Massacre in Hama hastens the need to tackle Assad
Daniel Korski 12:28pm
Syrian President Bashar Al Assad has praised his troops for ‘foiling the
enemies’ of his country. Some enemies. 140 civilians are said to have died in a pre-Ramadan crackdown on protesters, adding to the toll of 1,600 civilians who have been killed since
anti-government demonstrations began in mid-March. Details of the events in Hama are unclear because journalists have been kept out of Syria. But the pattern of events is familiar: protests against
the Assad regime emerge; the army moves in to kill demonstrators; more protests then take place, which leads to more killings.
Meanwhile, the international community stands by. Germany and Italy have called for an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council, but as Foreign Secretary William Hague told the Today programme on Radio 4, "It is a very frustrating situation, the levers we have are very limited." Part of the reason for the impasse is what Colum Lynch of Foreign Policy magazine has called the Libya "hangover": the belief held by key Security Council members that nothing good came of UN resolution on Libya, so nothing good would come of UN action over Syria.
Not everyone agrees, however. In the United States, the Foreign Policy Initiative — the latest neoconservative refuge — has issued a fact sheet of measures to hasten Assad’s departure. Key among these is for the US to impose tougher sanctions on Assad and his leadership, and for the Obama administration to call “unequivocally” for his departure. The think-tank also proposes direct, assistance to the liberal opposition movements in Syria, for example by helping them stay in touch with one another and their allies overseas.
Another option is to go back to the UN and force a vote on a resolution against the Syrian regime, as it would showcase Russian callousness and Assad’s increasing isolation. For the sake of ordinary Syrians, the West should take another hard look at the available options.
UPDATE: Russia appears to have tightened its position today, calling for violence in Syria to stop.
Previous
Rhoda Klapp
August 1st, 2011 12:39pm Report this commentIt is my usual challenge to Mr Korski to show us an example of fixing one of these unfortunate countries before moving on to the net. Or need we start a fourth war?
Chris lancashire
August 1st, 2011 1:03pm Report this commentInteresting double standards applied to the Middle East and to Africa. In the Middle East calls for action are incessant. Yet at the same time we tolerate muderous regimes in DRC, Zimbabwe, Sudan and, historically, Rwanda with hardly a word.
I'm in favour of stopping out of all of them but just wondered why we treat the two areas so differently.
Andy Carpark
August 1st, 2011 1:05pm Report this commentGood grief, are you still here?
1. There is no legal basis for intervention in Syria, even within the might-is-right farrago of bullshit that is public international law.
2. I do not care what some two-bit interventionist think tank thinks.
3. News 4U. Russia will not give a rat's arse if it's 'callousness' is 'showcased'. Nor should it.
4. There is no 'international community'.
5. Your mission to export universal liberal virtue to the world is naïve, half-baked and stupid.
6. You are a buffoon.
Till the next time.
Cjamesk
August 1st, 2011 1:08pm Report this commentNATO is unfortunately being humiliated in Libya what makes you think we'd fair better in Syria?
Surely we should have tackled Al Assad first as he was of a more direct threat, but then again at the cynic in me can't help but wonder that at the top table I suppose nationalising Oil revenue was a no no for the west.
Romantically Hard Hearted Perry
August 1st, 2011 1:49pm Report this commentThis would be like . .. um . . . driving out Mugabe . . . Kimmy Jong . . and all the other despots that despoil the world . . . oh yes . . and Mr Gadaffi?
OK my lovelies, - you just bring it on, - but only providing you promise to be first in the firing line.
Jez
August 1st, 2011 1:58pm Report this commentI can't actually submit what i was going to put there mate.
I actually do think you must be an alright person- and may not deserve anymore of a slating than you're actually recieving right now.
But Daniel. What is it that is actually going through your head when you submit stuff like this?
You honestly was like a cat on a hot tin roof regards attacking Libya originally.
If you are faced with something that is a fact; e.g. many have become unstuck when attacking Muslim countries with zero concept of 'on the ground' realities (the words 'Shia & Sunni' should be the main one regards the Iraq situation), then why get involved with this possible uber-nightmare?
These are very, very tough places (you could actually say 'Horrible' by our meaning of the word) and no matter how much meddling there is by our highly qualified vocal educated elites is EVER going to change that.
This is why Israel has to be so hard in regards to this because if they weren't they'd be wiped off the map.
Come on pal. Sort it out.
Hexhamgeezer
August 1st, 2011 2:00pm Report this commentThe article doesn't explain why there is a need to tackle Assad. It just runs through what a murderous git he is - so far so world leader/UN member.
Unless an article leads with 'Massacre in East Kilbride hastens need to tackle Salmond' you need to explain to plebs like me why we need to get involved.
Incidentally is the Spec rationing Korski insults?
Vulture
August 1st, 2011 2:06pm Report this comment'Liberal opposition...' now where have IIheard that phrase before referring to an Arab state?
Tum.tee.tum....
Ah yes...I remember now - it was in Mr K's previous articles recommending supportive action in Tunisia, Egypt and...er... Libya.
Whatever happened to those liberals Daniel?
Now we're told there's a liberal opposition just waiting to take over in Syria. Pardon my belly laugh.
If you must pretend to be an expert on the Arab world, Daniel, you should learn (its kinda basic knowledge) that there never was, is not now, and never will be anything remotely resembling liberalism there. The choice is between one corrupt, oppressive and bloodthirsty regime...or another.
Please do get real.
Hard Hearted Perry
August 1st, 2011 2:08pm Report this commentUnbelievable Triumph for H2B!! Gadaffi to hire PR firm 'to improve image'
There all that slog by the H2B to effect change (or would that be 'affect') has paid off.
Viv Evans
August 1st, 2011 2:13pm Report this comment'Tackle Assad' - yep, good idea, especially since he's allegedly supported by Iran, and by their Lebanese Ally, Hezbollah.
Let them fight it out amongst themselves. Should have done the same in Libya. After all, we let KSA tackle the Bahraini problem.
I think there are sufficient, and sufficiently rich, islamic states to do the Assad-tackling without our help.
EC
August 1st, 2011 2:18pm Report this commentAndy Carpark,
Perhaps DK's perspective might benefit from a gap year. He should de-tank, go far flung and bag himself an exotic dancer or two. The 3rd Lord Moynihan could have taught him a lot!
normanc
August 1st, 2011 2:25pm Report this commentSend in the bombers! Syria must be flattened to save the downtrodden proletariat!
These fluoriding, precious bodily stealing Assadians must be bombed into the 13th century alongisde their Afghan cousins.
Yet another decent stab at trolling by 'Daniel Korski', keep up the good work! Whichever scribble knocked this one out, next time try and be a little more sensible though, if you make it too ridiculous people will start to catch on.
You could also make it into a game, try and sneak in famous phrases or obscure words, make it a bit more interesting.
denis cooper
August 1st, 2011 2:27pm Report this comment"Massacre in Hama hastens the need to tackle Assad"
Do you think so?
Then why not go and tackle him yourself, and risk getting your own worthless brains blown out rather arguing for others to go and do it?
Start now, assemble your Syrian Foreign Legion from among like-minded people, and go and do your bit.
You could indulge in a nice bit of irony by calling yourselves "The Chickenhawks".
David Ossitt
August 1st, 2011 3:28pm Report this commentWhat Andy Carpark said.
And.
“Massacre in Hama hastens the need to tackle Assad”
No it does not; we can’t afford it.
Chris
August 1st, 2011 3:47pm Report this commentDennis Cooper, and many others who comment here, you can't think intelligently, but it doesn't stop you criticising those who can. Similarly, you don't have to fight a war yourself before you're allowed to debate policy.
TomTom
August 1st, 2011 4:05pm Report this commentAssad Sr killed 40,000 in 1982 in Hama and noone batted an eyelid. Now NATO bombs civilian installations like TV stations as in 1999 and it rates barely a mention; likewise the killings of Afghan and Pakistani civilians by remote drone attack....not a twitter out of Korski & Co.
It is amazing how many people think the British are some kind of Foreign Legion to fight their insane causes....just why do you armchair warriors think this way Daniel ?
MajorFrustration
August 1st, 2011 6:16pm Report this commentHope nobody is suggesting that we contribute to yet another conflict - surely its time the Arab world stood up and be counted. Im waiting.......... thought so.
Rhoda Klapp
August 1st, 2011 6:37pm Report this commentChris, tell us more about this wonderful 'thinking' and how anybody who comes to a different conclusion than you can't do it. Oh, and how it is fine, OK and not in the least hypocritical to want to send squaaddies to a war you won't go to yourself. How glad they must be of your support.
MaxSceptic
August 1st, 2011 7:46pm Report this commentFFS - let's keep well clear and let the Syrians sort themselves out in their traditional manner.
It is not as if there is going to be a liberal-democratic government in any Arab country in the next couple of generations.
I bet that if/when Assad falls, the next leader of Syria will be a thug with a moustache.
WetherspoonThree
August 1st, 2011 8:45pm Report this commentI don't recall any country rushing to intervene when we had our civil war.
For the sake of the healing process that must inevitably follow this type of conflict, it probably better for the self respect of all Syrians if they sort it out themselves.
Ditto Libya...
sorry I forgot the oil.
Richard of Moscow
August 1st, 2011 10:28pm Report this commentDaniel, and Chris:
Instead of trolling, just get a Turkish Airlines flight to 'Stamboul, bus to Gaziantep, minibus over the border, and join your 'pro-democracy' chums in their uprising.
No excuse for armchair warriors in these days of affordable travel. Not cowards, are you?
Herbert Thornton
August 2nd, 2011 1:12am Report this commentRichard of Moscow - I second that.
Anybody who is eager to send his young countrymen to war should set an example himself instead of self righteously calling for them to be used as cannon fodder.
Verity
August 2nd, 2011 4:07am Report this commentThe problems of Syria are nothing to do with us. Places with oil, yes, we should annex their oilfields until they either grow up or THE WEST develops a new form of travel. Syria's not our business.
And once we developed more sophisticated fuel concepts, which we will, Saudi Arabia, Libya et al won't be our business either.
No one gives a crap about the wellbeing of Syrians and Saudi Arabians. It's the oil. When it's gone, so are we. They can have their deserts back.
cuffleyburgers
August 2nd, 2011 8:21am Report this commentI don't really agree with all the vitriol heaped on poor old Korski over this - the fact is that the situation in Syria is tragic and it is entirely reasonable and humane to want to do something to stop it.
Unfortunately as we have seen time and again, such efforts are a waste of blood and treasure, have really never had anything like the results that were wanted.
It is an fact that all we can do from the sidelines is something like:
1) stop any military or govt to govt aid to the country
2) progressively withdraw diplomatic privileges
3) freeze leaders' personal assets where these can be demonstrated to have been stolen from their people
4) deny visas to leaders and senior military and intelligence staff
5) smart sanctions
Military intervention should be reserved for cases where there is a direct threat to our interests, and Syria does not enter into that category.
Baron
August 2nd, 2011 9:16am Report this commentwill this do, should it be tweaked it some more, whats the bloody matter with you:
enjoyable as your invectives are, and Baron broadly agrees with the gist of your onslaught, your thinking is but along a narrow path, even if one take a pragmatic take of things, consider this, if he regime stays, keeps the unwashed suppressed, kills some more, many of the young with the i-pods who want to have a say will most likely leave, come here, claim benefits at best, do abit of damage at worst, claiming that our doing nothing justifies it, this has always been the pattern of how things turned out with countries that did what the Syrian Adolf is doing.
Baron cannot pretend he knows what the answer is, others more versed in things of this sort seem to lack in this department, too, it may help though if the West either closed the borders, stopped the inflow of those leaving such totalitarian shitholes, or aided, one way or another those who may end up here, enabling them to stay where they are, squabble amongst themselves.
Jez
August 2nd, 2011 10:45am Report this commentI've just read my original post back.
I write the word 'actually' four times in the first three paragraphs!
I'm actaully quite proud of that.
Andy Carpark
August 2nd, 2011 1:39pm Report this commentGo, Jez.
denis cooper
August 2nd, 2011 2:12pm Report this commentBaron -
"... many of the young with the i-pods who want to have a say will most likely leave, come here ..."
Not if they already knew that they'd automatically be sent straight back to wherever they'd come from, by the return flight, or ferry, or train, or if necessary by special transport.
Which is what used to happen.
Back to top