed deal and more violence. This time the issues need to be resolved, because if not, the problems faced by both Israeli’s and Palestinians will become even deeper.

For short summary of some of the core issues of the conflict mentioned in this post visit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11138790  

North Korea open for talks

Early last month I wrote a post on the escalating crisis on the Korean Peninsula,where North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un was destabilizing regional peace and security with rhetorical threats of invasion of the South and destruction of the United States presence in Asia. For more than a month, he was carrying out these threats by isolating the Communist regime further from the international community, by cutting communication links with the South and just being all out antagonistic towards the US and the rest of the world.

As I argued in my last post concerning the most recent crisis, these actions by the North Koreans is just another one in the line of many that have happened over the last few decades. Every time the Communist regime feels under pressure or scrutiny from the outside world, the leaders looked to release their own personal tension by defying calls for nuclear disarmament with testing of its nuclear capabilities. I cannot even count with all my fingers, how many times North Korea has gone down this path, with the status quo still intact.

So it seems my predictions were correct in the past few months. North Korea seems to be crumbling on the inside, as by one minute they are antagonizing the US and threatening the South, and the next minute, wanting to make peace. Small dog syndrome for attracting attention perhaps?  

Last week, the North Koreans, indicated that they are willing to reopen the Kaesong industrial park and reconnect communication lines with the South. To me, this indicates that the Communist regime and its leaders are in a desperate situation. On the one hand they feel threatened by the outside world and its capitalist ideology, but on the other their continuing self isolation is going to bring further hardship to its people, who surely are not going to sit back now and let the regime destroy their future. 

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.  

Will gun control ever be achieved in the U.S?

U.S. President Barak Obama gets emotion as he address the nation on the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting
(Image source: Wiki Commons, credit to: Lawrence Jackson) 

Since last December's mass shooting of 20 children and 6 adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary school in Connecticut, President Obama has been on a campaign to bring tougher laws into universal gun controls. 

The main obstacles to his plans have been a number of Republican Congressmen and women, and members of the National Rifle Association (NRA), who argue, that they will not support any legislation which contravenes their constitutional right to bear arms.

Obama’s plans are for universal background checks, a ban on automatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition cartridges. The problem that the President has is although 90 percent of the population support the need for tougher laws on gun controls, many Republicans in Congress, will only support universal background checks, as to prevent criminals and the mentally ill accessing a weapon. Republican Senators have come out this week and stated that they will try every political trick available, including filibusting the legislation, meaning it will need 60 percent approval rather then a simple majority vote.

I think, if 90 percent of Americans who have cherished the right to bear arms for over 300 years, but are now willing to compromise for the shake of preventing any more mass killings because of ideas of liberty, the U.S should not call itself a democracy. I do not understand the argument of the few who fear losing the right to bear arms, it is not like they will not be able to own a gun, all that Obama is proposing is for eliminating weapons that can kill many innocent men, women and children in one short moment.  

In Australia and other parts of the world, governments have legislated into law tough gun controls similar to the proposed ones in the US, which of course have not fully eliminated the use of guns in crimes, but have prevented mass killings on almost monthly bases as seen in the US. I hope in the end Obamas campaign, with the support of majority of the nation will be able to persuade the reluctant few to say yay on the floor of Congress.

North Korea is playing dangerous games

Over the last few weeks North Korea has been playing dangerous power politics with the international community, especially with South Korea (ROK) and the United States (US). Pyongyang has been releasing statements declaring renewed hostilities against the South. North Korea has back up their verbal rhetoric with a buildup of military forces along the border with South Korea and threats to strike at US military bases in the region.

In the past few days, North Korean authorities have further increased tensions with the South by closing the border to South Koreans who are working at the joint Kaesong industrial facilities just inside North Korean territory. About 50,000 North Korean workers and a few hundred South Koreans managers work at this facility, that was set up to foster better relations between the two nations, and to allow the manufacture of cheaper South Korean goods.

These incidents show the same old rhetorics and threats that seem to occur every time there are joint ROK-US military exercises and/or new sanctions placed on the regime, although on this occasion North Korea has stepped up its rhetoric by actively threatening to attack both the US and cross the border into the South. 

Pyongyang have declared a ‘state of war,’ by actively cutting of communications with the officials in the South and amassing troops on the border  the North would be unwise to further the tensions with South Korea and the US, an active conflict would not benefit both the regime and the people of North Korea. 

It seems to me that Kim Jong-un, who has only been in power for less than 15 months, is trying to show the rest of the world and his fellow countrymen  that North Korea are not threatened by the US and its allies and have the will and capability to defend its territory. 

I think that the actions of Kim Jong-un is just verbal rhetoric, even a protest against new sanctions placed on the regime after last year's Nuclear tests and the annual joint military exercise just taken place on their doorstep. It's another case of North Korea barking louder, but a bite is unlikely.

The Iraq War was a waste of money and lives

This week a final report was released by the United States (US) inspector general for Iraq reconstruction concluding that the billions spent on trying to reconstruct Iraq after the 2003 invasion by the US and its allies was a waste of money and did not achieve much.

The eight years of occupation cost the US over $800 billion dollars in stationing hundreds of thousands of troops and reconstructing Iraq. On top of the economic expenditure, around 5000 American troops died, along with thousands more of Iraqis casualties.

The study was carried out as an audit on the overall expenditure by the US in this conflict over the eight years. The finding of the audit concluded that billions of dollars were wasted to corruption in both Iraq and the US and insufficient security, the money provided to rebuild Iraq was misused and did not accomplish the aim of improving the situation in Iraq.

The Iraq war had been a failure from the beginning for both American foreign policy and the future stability of Iraq and the entire region. Up until the invasion in early 2003, Saddam managed to stabilize Iraq and kept control of any ethnic or religious tensions, even if he had committed crimes against human rights. I agree that Saddam needed to be ousted from power, but I think it was an incorrect policy decision and strategy to firstly invade Iraq at a time were resources were required in Afghanistan and to remove all authority from power, including the dismissal of the police and military. 

The argument set by Bush and his administration, that Saddam and Iraq were linked to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks was a misjudgement  The chemical and biological weapons that the US and other nations argued that Iraq possessed and were going to use to  attack its neighbours further were lies. All that seems to have been achieved by the war and the occupation was to fuel religious and ethnic tensions and further destabilize Iraq and the whole region.

Let’s hope this report on the cost of the war and reconstruction, along with the other inquiries conducted by the US and its allies will offer lesions for the reconstruction of Afghanistan and any other future decisions will assist governments to make better decisions in the future.                  

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.