An arms resolution tentatively under way, and the chemical weapons assault on Syrian people weeks in the past, Features Columnist, Thea Osborne, asks if we the international community are looking away too early.
With the world’s media and governments focused on the controversy over the use of chemical weapons at the end of August it felt like there was little else to be discussed but Syria and that military intervention, particularly by the US, was inevitable. Yet, a month later, it seems that the international attention span has been reached and with a deal over the removal of chemical weapons agreed, the universal guilty conscience appears to have been appeased. Perhaps it is too complex or simply too depressing to try to understand what is happening on the ground, and to an extent it is undoubtedly both. As Ian Pannell from the BBC has noted; ‘arguments about chemical weapons don’t matter here, what does is just death itself’. Nevertheless it remains important to try to at least clarify the current situation and the real impact of the ongoing conflict.
As Bashar Al-Assad has observed, despite red lines and military threats, the West has clearly been too scared and scarred by Iraq and Afghanistan to support military intervention, and so as long as he agrees to allow UN inspectors to enter Syria and provides clear data about chemical weapons he may continue to carry out ‘conventional’ warfare as he wishes. This he has done with full force, killing 2,000 more Syrians through bombing and bullets since the chemical weapon attack on 21 August. Killing innocent civilians also appears to be fine, if done by certain internationally acceptable means. Many experts also suggest that as time passes, Assad is likely to simply stall the process, partly as a fingers-up to America and also to ensure he keeps some chemical weapons.
While many may be pleased with the apparent success for diplomacy and its by-products (such as bringing both Russia and Iran closer to America) there is little doubt that it has not done much to help those suffering on the ground other than to make them symbolic bargaining chips in an international political game. Since the start of the conflict approximately 110,000 people have died; recently a napalm-like attack was carried out on a school, teenagers were the primary target, with many severely burnt or killed. Most victims had more than 50 per cent burns, which leaves their chances of survival at less than half. It seems unlikely that these children or their bereaved parents would believe that an international community willing to work together with the current Syrian government, while it carries out these attacks, truly has their humanitarian interests at heart.
Syria’s neighbours, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, have begun to beg for help with the ever-increasing refugee crisis which has so far seen over two million Syrians flee into their countries. The UN refugee agency, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), has warned that the number of Syrian refugees could threaten the social and political cohesion of the entire region. If more international support is not provided for the nations playing host to fleeing Syrians there could be the increased horror of border closures and innocent Syrian citizens being left with nowhere to run to.
The willingness of Assad to allow the UN to destroy and seize chemical weapons is undoubtedly a good thing if it stops a repeat of the attack of the 21 August. But we must not blink too soon. The arms agreement must be kept in perspective, as we are working with only one of many tools he has to inflict death and destruction on Syria and its people.
Thea Osborne, Features Columnist
exeposedev 