Farage May Be Tokenistic, But We Should Listen (This Time)

Photo © European Union 2013 - European Parliament

An unprecedented situation arose today: when The Telegraph published that Nigel Farage believes the UK should welcome refugees from the Syrian conflict, a moment arose where the Green Party, the left, and UKIP, the right, were in agreement.

Almost three years since the beginning of the Syrian crisis and a large proportion of the Syrian population are either dead, militarised or displaced by the civil war. Yet, despite this, the British government and their official opposition remain adamant that the UK should not accept any refugees from the battle-torn state. Ignoring the massive demand placed on the neighbouring countries, especially Lebanon, and that the Syrian population must either leave their home and country or face their imminent death, the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems are refusing to help those in dire need of aid.

Hence, it does come as a real surprise when the leader of the UK Independence Party, renowned for his intolerance of migration and non-nationals, is the most high-profile figure calling for the UK to be more accepting. Despite the Green Party having called for this kind of action on Syria since the vote in Parliament, UKIP are being granted the real voice, due to their increasing success in the polls. Having caught on to this, Nigel Farage is making the most of it and he and his party are beginning to act as more of a pressure on the Government.

Attempting to find reconciliation for this confusion, however, can inevitably lead to some cynicism. Is it just a ploy by the UKIP leader to find some a policy that is popular with the British electorate? Perhaps it is just a way to soften the hardened perception of the party that they are nationalistic and racist. It is possible to find this as an answer: In the same article, the party leader maintained the position that we should limit the number of Eastern Europeans becoming resident in the UK. Trying to differentiate become immigrants and refugees, Farage implied that we have a duty to help those displaced by war and other humanitarian crises, which is entirely right, but that those immigrating for other reasons are undeserving of any support, regardless of the wider contexts of their lives.

And, again, I find myself in complete shock as I find myself in agreement with Tory politician, Andrew Brigden, who said “it’s purely political tokenism and it’s a policy put forward by…a tokenist politician.” Nigel Farage is simply doing this to strengthen his party’s image where the other parties look weak, and with the European elections on the horizon. He’s also chosen the Christmas period, when the other parties are fairly quiet (with the exception of Cameron who is busy being criticised in flood-stricken Yalding) to make this bold announcement. It’s all part of his recipe to gain a positive perception of his party. With people becoming tired of the three governmental parties, they are looking for alternatives and with UKIP tapping into their fears on immigration, distrust of Europe and now some compassionate ground for Syrian refugees, there is a potential for a far more popular UKIP here.

However, even if we are to be cynical of Farage’s motives, his is a policy we must also support. There has been a distinct lack of support for Syrian civilians throughout the conflict from the UK. We have shouted at Assad and threatened terrorist organisations who have used the conflict to their advantage. We have offered non-lethal support and humanitarian aid. But the conflict continues and people continue to lose their homes and their lives. If we really want to help the Syrian people, we need to help end the conflict and help every civilian return to a normal peaceful life.

Prime Minister's Questions - 4th September

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

MPs appeared rusty as the first session of Prime Minister's Questions began after the Summer recess. It comes as no surprise that the dominant topic in the House was Britain's response to the Syrian civil war, following the recall of parliament for a debate on military intervention last week. Cameron and Miliband debated in a calm manner, agreeing on points that a diplomatic solution must be reached by convening talks between the warring parties and the nations backing them. Cameron couldn't resist a shot at Miliband, ending their exchange with a complaint that Miliband divided the house on a vote 'that led to a vote'. Many members of the House called for a more concerted effort in bettering relations with Iran, who were named as complicit in an attack on the British embassy, following the election of a new president. Cameron argued that Britain needed to be cautious but that he had taken steps towards this.

Asked about why the Tories won't back a mansion tax but continue to implement a bedroom tax, Cameron retorted that Labour needed to learn what a tax was before ridiculing Miliband about whether they would reverse it if they were in Government and demonstrating how to nod in response. Miliband showed no sign of Labour's commitment post-2015, showing an unwillingness to show their true views, either because they would be unpopular or so as not to reveal their tactics. Prime Minister's Questions only return for a few weeks before party conference season puts it on a hiatus again.

The UK wants to stay away from bombs, not give 'succour' to Assad

Photo by Steve Rhodes 

The Government's defeat in the House of Commons over taking military action in Syria demonstrates a rare circumstance where the public are listened to by the MPs and widespread unwillingness to create another situation we are still overseeing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, as another day begins since the use of chemical weapons, allegedly by Assad, the propaganda war will begin and we will be told that we have failed the Syrian people by voting against; the UK Government will denounce its citizens as misinformed, misguided and attack anti-war MPs for their ill thought-out and 'despicable' (as Michael Gove shouted) choices. But this is not the case.

By voting no to military action yesterday, that is all MPs, representing us, have done. With public support for military intervention sitting at figures between 8 and 12 percent, depending on your source, the case for it was always going to be undermined. And that is because people recognised the failings of the Iraq and Afghanistan war: the massive loss of lives; the lies told by the Government; and, the failure for the conflicts to end after over a decade. In addition, the increased prevalence of whistleblowers, such as Wikileaks and Chelsea Manning, have raised the profile of the war crimes and terrible consequences of Western military intervention. Many now have the opinion that using bombs as a way of ending a conflict only makes the situation worse. Perhaps, the deep misunderstanding of the way to end a conflict has caused deep resentment by groups in the Middle-East and hence given way to the increased membership of terrorist organisations such as Al-Qaeda. I am in no way condoning the activities such organisations partake in, but I can see a possible motivation; you wrecked our country with your imperialist use of your military muscle, we'll do what we can to show you how reckless you have been. 

It is for these reasons that people oppose military intervention in Syria. The motion presented to the House yesterday, including the amendment, did not present us with the dichotomy that we are told we were presented with. It was not so simple as black and white that it was either bomb Syria or sit back and watch Syria bomb itself. The third option, ignored by the motions and the amendments, although recognised by many members of the house in their speeches, and unsuccessfully proposed as an amendment by Green MP Caroline Lucas, was that we used more peaceful, negotiating tactics, based on humanitarian aid and diplomacy to end the conflict. A far less bloody solution than was proposed by the leaders of the three main parties in the house. It was this view that was ever-dominant throughout the debate yet, ironically, no-one was given the choice to vote for it. The closest that MPs could get to voting for peaceful action, was to vote against the motion and the amendment, which called for military action.

Hence, the opinions that we are presented with today, that we have 'let the people of Syria down', we have 'ruled out any action' and that we have somehow given 'succour' to Assad completely disregard this third option. It is unfortunate that we live in a world where the two most powerful nation's leaders are bloodthirsty, hotheaded and quick to hit the launch button. At least, with some stroke of luck, a majority of thirteen members of the House swung the vote in the way of sense.

The Vote Today Presents Us With a False Dichotomy

 Video provided by the BBC

Today's recall of parliament reveals Cameron and Obama's deep want for imminent attacks in Syria, in response to the alleged use of chemical attacks by the Assad regime on its citizens in recent times. However, the debate uses a false dichotomy, presenting the options of military intervention or to sit back and watch as black and white. These are not in fact the only options available to us as a country and there are further choices we can make to act in a moral manner.

Cameron used a speech which he did not intend to use and, as such, his rhetoric seemed forceful, defensive and led by his own briefing. His body behaviour, too, demonstrated a deep desire to come across as in charge of the debate, as his decisions were undermined by his own party members, other members of the house and public opinion. Deafening his ears to criticism that he brought the house back for a pointless debate, Cameron set out his argument for the motion and military intervention, citing the Joint Intelligence Committee's report that it was 'highly likely' that the Assad regime were those responsible for the attack. However, he had to concede that this motion was based on a judgement, not evidence, and therefore that there was no 100% certainty about it. He dodged questions asking how an attack on Syria would actually deter a dictator, who has already showed a lack of shame and worry, from continuing to use chemical weapons. Driven by the legacy of the Iraq War, Cameron refuted any claim that an attack in Syria would be similar, saying there would be no troops on the ground, and no attempt at regime change. As members around the house quizzed him on his statement, Cameron maintained his claim that 'if nothing is done, we're more likely to see chemical weapons used' and, strangely, argued that there was no need to look at evidence throughout.

Cameron thumping the desk rather too audibly. #Syria

— Politically Me (@Politically_Me_) August 29, 2013

Cameron's speech was seen widely as relatively weak and as reluctantly sticking to a brief, with many speculating that there was still a want to launch an attack soon. What was clear from Cameron's speech, though, was that he was certain that the conclusions of the JIC and the US were enough to launch a unilateral intervention without the approval of the UN Security Council.

Cameron Syria speech in summary - This is a judgement. Will Assad be more or less likely to use chemical weapons if we take no action?

— Nick Robinson (@bbcnickrobinson) August 29, 2013

Terrible speech from Cameron - no answers on how to avoid escalation, no answers on breaking international law, no case made

— Caroline Lucas (@CarolineLucas) August 29, 2013

Miliband presented a far more heartfelt, solemn and emotional response to the motion as he tabled Labour's amendment, which included a requirement to hear the results of the UN tests, and that there be compelling evidence for the case. Despite a difficult staff, Miliband commanded a well-thought-out speech, but still presented one side of the dichotomy, refusing the idea that anything other than military intervention is viable, simply stating that we needed to be 'clear-eyed' before heading into war. Labour are not ruling out military intervention. Although he demonstrated far greater understanding of the real priority of such an intervention, Miliband failed to take notice of the fact that a diplomatic peace-keeping solution poses far less risks to life than military intervention of any sort. What did ring true though is that Miliband seemed more in touch with the Conservative Party than Cameron was, demonstrating the deep dissatisfaction from Tory MPs with Cameron's original war intentions.

Wow a hell of a lot of conservative back bench MPs are in agreement with what @Ed_Miliband is saying on #Syria. Cameron looking lonely.

— Phillip Jones (@Phillip_D_Jones) August 29, 2013

'Evidence should precede decision, not decision precede evidence' proclaimed Miliband to choruses of support, over some members complaining about the delay in response. Any response should be time-limited, have clear objectives and a legal course and for that the UN should not be seen as simply as an inconvenience, he stated. Yet, Miliband's speech, despite proving better than Cameron's, seemed just a bid to follow the appropriate course, and avoid a repeat of the Iraq war. The cynics among us will argue that this is a result of wanting distance from Blair and Iraq or wanting to shine on the good side of the argument, playing to his party's and the population's concerns. But a hidden message was made apparent; even if the UN Security Council do not approve military action, the Labour party would be prepared to commit to it anyway.

It comes of no surprise that Nick Clegg did not make a statement, but his party members were particularly vocal, with many sympathetic to Labour's amendment, or the amendment, not discussed, tabled by Caroline Lucas, detailed below.

George Galloway, ex-Labour, now Respect, and anti-war campaigner, spoke passionately against supporting either side of the war, referencing the video uploaded by the Free Syrian Army of a commander eating a man's heart, and the war crimes of the Assad regime. He continued by arguing against ordering our army to war, claiming that only 11% of the population agreed with such a decision. Shouting at the house, Galloway seemed to oppose almost anything stated yet seemingly proposing no solutions.

George Galloway: 'Can ever a British government have imagined sending its men and women to war with support of just 11% in public opinion?'

— James Chapman (Mail) (@jameschappers) August 29, 2013

Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, tapped into perhaps what is being felt by the majority of citizens across the country as she noted that military intervention is not the best way forward for either the Syrian citizens at the centre of the violence, or the citizens of the UK. She noted that the original motion put to the House by the Prime Minister had changed due to the demands of other MPs and the citizens of the country. Lucas also stressed that any military intervention must require any sanctioning by the UN Security Council, even with the Labour amendment, and that this is simply seen as an inconvenience rather than a due course of justice. She declared that the summary of the legal advice granted to MPs was unacceptable and that members should be given more. She stated that she remained to be convinced that any military action would deter rather than escalate the horrors within the country, questioning what we would do if Assad retaliated to our attacks rather than back down. She argued that only a diplomatic solution would address the situation - unfortunately, her own amendment will not be given any time to be discussed today and thus, members of the house are given only black and white options. Members are 'misguided' when they state that not intervening with our military, ignoring the case that can be made using diplomacy and humanitarian aid.

What seemed to overarch the debate was the question of 'Why now?' as MPs wondered why the use of chemical weapons should cause an escalation of our response, when the deaths of over 100,000 did not. Surely, one death is as equal as another death. Furthermore, there was detailed concern regarding the response of the Syrian regime, and the further implications of any attack by Western nations. Indeed, a BBC correspondent has tweeted images of Israel handing out gas marks as they prepare for the potential of Syria retaliating to an attack by Western nations by using weapons in Israel.

Stocking up on gas masks in #Israel. Big queue in Tel Aviv distribution centre. Concern but no panic pic.twitter.com/OVE2NlDEo5

— Richard Galpin (@Richardgalpin) August 29, 2013

It is extremely pleasing to see that MPs voted, twice, against any step towards military intervention. Many MPs, during the debate, recognised the third option that is an increased attempt at diplomacy, humanitarian aid and forcing the two sides apart peacefully to find a solution. Unfortunately, the result in the Commons means there will be no action of that sort either, but we can at least relish in the fact we have not started another conflict which results in the deaths of many innocent people, and the potential for wider conflict across the world.

We must now seek the third option of peaceful diplomacy, stop angering the Arab world and reduce our reliance on the Western might. We must also hope that the US do not take the unilateral route they have announced they are considering today.

I wrote to my local MP to detail my concerns around the vote today, the text of which can be read below:

Dear MP,

I am writing to you as a constituent with deep concern regarding the possible military intervention of the UK and other parts of the western world in the Syria crisis and I am hoping that you will listen and take my concerns into account when placing your vote in Parliament this Thursday.

Although I agree that the Syrian crisis is an incredibly appalling situation and that there is a strong case for intervention of some sort, I believe that military intervention is a dangerous path to head down. Learning from the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, we must note that these conflicts have not yet ended, people continue to die each day and deep resentment of the Western world has come about as a result of these confrontations.

Furthermore, with hundreds dying each day in Syria, the case for intervention should be centred around their suffering rather than the might of the West. If we are to bombard the country with bombs and cruise missiles, we must ensure that they are only used against targets which sustain the country’s military capabilities - no citizens should be killed in the process. We must also provide on-the-ground humanitarian aid to victims of the violence on both sides and seek to reunite displaced children in the country and those who have fled - this should be our highest priority.

However, it is also incredibly important that satisfactory evidence is reached to ascertain that the use of chemical weapons was under the instruction of the Assad regime and that a multilateral agreement is reached with the UN or NATO before we commit to any military intervention. In the meantime, we should act to ensure that those injured are given proper treatment and attempt to implement a ceasefire.

My preferred outcome of the debate on Thursday is for the UK and other western nations to act as peacekeepers, working with either side of the conflict to reach a diplomatic situation, allowing for no more bloodshed and, hopefully, a consensual agreement that can lead to a better situation for all those involved. Most importantly, it will allow the absolutely necessary humanitarian aid to be granted and for displaced children and adults to return to their war stricken country and find their loved ones.

Too many have died in this conflict, and the UK should not oversee or be the cause of any further deaths.

I do hope this message reaches you before the vote and that you take my concerns into account.

This article is a work in progress and will be updated as further developments are made.

Syria; the Unwinnable War

(Warning: this article discusses potentially traumatising and upsetting topics. Furthermore, the article will be using graphic and distressing images. Please do not read on if you feel you will be negatively affected by this.) 

 Image by Mark Rondeiro

 

The Syrian Civil War has progressed into one that is hard to find a solution for. After two years with the world looking on, the battle between the Assad Regime and the Free Syrian Army is just a massive bloodbath; the normality of war has taken hold and it appears that a concept of right and wrong has been forgotten. The war is not unwinnable because it will not end, but because no matter which force is successful, there is nothing redeeming about their actions and, thus, no joy or reason to celebrate. Truly awful atrocities have taken place in the country and it is too late for them to be taken back.

Hard as it may seem, morality can exist in war. The basic principles of just war theory allow us to gain an idea of what this may look like: to be undertaken in a last resort and all actions a proportionate response to the initial provocation. I’m sure we can all agree that there are certain acts, such as rape and torture, that are abominable regardless of the situation. Not even war can justify some actions.

Yesterday, the French Government confirmed that the chemical weapon, Sarin, a nerve agent, has been used by the Syrian Government during the, now, 27 month conflict. The weapon causes the nerves in our body to act differently, inevitably resulting in our bodily deterioration (The Atlantic provides a comprehensive understanding here). The unnecessary force against the protestors in the Arab Spring was detrimental far beyond what anyone expected. A peaceful and legitimate protest has become an easily avoidable massacre of 120,000 civilians, some of those from neighbouring countries or drafted in forces. The continued use of Government forces, large-scale weapons and, now, use of the chemical weapons stock show how mindless the Government are in the slaughter of their own citizens, and anyone else caught up in the process.

Baker (in the May 23^rd issue of Time) discusses, however, the true horrors of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) displayed in a video proudly uploaded to YouTube. The video, below, should be watched at your own peril. The man in the video, whose war name is Abu Sakkar (but whose real name is Khalid al-Hamad), appears to have killed a soldier and seems adamant on disgracing the pro-regime male further by cutting the heart and a lung from the body, proclaiming “I swear we will eat from your hearts and livers, you dogs of Bashar” and then raising one of the organs to his mouth and eating from it.



This one video, arguably, represents an extreme version of the mentality of soldiers in this war; we can only hope that this act of cannibalism is an isolated incident and is not repeated throughout the ranks. However, what can be confirmed is similarly horrific actions (if you ignore that murder in itself is a horrific action). Public executions, sexual assaults and the torture of children have been prominent throughout the prolonged conflict.

Furthermore, Western Intervention is looking increasingly unlikely, particularly from the USA; memories and lessons from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well as an inability to back a side. The “War on Terror” has shown that even our own soldiers, who we praise and call “heroes” are not clear of blood on their hands. Bradley Manning, currently on trial in America for leaking US military documents to Wikileaks, provided the below video to show how US soldiers were so eager to play with their toy guns and got frustrated when control took too long to give permission. In the video, we see that soldiers mistake cameras for weapons and even RPGs and decline faster, more hygienic and more successful treatment for two injured children. Those “bastards”, as we hear them called, were shot down during their innocent everyday lives by bloodthirsty soldiers.



But for none to get involved is to not challenge the distressing events of the war and to allow them to continue with no consequences, disregarding the many lives that are being ruined. However, even if, hypothetically, Western nations improved their code of conduct and rules of engagement for war, it would be difficult for them to choose which side of the battle to fight alongside of. To fight on the side of pro-regime supporters would be to justify the systematic and institutionalised murders of its own citizens and to help in the process; but to fight alongside the FSA would be to condemn the Government, help with the murders of citizens and to install the leadership of those who have committed such immoral actions, essentially legitimising them. Neither of these are attractive or moral in themselves, so a third option must be discovered, but this is harder than it may seem and requires multilateral agreement (which itself is hard to find.)

However, as the war continues to spill into the neighbouring countries of Turkey, Israel and Lebanon, this difficult decision looks increasingly like it will need to be made. War must be avoided at all costs, and intervention does not necessarily mean of the military sort. Large-scale mediation can, if properly implemented, work. But, regardless of this fact, the conflict needs to be ended as quickly and with as few lives lost in the process as possible. However, with continued criticisms of existing conflicts in the Middle-East and the atrocities committed by both sides of the war, the war appears simply unwinnable.

Disaster Strikes Again

Image by The Bay Area’s News Station

This week has been ridden with disasters and terrorism - the Boston explosions and today's gunfight, the explosion at the Texas fertiliser plant, the ricin-laced letters sent to a US senator and Barack Obama, and the earthquake in Iran. Unfortunately, they are the harsh reminders of what a fearsome world we live in. We should not be subject to such worries yet, on a daily basis, many are; anti-terrorism legislation, constant presence of surveillance devices and security announcements on public transport serve to remind us.

This week’s Boston bombings are a horrible event for the hundreds of thousands citizens to endure. Twice this week, ordinary people have been warned to not leave their homes and been left stranded with a continual threat of death, disaster and destruction to their relatively peaceful lives. Causes for celebration became crime scenes and, as is far too common in the United States, a place where people go to learn, became a place where people should avoid for their own safety. It is not a situation that anybody should have to experience.

Hence, it is ludicrous that people should use such time to promote their political message. As support and solidarity was expressed from people across the world, others took the opportunity to attack the media for their coverage of the events in contrast to the coverage of other equally-important events. On Twitter, there were messages along the lines of “the media are forgetting that people die in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria everyday”. But this is a sad argument. Yes, it is true that people do die in these sorry situations, but there is no reason to devalue the deaths and injuries of those affected in other crises. 

Perspective: 3 killed in Boston but in Iraq last month, 271 people were killed in similar attacks m.aljazeera.com/story/20134156…
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) April 18, 2013

Indeed, media coverage of events in war-struck zones is not as high as it should be and there are areas of the world that the media do prioritise over others. This is wrong and this is unfair, but the death of anyone is a highly important event. It is important to provide coverage to any distressing events, but to capitalise on the coverage of one act of terrorism to protest the lack of coverage of another is disrespectful.

Yes, media coverage of deaths in conflicts (Syria, Iraq) is disgracefully poor. But doesn't lessen the tragedy for injured/dead in Boston.
— Eytan Halon (@eytanhalon) April 15, 2013

The world is a truly dangerous place in which to live. Damage is done to individuals and their environment almost constantly, and the right coverage is never given, and equal coverage will never be possible. We are experiencing a period of complete upheaval of our beliefs and faiths and this is not something that should be ignored. We should not tolerate any threat to life, but to use one horrific event to protest about another is simply petty. Save it for another day.

Prime Minister’s Questions – 20th March

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

A serious undertone lay within the house today as members gathered for the budget announcement, resulting in a far more polite and short rally between Miliband and Cameron and the level of jeering was kept at a minimum. Finding consensus on the issues of the Cypriot euro bailout and the support for Syrian opposition, it could easily have been forgotten what a landmark day it was for the country; perhaps the work on the Leveson inquiry has showed the two parties that it is not impossible to reach something that all can agree on. Questions revolving around the budget were also kept at a minimum, most likely awaiting the question session after the announcement. Yet, this did not stop the Conservatives being blasted with their decision to cut the fifty pence tax rate for millionaires, which is set to come into effect next month. There was a disgusting display of a lack of concern from the Prime Minister when he appeared to shun the remarks of a Labour MP who told the story of a homeless teenager who must live off eleven pounds a week due to the Government’s economic policies. Obviously tired of the questions on the economy, Cameron claimed taking advice from the Labour party on the economy was ‘like taking advice from Enron on accountancy’ before refusing to answer what he would ‘spend his millionaire’s tax cut on’.

Prime Minister’s Questions – 30th January

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

In the middle of a week where Cameron’s premiership announced some of their biggest plans for expenditure, it was unsurprising that Prime Minister’s Questions focused on the pressing issue of the economy. Miliband stated that the Prime Minister had said in 2010 that the economy would have grown 5% by now. In the midst of news of the economy contracting by 0.1%, Cameron, unable to defend himself, spouted out the usual list of statistics and initiatives that he hopes to make Labour look bad with. Of course, it wouldn’t have been complete without Cameron blaming the previous Labour Government for the mess; a constant reminder that we would not be forgiven for forgetting. Miliband laughed the claims off, demanding that the “part-time chancellor” spent more time fixing the economy than trying to divert the new High Speed 2 route around his constituency, before drawing on the fact that this Government have borrowed £212bn more than they had promised. Aside from this, Cameron finally gave way to the weekly question on when he would visit a Foodbank, stating he would soon be visiting the one in his constituency. Cameron also made a mockery of George Galloway who asked a question on Syria by stating that wherever there is a brutal Arab dictator in the world, he’ll have the support of the honourable gentleman.”

What's next for Syria?

The Syrian crisis continues to worsen and any improvement to the situation seems an all too distant possibility. The announcement of the UN's special envoy to Syria, Kofi Annan's resignation from the role highlights the difficulty of the task; and aside from that, revelations from Obama's administration and talks between Russia's Putin and David Cameron  clearly demonstrate the absolute lack of international unity.

But what is the real heart of the problem? Is it a lack of unity between all members of the United Nations, with China and Russia vetoing any proposed action on Assad's regime, or is it the fact that neither the regime or the 'rebels' are adhering to the six-point plan that Annan attempted to implement? Every side blames the other, so no clarity is apparent. Regardless, the crisis is infuriating, and despite it's similarities to the Libyan uprising last year, it is also very different. Cynics might say it's to do with oil, others to say with key alliances; either way, there are civilians being killed left, right and centre here, and it's not something that should occur no matter the situation.

The situation is vastly different to Libya for a number of reasons; essentially, the sides of the oppositions and the length of time this conflict has spanned define the sensitivity of the situation. Comparatively, Libya appeared to have an almost everyone-against-Gaddafi situation, where the majority of citizens were in favour of his deposition, whereas within Syria, there is an obvious divide of opinion, and to favour one side over another would be to ignore the rights and opinions of a large sector of society, regardless of what the rest of the country and, indeed, the world thinks. Secondly, the conflict in Libya lasted only a couple of months before there was international intervention, whereas this conflict has lasted over a year now. The common opinion now is that Syria is militarised; citizens are used to conflict and there is danger for any person within the country. To arm the citizens would not simply result in the overthrow of the Government, but rather in the massacre of a vast number of citizens who disagree with the most armed side. These two points put us in a very difficult situation.

What's the correct way forward? I'm no expert on international relations, and I would hate to advocate war in any form, but it's obvious that some kind of action needs to be taken to depose Assad, or the country needs to be sorted and split, like with Sudan. But first, diplomacy needs to ensure that there is peaceful transition and implementation of whatever strategy is agreed upon. Unfortunately, diplomacy appears to be the first hurdle that cannot be overcome, forcing Annan's resignation today. And Obama appears to have decided that also, signing the document for approval in helping the rebels a few months ago, in a covert operation, just falling short of agreeing to arm them. We are yet to see the backlash on this, and a resolution that China and Russia agree appears too distant.

The strangest part of the situation; Syria have still been able to enter a team into the London 2012 Olympics, and they are competing alongside international athletes peacefully. How can a country that is killing its own citizens be able to peacefully enter an international sports competition is beyond me, but apparently it's possible.