Syria under Assad

Horror in Houla

It is time for the outside world to start setting up buffer zones in Syria

See article

Readers' comments



I highly doubt that we know who actually killed these people. There is sectarian strife and civil war. External powers intervention will not help. By the way, stop referring to Putin as lacking democratic legitimacy. Draw a parallel with Wisconsin governor Walker - you may not like him, many do not, but he was elected and the majority do support him.


Who are the real perpetrators of this hideous crime? The author seems to be pretty covinced that Assad is to blame..If there is any concete evidence aside from the fabricated stories as seen on some media then yes Assad is a monster that should be overthrown without delay and brought to trial for crimes against humanity. But it makes me wonder how could someone in Assads position be stupid enough to commit such an outrageous crime that threatens to errode whatever remaining backing he has. There must be a real serious and unbiased investigation to find the real perpetrators no matter whose side they are on, and whose interests they serve...

guest-iswnaoe in reply to Radion

It could well be that old cherry of a question of actually 'How much control the Chief Exectutive in question has?' This point can be asked of many other 'Leaders' too of course, one can only speculate for instance that if 'perchance' some silly² act by U.S. Forces in the 'near future' is executed? although President Obama (in this election year) must as Number 1. take full responsibility (and it being politically advantageous to his opposition, for said act, he may well only be aware of it after the fact. Never to be proven of course, but reading between many lines, I subscribe to the point of view that many an American is well of this opinion too. One old chap who once described to me the silence of a V1 Doodlebug stopping over London during the Blitz, could well indentify with today's 'Drones one feels too!
Yours Respectfully, Graham George Ricketts, Berlin, Germany.

Cosmonaut in reply to Radion

It was probably committed by Alawite irregulars that weren't under the explicit command of the regime and weren't explicitly supported by the regime. There's probably a number of different ways that the trail of responsibility leads to the regime though- the shelling of Houla, the probable implicit backing for the perpetrators. But I agree-



I had the distinct impression that part of President Putin's argument for not wishing to back intervention, was the very pertinent truth regarding The Wests, (and others)total lack of interest regarding the 1981 massacre (circa 20,000+) carried out by President Assad's brother and his cronies? This blatant hypocrisy on 'our' parts should possibly be taken into today's equation I feel! It surely cannot be simply a case of post cold war, and pre-internet ignorance, can it?

Yours Respectfully, Graham George Ricketts, Berlin, Germnay.

Cosmonaut in reply to guest-iswnaoe

"This blatant hypocrisy on 'our' parts should possibly be taken into today's equation I feel!"

Why? It doesn't change the facts on the ground. If anything it might make us more willing to actually be serious about that whole "never again" thing. (Right now, it's more like "never again until next time".)


Let us acknowledge one thing. There is every indication that any sudden departure of Assad will produce a Sunni driven ethnic cleansing of Syrian Alawites, Druze, and Shia. Remember Tikrit? Fallujah? Remember what pissed off Sunnis did in the Iraqi power vacuum, when they were the MINORITY? Those folks are still around, still armed, and still pissed. And they are already infiltrating Syria, where they are the majority. With this in mind, the attempts to depose Assad as if his personal presence were the main problem appear terribly simplistic. He knows, as do all Syrian Alawites, that his comfortable retirement is not the only objective in a Syrian transition. Yes, the oppression is a humanitarian disaster. Yes, the world should do something. But until a COMPREHENSIVE transition plan is in place which will preserve and promote the safety and self-determination of ALL Syrians, the Russians and Chinese may very well be right to uphold the sovereignty of the current government. If Assad were removed tomorrow by bullet or learjet, the flow of blood in Syria could very well double for years to come.

If Britain, France and America really have their knickers in a twist, they should stand up and say that they screwed up the drawing of post colonial borders in the 20th century, and that they will pay for any costs associated with corrections today. Those corrections would include placing the Druze, Alawites and Shias of today's Syria into an enlarged Lebanon. Turkomen in Northern Syria and Iraq would be annexed by Turkey. Turkey and Iraq would cede a new Kurdistan. The Sunni areas of Syria could join Jordan, as could the Sunni areas of Iraq. While I'm creating world peace, let me place Palestine with Jordan too, but Gaza can opt for Egypt, natch. Bahrain and other Gulf Shias can evict minority Sunni dictators and align with Iran, the rump Shia Iraq or no one at all.

It is far fetched, but the principle is not complicated. If you want lasting peace, draw borders around ethnicities, not the interests of the Lords of London. What the world needs is Britain's mea culpa, not its vaguely ridiculous royal or olympic diversions.


in my view, safe buffer zones must be established on Syrian border to provide protection to the innocent civilians.

lockehobbes in reply to guest-iswejaa

Its not that easy. Will popoulations support their citizen soldiers being deployed to set up these buffer zones? What about the casulties? What about the cost? You need troops, bases, air superiority. As soon as there are UN boots on the ground there will Iranian etc

lockehobbes in reply to guest-iswejaa

The appropriate solution is that we (that is for me the western states) stay well clear and leave this as a syrian problem. What is more important is that we minimise all other interventions - Iranian, saudi - that will exacerbate the conflict.


“It is time for the outside world to start setting up buffer zones in Syria.”

Safe Zones for displaced refugees along Syria’s border with neighbouring countries, like Turkey, should have been well established by now. That, along with humanitarian corridors for the conveyance of essential food and medical supplies for those caught-up in a bitter and escalating bloody civil war. One should be questioning just exactly what the remit and role has been for the 300 or so UN observers on the ground in Syria, having been there now for several weeks.

lockehobbes in reply to MarkDowe

1) Setting up buffer zones is costly - in money, political capital, military presence and casulties (to the citizen soldiers of the countries who wuill inevitable comon in to mortal contact with syrian troops.
2) The geography and the geopolitical terrain are difficult
3) The UN exists to promote international stability. It prioritises sovereignty in a system, of states. It has no right, remit or capability to act in syria
4) The observers are that - unarmed observers. Personally I think that sending them was a waste of time as is the Annan pecae plan.
5) Syria is having a secterian conflict. Sunni-Alawite-Shia. If the UN or anyone esle intervenes do you suggest we support one religious group against the others?


The only true in this story is that if one day NATO will finally begin its military intervensiton, some hundreds or thousands people will be killed, governing a state will be passed to some extremists, the country will be close to humanitarian catastrophe, and no one will ever ask, why Sirian civilians have to pay such a price for someone's interests, and why guilties never pay penalties for such crimes, even if averyone knows who's a guilty. And finally how is it possible to award a Nobel peace prize to a person whose government is going to kill people


Russia (and China) like to see Iran,with it's puppet Syria as an anti-US force ,since they are challenging Saudi Arabia and Israel (both of which have American "guarantees") with either overthrow or extinction. They are willing to risk the "Persian Empire" revival movement in Iran which would be a threat to them if got going.


ENOUGH OF PROPAGANDA all spouting from western media. Where is mentioning of those moron "arab-salafist wahhabis" who are real terrorists and are actually the basis of Al-qaeda and all other islamist terror groups worldwide. They are the core of problem and they are the ones carrying out all these massacres in Syria as well as Iraq. West never wants to speak against these loyal pet-dogs whose oil is lot more precious than any human or moral values. When will the world truly wake-up to the truth....!!


It is unusual as only 12% of population are represented in state power. Russia's support of the regime in Syria create a lot of problems and encourage the regime for killings of the opposition. Definitely the country is slipping toward civil war.

Otto Beckman

The GOP is playing the Syrian situation up as a sign the Obama Administration is weak on security. Truly the American people have no more appetite for war, so this tactic won't impress Independents.

Unfortunately for the Syrian people, they will have to rid themselves of Assad on their own. In time they can do it. Meanwhile a quarantine of Syria by those countries that care, including NATO and the Arab League is in order.

Cosmonaut in reply to Otto Beckman

A "quarantine of Syria"? What would that entail?
If we're just talking about lots of sanctions, sure, I think most people can agree with you on that. But why not say that then? Some clarification would be nice.


Is there anybody really neutral and trustworthy in the "outside world " to undertake the task of setting up the buffer zones with the likes of Turkey all too eager to do it ?


If the West really wished to act, it could perfectly well intervene and use US, British, and perhaps even French vetoes ('Partant pour la Syrie') to smother condemnations in the Security Council. Evidently it does not really wish to intervene, but rather than say so prefers to let Russia and China take the blame. That is a more sensible course than intervening; but who is deceived?

lockehobbes in reply to Agellius

I agree in part. China and Russia are technically correct in uphol;ding Syria's sovereignty. The legaity of intervention in a sovereign state, where there is no effect on another state, is dubious and unstabilising. The West may well be duplicitous, it prefers to take a moral standpoint to satisy well meaning and vociferous critics (including the media, who can easily slip into taking sides (with the rebels) or who havr a vested interest (another war to cover, another book to write) whilst really having a realist agenda.

But 'it could perfectly well intervene' is not correct. Firstly, it could not have UN sanction if Russia and China veto. Second, as I have commented before, any intervention in Syria is going to put Iraq in the shade. This a big country, big army, tanks and airforce; lots of boots, logistics, tanks, planes, bombs. Third its lots of blood - Western tropps and Syrian civilians. You can't fight tanks in built up areas without massive collateral casulties. Fourth, there is massive fatigue over aid and intervention. The overwhelming majority will say this is terrible but they will also say 'its their problem'. The politicians are reluctant to get involved because they know coffins lose votes.

Gomer_rs in reply to lockehobbes

NATO intervened in Kosovo w/o the UN. It can definitely be done.
But, yeah there is no appetite for it.

Let's just say, Iraq, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan have made America in particular and the west in general leery of intervention.

I fear this may be a repeat of where a bad experience in Somalia led to a hands off policy in Rwanda.

lockehobbes in reply to Agellius

Without UN sanction it would be illegal unless there is proof that it is (collective or individual) self defence. So if your state is under attack you can defend it; but also if anither state is under attack collective self defence is a possible justification. But it requires the sovereign state to request aid - and at present the sovereign state is Assad's regime.


Option 1 'let them stew' , is best at least for the moment. Big tragedy is that the 'hotheads' were led to believe that with enough blood in the streets and gory video clips on the internet the West would be forced to intervene with airstrikes Libya style. So they didn't need to negotiate with Assad and had an obvius interest in prolonging conflict. Let's hope the Russian and Chinese vetos hold. Blessed are the peacemakers, and cursed should be the warmongerers.

lockehobbes in reply to awakeling

Agree. Completely.
1) This is a secterian conflict.
2) The rebels may be as bad or worse than Assad. They certainly can't command national support
3) Totally different conditions to Libya. Ill judged by rebels that west could or would intervene

Gomer_rs in reply to lockehobbes

The rebels didn't rise up because they expected western help, they rose up because their children were being tortured.

The spark that set the tinder aflame was a protest over a group of 12-15 year olds that were tortured for pro-democracy graffiti in the wake of events in Tunisia and Egypt.


Has the TE not had enough of bloody regime changes in Iraq & Libya? What, despots are good as long they are anti-commi but become unbearable tyrants once they run out of use??

What Hypocrisy!

Why not set up "safe havens" in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to protect the persecuted Shias?? Atleast China and Russia are consistent in their opposition to all forms of regime change engineered from outside.

lockehobbes in reply to PPVP

The rebels are sunni (as is Saudi but they are not the majority in Bahrain). But they don't want to leave, they want Assad to go. Or more to they point they want Sunni not Alawite dominance

Gomer_rs in reply to lockehobbes

Except if we believe in popular sovereignty as the democratic west is supposed to believe in, then a 90% Sunni country should be Sunni dominated. Just as 65-70% Shia Iraq is now Shia dominated, and the countries of Europe are Christian dominate, etc.


Reality Checks
1) There is an international system: It prioritises stability over sovereignty and soverignty over peace. Its is made up of functioning units, the dominant ones being states, because of their capabilities. These capabilities determine their place in the ordering system and shape the ordering principles. International Society is a subset of states with the same culture and system with the USA at its core. There is no international community.
2) Rights arise from duties arise from rules made by societies;they are socially specific; states make rules law and aplly sanction. They have a duty to their citizens (but not others) through a social contract. It is their function to seek the good life of ciotizens and so make gains in the international system. All action are based on national interest.
3) The UN exists to promote stability and avoid interstae conflict. It prioritises sovereignty and self determination. The universal declation of rights makes the declaration universal but the rights national (i.e by state law). The UN reflects balance of power politics. Simple majority or unanimous voting would note work as major powers would not support actions agianst their interests (see 2).
4) The struggle for democracy is a domestic one; people, individuals and nations, have a right to self determination which sometimes erupts into war, exactly as described tby political thinkers such as Hobbes and Locke. The conflict ends when a sovereign authority prevails, uncontested and with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
5) There is no strong national interest in the major powers; the area is unstable; there is no obvious alternative sovereign authority to Assad; it is a secterian conflict; it would be a massive military exercise with high costs and casulties.
The realist says stay out of this mess at least until a viable government (whether from the existing regime or others) emerges that can command sufficient domestic support.


All ideas of intervention are based on either a)the presumption of a duty on some imagined international community or b) the idea of national interest and international stability.
With respect to the former duties (arising from rules, creating rights) are socially specific and exclusive, as is the social contract between citizen and state. Even the universal declaration of human rights recognises this, and puts notions of sovereignty and self determination at its heart. There can be no justification for military intervention, risking western soldiers and breaching Syria's sovereignty and self determination.
With respect to b) the international system prioritises stability over sovereignty but sovereignty over peace. In Syria, unlike Libya, we do not have a viable and legitimately supported resistance vying for sovereignty from a weak regime. Instead we have a secterian conflict in which one group (Sunni) has also rebelled against a sovereign authority that, however odious, shows no signs of relinguishing authority. Any action that led to the fall of the Assad regime is likley to result in an anarchic secterian conflict.
Sanctions? Does Syria have enough international trade to make this meaningful? Buffer zones? For how long, how big, protected by whom? Are we going to draw NATO troops into a fight? Will Iran get involved? Will that draw in Israel?

Bertymandias in reply to lockehobbes

I appreciate & respect your line of reasoning but what of the thousands and thousands of people who will die? What of the impact on neighbouring countries as Syria descends further into the quagmire of civil war?

Assad and co. cannot cede any sort of power, not now they have so much blood on their hands. They can only kill everyone who stands against them. Anything less would be, at best, consigning themselves to life imprisonment.

lockehobbes in reply to Bertymandias

You are a humanitarian. I agree the loss of life will be sad. But I am a realist. War is bad, and most war can be avoided, but all war cannot. I don't see how commiting the developed world to a conflict will reduce loss of life.
Nothing we do will make this better, and it will cost a lot in blood and treasure. It best to focus on where/when you can make a positive difference

lockehobbes in reply to Bertymandias

By the way, I think the comment about neighbouring countries is important. One of the reasons that the ewest won't intervene are complex issues of geo-politics and where they would attack from, what coutries would get involved. It might be that there is more danger of contagion if there is a military intervention than notI would suggest the west won't do anything because it is scared of pre-empting instability in the region and more conflict.

Bertymandias in reply to lockehobbes

Reasonable points and I am a humanitarian, but even so I can't help but think that if the conflict is allowed to progress into a long, drawn out and bloody civil war that it would be worse than if it didn't. There are already floods of refugees trying to get into Turkey so it's already affecting other nations.

Other nations in the region will win or lose depending on which faction comes out on top so they're already invested. There will be nations keen to support the rebels by arming them (I vaugely recall Saudi Arabia being accused of this) and nations (again, I vaugely recall Iran falling into this category) keen to support the regime by supplying them with what ever they need.

I dunno though. There are 2 options; we do nothing and it will get worse, lots of people will die, lots of people will flee the country, all of which may be exploited by certain external parties to further their own causes against the west. We do something and we assume responsibility for the situation at a time when we're ill resourced to do so and the situation may be exploited by certain external parties to further their own causes against the west.

If we're invovled we can at least attempt to control the situation, that has to be good hasn't it?

Gomer_rs in reply to lockehobbes

Of course the realist argument that the threat of force is the best enforcer of peace. In the day and age of post-cold war, western dominated world, conflict such as the one in Syria is the greatest threats to the world order, and it is in the interest of that order to make dictators understand that accommodation is always better than massacre.


The usual suspects who bombed Yugoslavia, carved out Kosovo, destroyed Iraq and saved Libyans by bombing them are at work in Syria hoping to pull a Qaddafi on Assad. They might well succeed, unless Russia physically stands up to them. Perhaps Syria is the line in the sand that Russia will not allow to be crossed without a fight.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

