“If we don’t die from bombardment or snipers we will die of hunger or cold.” So said a young man in Homs to the BBC last week. Over 2,000 Syrians have been holed up in the centre of Homs for 600 days. Using “starve or surrender” tactics, the Syrian regime is preventing food, water and medicine from reaching the city’s citizens. The people have resorted to trying to eat grass and plants to survive.
Laying siege to a city is the sort of brutal, cruel tactic that was deployed in medieval times. Today the Syrian government is using ordinary people as a weapon of war, bombarding them with modern artillery and dropping barrels full of explosives without caring who will be killed or injured by them.
The destruction was illustrated by before-and-after aerial photos that show entire suburbs of Damascus and Hama deliberately razed to the ground by the Syrian army. These formerly thriving communities have been forced to flee their homes, many moving to other parts of the country and many fleeing to neighbouring countries.
The United Nations estimates that over 9 million Syrians need humanitarian help. There are 6½ million who have fled their homes and are still in Syria; another 2½ million are refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and other countries.
Alleviating the plight of these Syrians is a top priority. We have to provide them with food, shelter and medicine. The United Kingdom has already given JD 700 million for this cause. Much has been spent in Jordan, not only in the camps, but also to help the Jordanian communities in the towns and villages where the Syrians are living. This aid will continue.
Ending the bloodshed and violence is also a priority. The only way is through a political process. That is why last week’s conference, known as Geneva II, was an essential step: a way to start a dialogue between the warring parties.
Before the Geneva II conference started it was common to hear people say it wouldn’t work. Scepticism and cynicism were plentiful and hope was in short supply. This pessimism was well-founded: the willingness of the regime to engage seriously is still to be proven. The presence of extremists groups is major threat. And after the first week, it is easy to say that the talks have failed.
But Geneva II was never going to be a magic wand bringing an instant solution. The sides are far apart and there is the legacy of 3 years of open conflict between them. Yet under the skilful chairmanship of UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, they met every day for a week. Difficult issues were put on the table, including the need for a political transition. And they have agreed to meet again.
The fact is that the only way to bring peace is through a political process based on the Geneva communiqué: agreement on a Transitional Governing Body with full powers, including over the armed and security forces. This means that Assad will have to go; it is inconceivable there can be a political solution while he remains. The longer he stays, the greater the pull-effect for extremists. These groups bring more death, division and destruction. What Syrians need is dignity, democracy and development.
Geneva II means that the process has started. The next step is clear: strenuous efforts to achieve an agreement that will bring peace, stability and security to Syria. That will unite all the people of Syria regardless of sect or origin. That will take account of the views of the women of Syria who need to have a voice at the table. Only then will people be able to return to their homes.
Dear Mr Millet,
In agreement with yourself and Mr Wais, refugee protection is of paramount international concern. The current humanitarian aid platform has a humbling profile of support for Syrian refugee communities but remains a short-term service pending a long-term solution.
The obvious problem is our inability to predict the end to the crisis and its exponential danger as a resource-draining burden on Jordan’s hosting towns. Nevertheless with over two years of receiving Syrians from across the border and a past experience in assimilating Palestinians and transiting Iraqis, the lack of any National Government Strategy to organise the people of the camps into a more self-sufficient body is frightening.
Employment is a basic solution already being taken up by many on an informal basis but without Jordan’s Government providing a more stable job-market infrastructure, towns and cities are slowly being crippled. Any formal solution must drive job creation – especially outside of Amman – and offer the refugees realistic wages while protecting nationals’ social security.
As Prince Hassan this week insisted ,Jordan’s Government faces a formidable task in preserving the Syrian population’s dignity and future revival. This task cannot be accomplished without driving for a more focused coordination between hosting towns and their Syrian communities.
Dear Peter, the statement of this young didn ‘t shocked me.
In fact . they driven me to tears. Like yr. lines ’bout” starve or surrender – tacticsI.. I ǘe asked myself often enough what
kind of “action ” is planning or next. When will it end ?
So alleviating the plight of refugees is surely a 1st.steo to help.
So I hope That Geneva 2 will finally “working”!BW Ingo-Steven
It is true that an end to the military conflict requires a political resolution, but it doesn’t follow that exclusively non-military means can bring about that end. For example, during the Bosnian War, several attempts were made to negotiate an end to the conflict, but successful negotiations only came after decisive military action by NATO.
Frederic C Hof wrote on Monday that “those who say there is no military solution for Syria are really saying there are no military options they wish to exercise. ”
The Middle East provides obvious examples of interminable and inconclusive negotiations. The killing in Syria is occurring at too great a rate to wait for a negotiated outcome. Measures need to be taken now to protect civilians. Minister of State Hugh Robertson has recently reaffirmed that under certain circumstances the UK Government regards humanitarian intervention as legal even without a UNSC resolution. Syria needs a no-fly zone.
The refusal to permit the Iranians from the Geneva II was not a right decision. Iran’s importance must be recognized and accepted by all participants or those who are the main brokers of peace in Syria. However we have to try and unite the entire population of Syria in arriving an amicable settlement of the tragedy being made there as soon as possible. This is needed to maintain the stability of the countries around Syria, the countries giving the help to the fleeing Syrians. Time is running out for the whole world in finding a solution to this .