Foreign Aid: Saving The World Or Forgetting England?

Naomi Poltier discusses the state of Britain’s economy, and whether providing foreign aid is a positive move.

Last year I remember busking in the streets of Exeter for one of the university’s campaign groups, when an old man had me pause and asked me why I was raising money for another country, when England was in such a state of need. I politely replied that contrary to what most people believe, the UK only spends about 0.5% of their budget on foreign aid, and the conversation quickly died out.

The exact percentage figure of foreign spending for 2012 is 0.56% (BBC News). It turns out that even with this decimal percentage, the United Kingdom came second to the United States of America in overseas aid spending in 2012, paying out a total of £9 billion. Britain’s overseas aid spending has overtaken Germany’s, despite their GDP being approximately 30% greater than the UK’s.

David Cameron at the G8 Summit.
Photo Credits: Matt Cardy/AP

Whilst for some this is bad news, for others it is an accomplishment of pride. George Osborne commented on the United Kingdom’s second place status in overseas aid spending by saying: “We should all take pride, as I do, in this historic achievement.” It is also very gratifying to look at some of the good the UK has been able to do in the world recently. Some most recent accomplishments include the government’s funding of £10 million to back the fight against Polio in Somalia and Kenya with vaccinations, where the first outbreak since 2007 has occurred.

Thanks to the UK, 285,000 civilians a month who are caught up in the Syrian crisis are also getting food. Moreover, during the G8 conference this summer, David Cameron announced that the UK will pledge a further £175 million for the Syrian crisis which is, according to the International Department of Development, the largest single funding commitment ever made by the UK in response to a humanitarian disaster. The department also claims that: “We know that help is getting through, that it is saving lives. The UK, as a G8 member, has one of the world’s largest economies. The government has a responsibility to aid poorer countries, especially during conflict.

Despite the vast benefits of supplying foreign aid, it has many drawbacks. As the Telegraph points out, the UK is facing a triple dip recession. The plans for the end of 2013 are to have increased the percentage of the budget spent on overseas aid to 0.7% from the previous 0.56%, while European countries often reduce money spent on aid during tough economic times. Douglas Carswell points out the negatives in this by stating that: “politicians hand over billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to subsidise governments, but cut back on local services.”

The main issue of poverty in England is child poverty. In June it was reported that “one out of every six children in the UK lives in relative poverty” (BBC News). Relative poverty is a poverty line that is used in comparison to the UK average income, and approximately 300,000 more children fell below this line compared to the year before. With issues like these arising, it is logical for Carswell to point out that people living in the UK are unfairly paying taxes which are being partially poured to other countries’ governments.

Personally, I am a great supporter of foreign aid. I have travelled to several under-developed countries, and seen countless slums which we could never count as acceptable conditions of living. No matter how cliché it sounds, we are immensely privileged. I think that an extra 0.5% or 0.7% of a budget spent will make less difference to us than it will to the lives it improves and saves around the world.

Living among the world’s richest,  it is our responsibility to give people access to basic human needs: food, health, and if possible, access to stimulating aspects of life like education. However, it is not right for people in the UK to suffer in relative poverty, especially as this number is growing and those people cannot be forgotten due to comparison with extreme poverty.

The solution is not to be found in spending money, but in managing society and how money is spent. The little extra percentage of money the UK would get by eliminating foreign aid will not make much of a difference, and especially not as much as re-thinking social strategies.

Jeffrey Sachs mentioned in his book How to End Poverty that much of feeling ‘poor’ also lies in a man or woman’s dignity. This is why people who are relatively poor in the UK would feel ‘rich’ if they moved to a slum in Lima, Peru. But, this aspect of dignity is one of the rare parts of eradicating poverty which can come free of charge. Jeffrey Sachs argues that this is a crucial part of taking communities out of poverty: to dignify and power the human mind.

I agree, to a certain extent, and do not think that the UK needs to reduce the amount of money spent on foreign aid. Like Osborne, I believe it should be a point of pride. The Coalition has a similar point of view regarding the need for money in helping the UK, as they report they aim to end child poverty in the UK by 2020 by finding the source of the problem with further research rather than by primarily giving aid money.

While the UK has its own poverty problems to fix, it is far ahead of many of the developing countries of the world. When the old man in the street interrupted my street singing I quickly labelled him as narrow-minded. We have much to learn in terms of open-mindedness from providing aid to the rest of the world, as well as in learning to fix problems of poverty within the UK with other means than money. As is widely claimed today, fixing poverty is not a single follow-through recipe, there is rather a different one for every single community that must be investigated. Money can only go so far.

Naomi Poltier

Find Exeposé Features on Facebook and Twitter.

Middle East: Syria still needs help

Image credits: Beshroffline

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

Letter to the Editors: Pontificating at the Cross-Party Debate

In response to Comment at the Cross-Party Debate, we received this letter from Harry Lesser, who attended the debate and asks, “Do we have the right to make a mockery of a critical human catastrophe unfolding every day by pontificating on it in the farcically contrived environment of British party politics?”

Dear Exeposé,

With regard to the cross-party debate on Wednesday, what struck me most was how its structure highlighted our tacit acceptance of political hypocrisy and callousness. Certainly it followed a sort of Question Time format, in a relatively short space of time. Predictably, there were no surprises from the party speakers at the start: the Tory representative making a fool of himself and his regressive party; the chap from the ‘Freedom Society’/’Tea Party or whatever it was both insulting our intelligence and making a joke of sophisticated politics; the poor old Lib Dem stuck in the middle, wishing he were instead allied to the side making sense. Talk on the economy inevitably degenerated into a violent battle over mind-numbing statistics on the level of GDP or the  level of inflation or growth. When talk turned briefly to the Syrian question, however, all party members nodded in solemn agreement on the human disaster (it must be said that here even the right wingers displayed a shadow of a shred of a social conscience, if only two years too late).

“Can we justify…arguing at length over percentage points of GDP and then proceeding to shake our heads at Syria for a couple of minutes in the same debate?”
Photo Credit: Niklas Rahmel

My main thought, therefore, was this: can we justify, from the ivory tower of wealthy, safe, politically awah (sic) Exeter University, arguing at length over percentage points of GDP and then proceeding to shake our heads at Syria for a couple of minutes in the same debate? Do we have the right to make a mockery of a critical human catastrophe unfolding every day by pontificating on it in the farcically contrived environment of British party politics?

Without doubt the economy is a serious matter, and all the more so when (mis)handled by those on the political right so brilliantly caricatured in Wednesday’s debate by those who began their sentences “Well yes, living standards may be going down BUT….” or “We’re cutting taxes for the rich BUT…” or “the monarchy may well be an antiquated relic of the Dark Ages BUT….” – OK you get my point. However, is it really kosher that after having spent an hour at each other’s throats over statistics and GDP rates, one single token question from the audience on the humanitarian crisis in Syria prompts a minute of collective shaking of heads, we all (visibly) shed a manly tear on that awful situation over there somewhere in the Middle East, then say “well, that’s that, debate over, let’s laugh at each other’s politics and all go to the pub”?

Many thanks,

Harry Lesser (2nd Year Middle Eastern Politics and Languages)

Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Volunteers brave Freshers' Week rain

Photo Credit: Liam Trim

A fresh batch of eager student volunteers braved the intense rain showers covering Streatham campus on Tuesday to find out more about some of Exeter’s charitable societies.

The afternoon-tea event in Queen’s Building, organised by Jodie Dewberry, brought together a range of student groups. Despite terrible weather throughout the day the gathering attracted a steady stream of students, old and new.

Whilst attendees did enjoy free refreshments, from cake to sausage rolls, the interest in supporting good causes amongst the student community was clear. Societies such as STAR (Student Action for Refugees), Oxfam, Mind Your Head, Gender Equality, Amnesty International, Friends of Palestine and Bollocks to Poverty all attracted curious newcomers to Exeter.

Jodie told Exeposé that several of the societies were planning a joint social in a few weeks time to build on the success of the afternoon-tea.

All of Exeter’s student volunteer societies will be at the Freshers’ Fair on Sunday the 22nd if you wish to sign-up, and you can also do so online via the Guild Website.

Liam Trim, Online Editor.

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

Syria: Police? Superpower? Bulldog? The UK must redefine its international role

Image credits: FreedomHouse

Despite the atrocities witnessed in Syria, Sophie Trotman debates the UK’s role on the international stage and its involvement in Syria.

The newsreader warns you that ‘you may find the following images disturbing’ but you look anyway. Rows of bodies, splattered with blood, grieving mothers clutching at the air and a final shot of a dead child, cradled like a broken puppet in the arms of an inconsolable parent. You’ve seen it before, on the news, in the paper, but each time the same potent cocktail of outrage, disgust and hideous pity is overwhelming.

This is the Syrian Crisis. A bloody civil war located in the heart of the Levant, between President Bashar al-Assad’s Ba’Ath government and several other forces (including the Free Syrian Army) seeking to oust the regime.

It’s important to stress that this conflict is not new; the Syrian Uprising has its roots in the wider Arab Spring and has been ongoing for over two and a half years. And like most other of the Arab Spring uprisings, media coverage began to wane as the public lost interest.

Yet this week, Syria has been at the forefront of the news once again, with two of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, the UK and US issuing increasingly bellicose rhetoric regarding the issue.

So what has changed to precipitate this international response?

On August 21, at least 355 people were reported to have died in a suspected chemical attack in the Ghouta area, close to the Syrian capital, Damascus. This alleged use of chemical weapons, purportedly by the Assad government, appears to have weighted national stances regarding the crisis and provoked threatening rhetoric from key statesmen such as Foreign Secretary William Hague who on Wednesday said, “…we can’t allow the idea… that chemical weapons can be used with impunity”.

Whilst many are in no doubt as to the perpetrators of this blow against human rights (with US Vice-President Joe Biden describing al-Assad’s usage of chemical weapons as “undeniable”) the lack of definitive proof has been pointed out by the Russians. Yet despite this lack of absolute certainty, the incontrovertible evidence that thousands of Syrians continue to suffer agonizing deaths remains sufficient impetus for talks of military action.

So it may come as a surprise that I am arguing against intervention.

The crux of the argument for no intervention is built around the three issues; the misplaced paternalism of the West and our own democratic considerations and most importantly, the hypocrisy and weakness of the most likely form of attack, a missile strike.

According to Hague, diplomatic pressure on Syria has failed. The UN death toll estimate of 100,000 dead condones his words. Diplomacy has indeed failed in solving the conflict of the civil war. Yet it seems naive to expect UN mediated peace talks to have any effect; against the bloody realities of civil unrest and repression, the words of the international community must serve as little more than superfluous soundbites.

Furthermore how is a civil war ‘solved’? Our hopeful cultural relativism suggests democracy – the pinnacle of liberal achievement born from the Western Enlightenment. But the US’s and the UK’s blithe paternalism has already misfired; the portentous example of Iraq demonstrates how cack-handedly our ‘gift’ of democracy has been fostered upon a Middle Eastern nation, precariously cemented by millions of pounds and the blood of thousands. So what then? The stabilizing of the oppressive Assad regime? Or the supporting of a divided and dangerous secular rebel army? Both solutions are unpalatable and neither would not ease the suffering of the Syrian people.

The nature of a civil war is that it is internal. We must not foist our Western values upon a divided nation that is at war with itself. Post Cold War the US’s

role as ‘policemen of the world’ is inappropriate and outdated – proved by the mistakes of Iraq and (to a lesser extent) Afghanistan.

This paternalism and expectation for the US and UK to take action (especially following their threatening rhetoric) has been manifested in the most likely form of intervention; a missile strike, a comparatively low cost, low risk form of action.  Done remotely, a missile strike would essentially let the US and UK off the hook; they would have ‘done something’, limiting the damage to their reputation on the world stage following the excessive bellicose rhetoric issued by both nations.

Essentially the US and the UK have verbally committed themselves to some kind of action, and despite Cameron’s humiliating defeat in Parliament, President Obama and France’s Hollande still appear to be willing to use a strike.

It is imperative that this form of action is avoided. Firstly, if chemical weapons storage were targeted, it may not be that they are wholly eliminated or even made safe, and instead could release some chemicals; an ironically macabre gesture. According to Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association, “If you drop a conventional munition on a storage facility containing unknown chemical agents… some [of those agents] will be spread… a classic case of the cure being worse than the disease”. Nor would the strike be Obama’s intended “shot across the bows”. The consequences of the strike would be very limited and a feeble demonstration of tepid Western intervention, if you like ‘US JUSTICE LITE’. It’s already apparent that the deaths of the Syrian people do not perturb Assad, and it would be the ‘liberators’ of the West who are instead adding more Syrians to the 100,000+ death toll.

And to the civil war? It will not make any difference to the outcome.

This results in a more worrying conclusion.  Despite the US’s position as policeman of the world waning, it remains influential and is still turned to in a crisis. To send a missile strike thinly preserves this illusion of US-meted justice. Therefore a missile strike would be the height of immorality, an ineffectual move done not simply for the sake of ‘doing something’ but more worryingly, to save face on the international stage.

The legality of action is another factor against intervention. The UN’s own divisions would weaken any possible action, and have wider negative repercussions for international relations. Russia and China, also permanent members of the UN Security Council, have stressed the importance of UN procedure and remain opposed to intervention, with Russia stating that any military action without a mandate from the Security Council as a “grave violation of international law”. To intervene in Syria would further inflame our antagonistic relationship, a secondary concern, yet senseless in an air strike primarily engineered to maintain the US and UK’s political standing in the world.

Furthermore the UN inspectors, present in the country until Saturday morning, are not there to allocate blame. The results of their report must be heeded; the Ba’Ath government has not yet been found unequivocally guilty of using chemical weapons.

Image credits: FreedomHouse

At home, the lingering spectre of Iraq has left the British people wary of armed intervention, especially in the political and religious hotbed that is the Middle East. Reports in the media reflect this; according to a survey by YouGov for the Sun, the public was against air missile strikes by a ratio of 2:1. This has been compounded by the recent vote in Parliament, if anything a success for UK democracy, as conceded by the PM, “It’s clear to me that the British parliament and the British people do not wish to see military action… I will act accordingly.”

The images, reports and video footage of the many many victims of the Syrian Crisis have provoked an intense moral outrage. It is understandable, even commendable for key figures in US, UK and French politics to attempt to alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people. To do something. To help. But this is an emotional response, and the outrages committed cannot and do not legitimize a military response, no matter how well intentioned. Our ‘good intentions’ in Iraq, in Afghanistan, have continued to haunt Britain, as demonstrated by the defeated Commons Bill on Thursday. The US and to a lesser extent the UK’s role as policeman of the world is paternalistic, outdated and [at the time of writing – without the approval of the UN] illegal. To preserve a facade of US judicial dominance via a punitive missile strike is a shockingly weak move that serves only to maintain the crumbling reputation of the US as a liberating power, Bush’s “beacon of democracy”. The Syrian people cannot be used as a human collateral, a human capital with which the West uses to bargain with the al-Assad regime.

In the face of this complicated and morally repulsive civil war, the US, UK and France must accept that intervention is, at best a quack’s panacea to a problem we cannot solve, and at worst, a display of Western ‘justice’ which will only compound the critical humanitarian crisis taking place in Syria.

Sophie Trotman

Syria: doing nothing is a mistake

Crowds in Syria
Image credits: FreedomHouse

From on the ground in Amman, Jordan, Gareth Browne explains why he is pro-intervention in Syria.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

With a track record in the Middle East such as that of the United States, the United Kingdom and the West in general, it is not beyond the realm of comprehension that governments have to give serious thought to intervening in Syria. Not least of the considerations are public opinion and concerns about the possibility of provoking a return attack.

However Syria is not Iraq. Nor is it Afghanistan and I wish that our governments will not allow the risk of bad public relations to stop them from intervening and doing as our morality compels us. To act so late is regrettable, but to not act at all is indefensible.

For the past few years, a massacre has been allowed to take place. The Syrian regime has murdered and displaced hundreds of thousands of innocent people and my nation has shamefully stood back and watched. We are so paralyzed by the fear of failure and the hard lessons learnt in Iraq and Afghanistan that we believe if we do nothing then we can do no wrong. This is a fallacy; a sickening policy of isolationism which allows innocent Syrians, many of whom share our values, to be slaughtered like animals. How can we justify our position on the UN Security Council or indeed being a free and progressive nation if we do not defend the innocent against such malice?

There are those who will make the excuse that we will be supporting terrorists and Al-Qaeda, which is a lazy and ill-conceived assumption. No one denies that there are distasteful elements involved in fighting the regime but to suggest that the opposition in its entirety is made up of these zealots is wrong. There are many groups fighting for a democratic and secular Syria and we have no reason to believe that they are cooperating with Islamist militants; in fact, several top commanders of the Free Syria Army have publicly come out against groups like Jabhat Al-Nusra.

These groups exist both alone and as part of the Syrian National Council but they do not get the attention or publicity they deserve. The  tragic irony of the situation, for those that subscribe to this idea, is that the longer the international community does nothing and allows the situation to deteriorate the only groups gaining strength are the Assad regime and those groups who are backed by Al-Qaeda. In some parts of the country, for example Idlib and Aleppo, an absence of governmental control has allowed very organised and opportunistic Al-Qaeda groups to step in. They provide medicine, food and weapons, all of which are required whilst the assistance of the West remains non-existent. The longer the status quo continues, the more opportunities like this spring up for Al-Qaeda, and the more the UK and other Western nations should be concerned.

This oft-discussed “red line” regarding the use of chemical weapons was never necessary for action in Syria. Indeed, what sort of message does it send out if we only feel compelled to act after chemical weapons are used – that regimes are free to massacre their own citizens provided that they only use conventional weapons? Britain must lead the international community decisively, not to spread democracy or police the world, not to combat Iran and curb their potential usage of these weapons but to stop a massacre, and to prevent the implosion of a beautiful nation by bringing to a halt the ethnic cleansing taking place against the Kurds. We must fight the evil wherever it may be, whether within the regime or the opposition groups.

Gareth Browne

Are the British public bored of the Arab Spring?

Amidst the furore surrounding Oscar Pistorius’ murder charge, the horse meat scandal and the Eastleigh byelection, it is easy to forget that a humanitarian crisis in Syria is continuing, argues Harrison Jones.

The Prince of Wales meeting Syrian refugees this week. But are the public fed up with hearing about Syria? Picture credits: The British Monarchy

The modern press is unforgiving in its priorities, with the deaths of around 60 people in Damascus last month going virtually unnoticed. Indeed, it seems as if the British public are simply bored of the Arab Spring, now taking a rather blasé attitude towards the civil war raging in a faraway nation.

Of course, there are various crises in a multitude of countries worldwide, but after the recent conviction of potential UK suicide bombers and concern over the terrorist threat from Mali, media coverage of Syria is striking in it’s sparsity.

Whilst becoming slightly bored of the countless Harlem Shake videos invading screens nationwide, the public remained virtually oblivious to the numerous deaths and injuries only a few thousand miles away. It all seemed a mere after-thought on the news channels, immune as we all appear to now be to such reports, after 23 relentless months of violence.

But the desperate situation in Syria shows no sign of abating. An estimated 70,000 people have already died and around 2.5 million have fled their homes, with food supplies remaining drastically low. Despite the worst of the winter now being over, the Syrian people have very little shelter, hindered by daily destruction of infrastructure – partly the fault of the Russian government continuing to arm the Assad regime.

The Domiz Refugee Camp in Iraqi Kurdistan which is currently housing 50,000 Syrian refugees. Around 2.5 million have fled their homes and 70, 000 estimated dead. Picture credits: MAG (Mines Advisory Group)

After Kofi Annan’s rather futile ‘plan’ predictably failed to stop Assad – and the rebels – from committing numerous atrocities, no coherent alternative has since been implemented.

The UN appears no closer to solving the issue, as the similarities with its failed predecessor, The League of Nations, become increasingly apparent. It too failed to deal with numerous issues amidst an economic downturn on a similar scale to the current one. And their international priorities, certainly from a European perspective, were apparently not with the plight of war-torn populations, but with their own world standing.

To add to the current international body’s mishandling of the situation, it all seems to be a contradiction in principles. Only last year, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and others were all taking part in military action in Libya. The circumstances are remarkably similar, except that the Syrians have a far bigger army. Oh, and far less oil.

Yet the media appears to have become hushed over the whole affair. It is understandable, because the public will inevitably become tired of repetitive stories and eventually not buy, read or view them. Nonetheless surely it is the press’ job to highlight major crises, no matter how tedious the coverage may become. Clearly it is not as simple as writing an article and watching it become policy; but more debate in the media might increase the chances of finding a viable solution.

It seems particularly surprising that government inconsistency has not been more widely probed. If the principle is there: that intervention is acceptable, then help probably ought to be given to the rebels, if only for consistency’s sake. Without such a solution – of whatever nature – countless more people are going to die in Syria and across the Middle East.

Alethea Osborne: Syria looks to the future

In the first article for her column, Alethea Osborne provides a critical look at Syria today, still in the midst of conflict.

Picture: Free Syria

In recent weeks, key diplomatic events have taken place in the development of Syria’s conflict.  Bashar Al-Assad presented his first speech in seven months last Sunday at the Opera house in Damascus to a very carefully chosen and thus passionately supportive audience. In it he described the opposition groups as followers of Al-Qaida, along with being “enemies of God and puppets of the West”. The Syrian opposition groups perceived the speech, particularly Assad’s rejection of peace talks, as a renewed declaration of war.

The UN and many foreign powers, including the UK have acknowledged the speech as discouraging and simply another attempt to cling to power; the USA described it as “detached from reality”.  UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was “disappointed that the speech by President Bashar al-Assad on 6 January does not contribute to a solution that could end the terrible suffering of the Syrian people”. While the UN spokesman Martin Nesirky said of the president’s speech, “the speech rejected the most important element of the Geneva Communique of 30 June 2012, namely a political transition and the establishment of a transitional governing body with full executive powers that would include representatives of all Syrians.”

It is generally understood that there will be no organised peace process accepted by the opposition groups until Assad agrees to step down.  The head of the opposition group, Hassan Abdel Azim, put forward the first condition of talks with the regime during a news conference in Damascus: he declared “we will not take part in a national dialogue before violence stops”.

He further stipulated that any dialogue be preceded by the release of prisoners, a guarantee to ensure humanitarian aid is delivered to areas hit by the violence and the publication of a statement on the fate of missing Syrians. “Any negotiation – not just a national dialogue – must be held under the aegis of the UN-Arab League envoy,” he said, before stressing that “there won’t be direct negotiations or dialogue with the regime”.

Ban Ki-moon: “disappointed” by President Bashar al-Assad’s speech on the 6 January. Picture: Yaiza Gómez

 The UK government announced on Tuesday that a conference would be held on Wednesday and Thursday, hosted outside London by the British Foreign Office, to discuss a plan for Syria in the period after the ‘inevitable’ fall of Assad. Experts from around the world including academics in post-conflict stabilisation and representatives from the Syrain opposition groups attended.

The organisation of the conference is indicative of the rising concern regarding the potential situation in post-Assad Syria as experts fear there could be more bloodshed due to religious and sectarian rivalries which could further destabilise not just Syria but other countries in the already volatile region

The conflict, in which it is estimated at least 60,000 people have died, is swiftly turning into a humanitarian crisis with the UN estimating that the number of registered refugees has risen by 100,000 in the last month to number nearly 600,000. The UN’s food programme has announced this week that fighting in Syria has made it unable to reach a million people in need within the war zones. It estimates that there are 2.5 million in need, of which it can only distribute food to 1.5 million every month. The danger of working in the areas of fighting has meant the staff from the World Food Programme (WFP) have had to leave Aleppo, Homs, Tartous and Qamisly.

“Food needs are growing in Syria,” said Elisabeth Brys, a WFP spokesperson. Understandably, after nearly two years of continuous conflict it was increasingly difficult “to reach the hardest-hit places”. The WFP works with the Syrian Arab Red Crescent and a few local NGOs to help distribute the food within the country, however these efforts are increasingly limited by a ‘lack of capacity’ along with the danger of working amongst the escalating violence.

The desperation of the situation of many refugees was clearly displayed on Tuesday when refugees in the Zaatari camp in Jordan attacked aid workers in frustration after their tents were destroyed by howling winds and heavy rain. The weather across the region has made the situation for many refugees living in temporary camps inside and outside of Syria far harder with biting cold winds and constant rain. However, there is a certain mantra amongst all Syrian refugees that they will return home soon, a determined streak of hope as the conflict enters its second winter.

The Syrian Red Crescent is working with the WFC and local NGOs to help distribute food in the country. Picture: IFRC

It is becoming increasingly accepted, even by nations such as Russia who originally supported the Assad regime, that the only way that a peace process may begin to be achieved is if Assad steps down. Despite the hazy and somewhat concerning prospect of Syria’s future post-Assad it is undeniable that the horrors of the current situation, in particular the situation for those innocent citizens, many of which are displaced, caught in the middle of the fighting, are mounting to an international humanitarian crisis.