THE CASE FOR UN-MAKING THE MIDDLE EAST

Next week there will be a vote on whether or not the UK bombs Daesh in Syria - the vote will probably give David Cameron more than a few sleepless nights. The PM’s real problem is not the real possibility of Daesh atrocities on the streets of Britain along the lines of the appalling atrocities that took place recently in Bamako, Paris and Beirut.

There are deeper or perhaps shallower unspoken motivations, after the Labour (a case of miscalculation rather than design) and Conservative parties failed to get a mandate to bomb Syria (the then Assad controlled bits of it at least) in Westminster last time - Cameron found himself dangerously adrift from US interests and cozy photo opportunities on the White House lawn. If Mr C makes of mess of the forthcoming vote and fails to secure a mandate then he will move from being a partially useful US ally to being a downright liability, at least as far as the White House is concerned. 

Short-term political gain aside the appalling carnage in Lebanon, France and Mali is one grim aspect of an ongoing humanitarian catastrophe has been building for the last two decades. Where we are just now in the Middle East is the result of the end of the Cold War, a whole series of largely failed 'Western' generational interventions, the result of the failure of the Arab Spring and the weakening of the grip of some grim dictators.

If twenty years plus of war and bombing ended up producing Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, we should be entirely unsurprised that the chaos unleashed in Iraq since 1991 had ended up producing Daesh (IS).  Despite occasional weasel-like verbose rhetoric to the contrary - the Brit and American elite probably quietly prefer working with their chosen tyrant(s) they know or in the case of the Brit elite literally went to school with some of them (although these days the despots spawn probably go to school in and around Washington DC) rather than dangerously unpredictable democracies who may end up delivering unpalatable electoral results (at least as far as the West is concerned). 

In relation to the current crisis David Cameron's indecision (he is a natural follower than a leader) is as irrelevant to solving the refugee problem, as is the UK's input in the Middle East. Historically Britain was an imperial power in the region, but, now in reality is a bit player, having squandered any real influence through its self-interested support for despotic regimes. When it comes to intervention, humanitarian or otherwise it can be said that you get what you put in. The UK spent around £326 million pounds bombing Libya (to get rid of Gaddafi) and around £25 million pounds on reconstruction - the end result of which is that the Libyan state ceased to exist.

An arc of instability stretches from North West Africa, through the Middle East and on through Pakistan, Afghanistan to the western fringes of the People's Republic of China. Some of this instability has been fed by local wars, local repressive dictatorships (historically supported by various sides in the Cold War) and a whole series of unresolved on-going political problems - some of which, but certainly not all relates to the failure to peacefully resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

A significant measure of responsibility lies with the West and it's history of inept irresponsible intervention and self serving foreign policy, some of which dates back to self interested decisions made during the First World War as the Ottoman Empire was dismembered by interested parties up until the emergence of the Turkish Republic in 1923. Refuge wise we have been here before, at the end of the First World War, waves of refugees from Armenia, Greece and what was about to become the Soviet Union fled to find safety and security. At least in the 1920’s the League of Nations managed to create an internationally recognised system of identity / travel documents, known as Nansen certificates for refuges.

A measure of responsibility also lies with the Arab states themselves, initially largely creations of the Imperial powers (Britain and France) - the Arab governments have almost entirely failed to integrate refuges from 1948 into society and choose to leave them to rot in refugee camps on the fringes of society. Repressive Arab governments of various persuasions conveniently raised the issue of the Palestinians and Israel to periodically distract their own oppressed citizens. Quite understandably the current refugees from Syria have no desire to find themselves in the same situation as the Palestinians.

Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan have all taken in large numbers of refuges - but it’s time for the Gulf States to fork out some cash to pay for significant no strings attached humanitarian aid in Turkey and Lebanon each of whom have taken in over two million refuges. The Turks are playing their own game, largely allowing the two way transit of people and oil into Turkey and out of the Daesh controlled fragments of Syria and Iraq - something that NATO is probably well aware of – and trying to lump the Kurds in with Daesh. Trying to recreate a unified Syria and a unified Iraq will have to involve a serious commitment of aid and probably ground troops for many years - after the costly failures in Iraq and costly partial successes in Afghanistan - this is probably not an option that can easily be sold to most of the electorates in the West. 

The case for air strikes in Syria remains as yet un-made - there are still too many unanswered questions - as vile as Daesh is (these are the people who brought back enslavement, beheadings, and other appalling atrocities) the case for war has not been made. The PM's claim that there are 70,000 moderate Syrian fighters on the ground ready to fight Daesh is dubious at best – a doubt shared by the Chairman of the House of Commons Defence Committee, amongst others. Simply dropping bombs from the air will not lead to the defeat of Daesh. Nor will it secure peace for the people of Syria and Iraq or bring stability to the wider region. What is needed is a UN agreed plan for a process of reconciliation and reconstruction something that can be quantified, measured and delivered.

All governments must redouble their efforts to secure a comprehensive peace deal for Syria and the wider region. World leaders cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of past Western military interventions in the Middle East and we need renewed commitments to support and aid civilians who are suffering as a result of the war, and real pressure on Saudi Arabia and others who are financing Daesh.

Above all there must be practical support for those currently defending themselves on the ground from Daesh such as the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, and a commitment from Turkey to cease attacks upon the Kurds in Syria, Iraq and Turkey. At present UK military action as currently proposed risks further escalation in Syria and runs the risk of making our own communities at home less secure and simply plays into the Daesh narrative.

UN AND REGION MUST RESPOND TO IRAQ CRISIS

Plaid Cymru – the Party of Wales has urged a region-led response to the crisis in Iraq, confirming that its MPs will not support the UK Westminster government’s intention to launch air strikes against ISIL. Hywel Williams MP, outlining the reasons behind his party’s intention to vote against the government motion put before the Commons today said:

"Human suffering in Iraq and Syria has prompted an overwhelming desire to "do something". However, Plaid Cymru does not believe that UK military action of itself will provide a full and lasting solution. That can only be achieved by a region-led response backed by UN-led international support.

"Last year, the UK government was proposing military action against the Syrian government. One of the opposition groups which would have benefited is ISIL.

"We believe that air strikes will almost certainly result in civilian deaths - as in the case of every other recent Western military intervention in the region and in Afghanistan - and radicalise the young and impressionable.

"It is disturbing that the Prime Minister has said that we must not allow "past mistakes" to become an excuse for inaction. The shadow of the Iraq war still looms large - surely we should be learning from history, not forgetting it.

"Plaid Cymru supports providing Iraqi and Kurdish government with humanitarian, technical and material assistance, when civilian lives are in immediate danger. This will enable them to protect their population and achieve a lasting solution.

"The UK's response to this crisis must focus on humanitarian and diplomatic efforts. We should concentrate on delivering aid, bringing moderate regional powers together, and offering to take refugees as the number fleeing their homes rises at a rapid rate."

THE WAR OF THE WORDS

The war of the words, despite last evenings vote against military action without parliamentary approval, continues, while the war on the ground in Syria (and body count grows ever higher). Clearly the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan weighed heavily on MP’s minds in Westminster yesterday. Whatever the merits of the intervention or not with regard to the conflict in Syria are, we are all somewhere different to where we were in 2003. The fact that Blair favoured intervention swung some of my relatives to a position of opposition to intervention. Armed intervention in Syria with or without UN approval (which is unlikely with the Russian and Chinese veto) would be a risky business.

The Syrian situation is far more complicated than was the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan – in theory Saddam could have fled to exile, but, Assad has nowhere to go and neither does his constituency of support amongst the sizeable (and well armed) Alawite minority.  Last evenings vote of Westminster MP's against military intervention in Syria may send sizeable shock waves through the Obama administration. Whereas previously the Brits have tended to march in step with the US, this rejection of President Barack Obama's argument may well upset the special relationship for some time to come.

It can be argued this key event has been a long time coming, and save for Harold Wilson’s refusal to commit UK ground troops to Vietnam in the 1960’s (which was duly punished) it has largely been avoided (at least since Suez). Certainly before last night’s vote, the US administration appeared relatively relaxed about David Cameron's problems and any delays in the Brits joining the new collation. Now in the cold light of day things may be different, it may to too early to say whether or not the Brits have finally cast of their adoptive mantle of Uncle Sam’s poodle.

The trigger for any intervention has been the alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians by the Syrian regime, the latest of possible 14 instances of chemical weapons use,  may yet trigger a US-led military response. The UN route may be blocked with Russia and China very publically opposed to any military action, which means that the UN Security Council will be unable to give its backing to any intervention which may raise some questions about the legal basis for military intervention.

Any desire for intervention may relate more to Syria (and the strategic situation in the Middle East) than it does to the use of chemical weapons as such. They have been used before (on some scale) by Saddam Hussein, against the Iranians (during the Iran – Iraq war) and later against the Kurds. On both occasion the Western Allies (and the USA) said next to nothing as Saddam was their boy - he was only to become a problem later when he invaded Kuwait (triggering the first gulf war back in 1991).

Last evenings cross-party amendment on Syria called for legal evidence and UN inspectors reports to be presented before any decision is taken on military action are taken, something that most reasonable people would probably agree with as a reasonable and rational response to the crisis. Judging by the look on David Cameron’s face last night as the debate concluded in a government defeat there may be trouble ahead and the one sided ‘special relationship’ may be on hold for the foreseeable future. 

Perhaps finally the lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq may have sunk in and days of the UK  strutting the stage and over extending itself by pretending to be a global player are over - it may be too early to say. That said, something needs to be done to bring an end to the increasingly bloody conflict in Syria – doing that will require UN approval (which is unlikely) and a plan (which may well be nonexistent if recent experiences in Iraq are anything to go by).  

So as the war of words continues in the West, the war on the ground will continue in the Middle East, the refugee crisis will get worse and the body count will grow ever higher. There was as far as I could perceive last evening only as slight if faint whiff of Munich wafting through some of the MP's in the House of Commons last evening - perhaps prompted by some of the friends of Syria (Assad); that said  the vote should not be an excuse of inaction or indifference to the plight of the people of Syria, as something still needs to be done. 

HALABJA, NEWPORT, DAMASCUS...

Halabja

I had just finished a session in the gym last evening, when I caught the headlines last night about the suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria. The changing room fell silent as people took in the news and the grim footage. The Kurdish man standing next to me watching the TV broke the silence saying that he had survived Saddam’s chemical weapons attack on the Kurdish city of Halabja (16^th March 1988) but had lost his father and other close relatives.  For those who have forgotten back on the 16^th  March 1988, Iraq dropped bombs containing mustard gas, Sarin and Tabun on the Kurdish city of Halabja.  UN experts estimated that the number of civilians killed range from 3,200 to 5,000, with many survivors suffering long-term health problems.

Now this was not the first time that Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds, they were also used during Iraq's ‘Anfal’ offensive. This seven-month scorched-earth campaign in which an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 Kurdish villagers were killed or disappeared, and hundreds of villages were razed to the ground. The UN had confirmed in 1986 that Iraq had contravened the Geneva Convention by using chemical weapons against Iran. Iraq also used the blister agent mustard gas from 1983 and the nerve gas Tabun from 1985, in the face of human waves attacks from Iranian troops and poorly-trained Iranian volunteers. A UN Security Council statement condemned Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the war in 1986. The US, UK and other western governments still looked upon Saddam as ‘their own boy’ so continued supporting Baghdad politically and militarily until the closing stages of the Iran – Iraq war. 

Now chemical weapons are being used in the Middle East again, this time in Syria. UN officials have said that the alleged chemical weapons attacks which Syria's opposition says killed hundreds near Damascus was a "serious escalation". Jan Eliasson, UN Deputy Secretary-General, made those comments after briefing an emergency UN Security Council meeting about Wednesday's incident. The Security Council also said that clarity was needed over the attacks. Some 35 UN member states (including the US, UK and France) have called for the UN chemical weapons inspectors that are already probing three sites of alleged chemical weapons use in Syria to be dispatched immediately to the scene to investigate. UN inspectors arrived in Damascus on Sunday with a mandate to investigate three locations including the northern town of Khan al-Assal, where some 26 people were killed in March. 

Syrian opposition activists have said that more than 1,000 people have been killed after government forces launched rockets with toxic agents into the Damascus suburbs in the Ghouta region early on Wednesday. The Syrian government has denied the allegations, describing them as "illogical and fabricated" and the Syrian army says the opposition made up the claims to divert attention from the huge losses its forces had suffered recently. The areas said to have been affected included Irbin, Duma and Muadhamiya. Syrian opposition footage shows dozens of bodies with no visible signs of injuries, including small children, laid out on the floor of a clinic. Videos also show people being treated in makeshift hospitals, with victims, including many children, having convulsions.

President Obama’s administration has expressed its "deep concern" over the alleged chemical weapons attacks on Wednesday and formally requested the UN to "urgently investigate" the incident. The alleged attack comes a year after US President Barack Obama warned the Syrian government that using chemical weapons would cross a "red line". UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said that if confirmed, the attacks would mark a "shocking escalation in the use of chemical weapons in Syria". The Russian foreign ministry noted that the reports had emerged just as the UN chemical weapons inspection team had arrived in Syria, saying that "this makes us think that weare once again dealing with a premeditated provocation". The official Syrian Sana news agency said reports of the latest attack were "baseless", describing them as "an attempt to divert the UN chemical weapons investigation commission away from carrying out its duties". China and Russia (along with their fair weather friends India, South Africa and Brazil) have repeatedly backed the Syrian government since the crisis began have blocked a stronger Security Council press statement which supported by the 35 states. 

NOT RULING ANYTHING OUT...

William Hague (the UK Foreign Secretary) has said that he is not ruling anything out in relation the situation in Syria - anything save any action to protect the Syrian people - that is. The whole situation reminds me in many ways of the early months of Bosnia in the 1990's - where the West made many pious pronouncements about Human rights, arms embargo's etc, yet did little. If you are the ones being shelled by the a government that has been stockpiling arms for the best part of forty years then Hague's words will bring scant comfort.

The UN and the Arab League are failing to halt the killing, the UN is stuck between a rock and a hard place, as both Russia and China will veto any moves to actually act to save lives. The days are gone when Russia and China will step back from supporting and protecting their somewhat bloodstained Allies at the UN.

How many more Houla style massacres will we see before anything is done? Back in February, the European Parliament backed a resolution calling on Russia to stop arms sales to Syria and allow the UN Security Council to take the lead in resolving the crisis and has actively condemned the "brutal massacre" in Houla , and repeated calls for the Syrian government to implement the UN peace plan. Yet still the bodies pile up.

In many ways it is entirely natural for the few remaining Communist dictatorships like Cuba and the Peoples Republic of China (itself a brutal repressive dictatorship) to side with the Syrian Government. Cuban repression is well documented and the PRC's behaviour towards dissidents and ethnic minorities (and the peoples of Tibet and East Turkestan to name but two) within its own border is a matter of record. China has other concerns and anxieties, spreading democracy definitely is not among them, and stability at any price may be a key factor here along with arms sales.

Yet Syria also has some fair weather friends who should know better, including Cuba, Venezuela, South Africa, Brazil and India (who have abstained on Syria related UN resolutions) who remain silent along with the old traditional ‘left’. There is some irony here in that some of the states supporting the Syrian dictatorship were themselves involved in liberation struggles, they might once had a degree of sympathy for the Syrian people who are laying down their lives for freedom and liberty or perhaps they are stuck in the vice like grip of the past or merely enjoying the trappings of power.

HOW SPECIAL A RELATIONSHIP?

The beginning of a beautiful friendship?

Putting the desperate desire for 'special relationship’ related photo opportunities to one side, there are two or three pressing issues bubbling away in the background to David Cameron's visit to the USA. He arrives today to spend a few days, he will take in a ball game, a state dinner, the much prized photo shoot on the White House lawn and no doubt some pre-meetings before the NATO summit in May.

Whether or not this puts the so called ‘special relationship’ back on track is open is open to question. The US is certainly talking the relationship up at the moment and I have no doubt that Cameron will bask in the limelight. Whats not open to question is the continuing problem of the very public slaughter in Syria, which should provoke some debate about what to do next?

Yet, despite this for some UK Prime Ministers the special relationship can work both ways, it was disastrous for John Major (who's Conservatives activists actively campaigned against Bill Clinton), pretty good for Tony Blair and George Bush at least until the quagmire of Iraq began to undermine his premiership (strangely enough he took a long time to collect his Freedom Medal). The less said about Gordon Brown’s relationship with the White House the better. Yet from where David Cameron is currently sat, the ‘White House Photo opportunity' is practically priceless.

No doubt Iran is also going to be fairly high on the agenda. Benjamin Nethanayu (the Israeli PM), was in Washington last week and there can be little doubt that there is an already existing Israeli plan to deal with the Iranian nuclear sites. How much of a role that the UK and the USA will play in the event of any conflict will also no doubt be much discussed?

The ongoing crisis in Afghanistan will also be high on the agenda, with one war unfinished, the prospect of starting another one might (you would expect) raise more than a few eyebrows. While I have serious concerns about nuclear proliferation I do think that both the US and the USA have ‘ramped up the rhetoric’ over the possibilities of Iran developing nuclear weapons for their own reasons. Certainly in mid February, Foreign Secretary William Hague was busy talking up the possibilities of a ‘new cold war’ with Iran.

The ‘special relationship’ such as it is passes through phases of warmth and uncertainty, certainly, with the mainland Europeans, from an American perspective are beginning to look decidedly flaky on Iran. The US will have a pressing need for ‘special friend' who happens to live on an unsinkable aircraft carrier (and who coincidently just happens to have leased you a pretty useful base in the India Ocean (Diego Garcia)) and may be willing to put some boots on the ground.

Historically from a ‘Brit’ perspective, it may well be all they have left – having lost the Empire, having effectively ditched the Commonwealth and almost but not entirely failed to get into the heart of Europe. If the first world War seriously damaged and undermined Britain's economic and political position in the world, then a combination of the second world war and US diplomacy (between the 1920’s and the 1950's) effectively did for Britain as a world power.

For Dave, it may well be worth the risk of an Iranian adventure, because the pictures and television footage that the media opportunity of the Prime Minister and the President (at the White House) represents is potentially an electoral goldmine. No doubt the Downing Street strategists should have identified by now that both ethnic minority and women voters are the two key groups of voters that David Cameron has simply got to win to secure a parliamentary majority in 2015 and they will also have noticed that polling tells them that both groups absolutely lionise President Obama.

SUNDAY TIMES PHOTOGRAPHER SPEAKS ABOUT HOMS

THE PRICE OF TRUTH

Marie Colvin and Remi Ochlik

The apparent deliberate killing of two Western reporters in the besieged city of Homs and reported deaths of some 60 people across Syria has triggered more Western anger towards the repressive Damascus government. Sunday Times reporter Marie Colvin, an American, and French photographer Remi Ochlik were killed by shelling by Syria's government forces. Colvin, 56, and Ochlik, 28, were reportedly staying in a house in Homs' area of Baba Amr that was being used by activists as a media centre when it was hit by a shell on Wednesday morning. At least two other foreign journalists were wounded. Marie Colvin, filed her last copy for last Sunday’s Sunday Times, it is a powerful piece of war reporting, and exposes the harsh reality of what is going on in Homs (and other parts of Syria). We can certainly not say that we don’t know what is going on, the question is twofold – how much longer will we tolerate it and what can we do?

THE HUMAN COST OF A UN VETO

The people of Homs (and the rest of Syria) continue to pay the price for the Peoples Republic of China and Russia giving the green light to Syria's rulers to slaughter its opponents. Russia and China have now twice vetoed UN action on Syria. President Assad and his government used the veto as an effective licence to kill those Syrian people who oppose them. Human rights groups and activists say more than 7,000 people have been killed by Syrian security forces since the uprising began last March.

The UN actually stopped estimating the death toll in Syria after it passed 5,400 in January, saying it was too difficult to confirm the figures. Syrian Government forces have been battering the rebel stronghold of Homs since last week. It has been estimated at least 95 people died in the city last Monday alone. The Syrian government has publicly vowed to pursue the offensive until "order" is restored and state television has denied that there had been any bombardment.



Russia may persist in maintaining its relationship with the Syrian dictatorship; sue to a combination of arms sales, strategic desire for a warm water port and a lingering resentment in the corridors of the Kremlin to having lost the Cold War. It has been estimated that some 10% of Russia's global arms sales go to Syria, with current contracts being possibly worth as much as $1.5 billion (£950 million). Aside from ammunition, recent sales have included military training aircraft, air defence systems and anti-tank weapons. The icing on the cake though is the fact that the Assad regime provides the Russian navy with a navy base at the port of Tartus (which is Russia's last base outside of the former Soviet Union).

It's entirely natural for the Peoples Republic of China itself a brutal repressive dictatorship to side with the Syrian Government. The PRC’s behaviour towards ethnic minorities (and the peoples of Tibet and Xinxiang / East Turkestan to name but two) within its own border is a matter of record. China has other concerns and anxieties, spreading democracy definitely is not among them, stability at any price may be a key factor here as well as potential arms sales.

Syria's slightly more fair weather friends Venezuela, South Africa, Brazil and India, abstained on previous UN resolutions have been pretty quiet of late (as has the old traditional ‘left’). Its a little odd that some of the states indirectly supporting the Syrian dictatorship have themselves been involved in liberation struggles themselves, perhaps they might well have once had a degree of sympathy for the Syrian people who are laying down their lives for freedom and liberty or perhaps they are stuck in the vice like grip of the past or enjoying the trappings of power.

However, you spin this, its yet another pretty blatant diplomatic rebuff to the West, perhaps signalling a much stronger stance from Beijing and Moscow who are unhappy to see the weight of the Security Council ranged against the Syrian authorities. Perhaps all of this signals the end of the new era of intrusive diplomacy brought about by the UN Security Council resolution 1973 on Libya last March, overwhelmed by Russia and China's self-interest.

It is entirely naive to think that that President Bashar al-Assad will go peacefully or any time soon. A brutal leader can kill as many of his people as he likes when there are no real consequences for him or his regime over the short time and stay in power. Assad's brutal murderous regime continues to rocket and shell its own citizens and to bring buildings crashing down on top of women and children in Homs.

The West and the Arab League invested a great deal of time and effort in putting together the UN Security Council resolution – which if not vetoed would have condemned the violence and called for a transition to democracy. Such a resolution would have sent a powerful signal not only to Assad but also to those around him that the world had taken note and a potential coalition forming against him. Although the wording of the resolution was weak, making no reference to sanctions or even the specific removal of Assad – both Russia and China quickly used their veto to kill it stone dead.

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS...

A report by Human Rights Watch has called on the Arab League to suspend Syria, saying the abuses against civilians in Homs are crimes against humanity. The US-based group's report makes grim reading documenting arbitrary detention, deaths in custody, torture, enforced disappearances, and systematic unlawful killing of civilians in the city of Homs (and elsewhere in Syria) by Syrian Government forces. Homs is the focus for anti-government demonstrations and the effective capital of the revolt against the brutal and repressive Syrian dictatorship. Some forty people were killed there on Thursday.

The UN says at least 3,500 people have been killed in Syria in protests against President Bashar al-Assad. Syria continues to benefit from China and Russia's veto on the UN Security Council, where a resolution which condemned the crackdown in Syria (back in October) was a serious blow to attempts to develop an international consensus on how to grapple with President Bashar al-Assad's brutal regime. Western diplomats tweaked the resolutions wording (which had been proposed by Britain, France, Germany and Portugal, in co-operation with the USA) to try to take account of Chinese and Russian concerns.

The clear diplomatic rebuff to the West, perhaps signals a much stronger stance from Beijing and Moscow who are unhappy to see the weight of the Security Council ranged against the Syrian authorities. This move has only heightened divisions on the Security Council, where Brazil, India, South Africa and Lebanon quietly abstained; this suggests that any idea of a new era of intrusive diplomacy which was brought in by the UN Security Council resolution 1973 on Libya last March is effectively over, perhaps overwhelmed by self-interest.

It's natural for the Peoples Republic of China itself a brutal repressive dictatorship to side with the Syrian Government. Russia has other concerns, spreading democracy not being among them, so an anxiety about a potential lack of future arms sales may be a driving concern. It’s a little odd that some of the states indirectly supporting the Syrian dictatorship have themselves been involved in liberation struggles themselves, perhaps they might well have once had a degree of sympathy for the Syrian people who are laying down their lives for freedom and liberty.

WHAT PRICE LIBERTY?

BBC Newsnight'S Sue Lloyd-Roberts was smuggled into Homs, which is the scene of some of Syria's strongest anti-government protests and most violent army crackdowns, to see what life is like for people there.



The Syrian city of Homs was one of the first cities to join the Syrian anti-government uprising when it began back in March. Thousands of city residents gathered in the main square to call for the lifting of the government's emergency laws and a genuine democracy.

Since that time the city has been effectively besieged by President Bashar al-Assad's armed forces and has been the scene of almost daily attacks. The unofficial title of the "Capital of the Syrian Revolution" has been earned at a heavy price without almost half of the killings of civilians since the uprising began, estimated to be at least 3,000, having taken place there.

AFTER THE FAFF...

The UN Security Council has finally come around to condemning the Syrian government for its deadly crackdown on protesters. This is the first clear condemnation issued by the Security Council, which includes longstanding allies of Syria such as Russia not to mention Brazil, India and South Africa who all have close ties to Syria.

The UN Security Council has after much faffing about finally condemned "the widespread violations of human rights and the use of force against civilians by the Syrian authorities". And has said that those who are responsible for the violence should be held accountable. EU members of the 15-nation council had pushed for a strong resolution condemning the Syrian government and calling for a rights inquiry.

Over the weeks and months since the unrest / uprising for democracy (take your pick) India, Brazil and South Africa have been dragging their heels on a Security Council resolution that would have allowed for strong international action on Syria. Despite the heel dragging they remain committed to democracy and peace and have called for an end to the brutality of Assad's regime.

The UN statement was adopted despite the concerns of some members that any action could lead to Libya-style intervention. The Syrian army is continuing to attack the city of Hama, a centre of opposition protest, with reports of much loss of life.

So far dozens of people may have been killed in the action against Hama, with residents saying that tanks have shot their way into Assi (Orontes) Square, in the centre of the city of 800,000 people. Human rights groups are suggesting that some 140 people may have been killed in the Syrian unrest since Sunday, mainly in Hama, adding to a civilian death toll believed to be more than 1,600 since March.

So far, no matter how hard the Assad regime tries to crush the demonstrations it does not seem to be working. There were reports of further large demonstrations in several Syrian cities late on Wednesday evening and Syrian activists told AFP news agency that 50,000 people demonstrated in the eastern city of Deir al-Zour, 20,000 in Duma, north of Damascus, and 40,000 in Homs.

What comes next? I wonder what the UN will do next? Where does the UN go from here? In this case, I suspect that not a lot will happen, especially as the European element of NATO appears to be bogged down in Libya. Not to mention that Russia, China, India, Brazil and South Africa won't go along with anything close to intervention in Syria.

A WIND OF CHANGE?

Small stones can start large avalanches, opposition to Muammar Gaddafi and his murderous repressive regime is not new, it has a long history both inside and outside of Libya. Not that former PM Tony Blair and other Western Leaders who were busy snuggling up the repressive leader and his spawn would have noticed, but courageous Libyans defying the repressive Gaddafi regime took to the streets not a month ago, but more than two years ago. They risked torture and death sentences and their protest largely passed unnoticed by most of the world, a small group of families began to hold weekly demonstrations in Benghazi, the city that has become the epicenter of the uprising that swept across Libya.

In less than three months Gaddafi has gone from being the West's best mate to billy no mates. The UN Security Council has twice in three weeks done the right thing, initially by referring Libya to the International Criminal Court, then, by authorizing military force to protect civilians from Muammar al-Qaddafi's crazed wrath. Qaddafi is in many ways the perfect stage villain complete with an iffy dress sense, madness and way over-the-top threats to "show no mercy" to the people of Benghazi, along with his regional meddling and megalomaniac ideas, left him few friends or defenders.

Now What's even more amazing aside from the fact that China and Russia decided not to vote or even to abstain in the UN, is the fact that the Arab League (which has long promised much and delivered little for the Arab peoples) has also played an key role by abandoning its usual position of opposition to Security Council action against some of it's more repressive members. Previously the league has watched silently as Sudan's Omar al-Bashir committed crimes against humanity in Darfur, somewhat less recently, Saddam Hussein (Iraq) massacred Shia and Kurds, and Syria's Hafez al-Asad destroyed the town of Hama.

Now the question are the winds of change wafting through the Middle East and North Africa or is the ground literally crumbling beneath the feet of a whole host of iffy and repressive regimes - with popular dissent and demonstrations in Algeria, Syria, Yemen and Bharain - where next people may well wonder? What's embarrassing for Western leaders in particular is that they now find that many of the despots they have feted because they brought 'security and stability' to the region (and also lucratively armed to the teeth) are now busy repressing their own people in what appears to be a series of increasingly bloody and brutal (and hopefully futile) attempts to stay in power.

Gaddafi and friend (AFP / Getty)

Western leaders are 'discovering' that 'their boys' are a pretty grim and repressive bunch of (hopefully) no hopers. I suppose that we should all be grateful in that at least we have been spared the embarrassing suggestion that they did not no what they were like or what they were doing. Certainly the former New Labour Government and no doubt the Con Dem's spent plenty of time being nice to Gaddafi regime (the sight of Peter Hain (Labour MP for Neath) defending a long line of arms sales to Libya recently on BBC Question time comes to mind). Now the people are taking to the streets throughout the region, risking their lives for freedom, democracy and human rights against autocratic leaders that have long denied them for so long.

Here's hoping what we are seeing is the wind of change and here's hoping that Gaddafi (and his ilk) and the rest of the repressive bunch end up in Court and after due process spend a seriously long time in goal answering for their crimes. When Saddam went far too much was swept under the carpet (the Kurds amongst many others never did get their day in court) and we never did find out which Western Governments (and the rest) and which companies had been quietly breaking the sanctions because after all he was 'our boy'.

And while we are at it lets have a long hard look at just who's been profitably tooling up the forces of repression around the globe and shine some light on the UK's foreign policy and exactly what decisions have been and are being made on our name? Now this wave of revolution has been fuelled by the courage of ordinary people who are prepared to stand up and be counted, aided and abetted by Facebook - the blocking of which by repressive regimes is a key sign of unrest and dissent- incidentally I wonder if Facebook is blocked in Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbarbwe and Iran all of whom have expressed their support for Gaddafi?

ONE MORE THING…

There are a couple of key issues surrounding the release of the convicted Lockerbie /Pam AM flight bomber – one of which is whether of not he was even involved in perpetrating the atrocity. Syrian / Iranian involvement in the Lockerbie bombing has long been mooted – but the focus shifted to Libya during the run up to the First Gulf War – as the US and its Allies needed the Syrian’s on board - as well as Syrian troops on the ground with the Allied Armies - to swing the UN vote and liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation as well as passivity on the part of the Iranian’s who were no friend of Saddam’s Iraq.

What makes this relevant is that during the planned debate in the Scottish Parliament next week Christine Grahame, the SNP MSP for South of Scotland, is aiming to name a Syrian exile currently living under US protection in Washington DC as the true mastermind of the Lockerbie bombing, under parliamentary privilege. Grahame said the man had been named in Megrahi's appeal documents as a relative of one of the first leading suspects for the attack, the Syrian terrorist Ahmed Jibril of the pro-Palestinian Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command.

Even when you dismiss the cheap point scoring attempts being made by New / Old Labour and their Lib Dem coat holders next week’s debate could be interesting…