Syria needs real vision, not sticking plaster solutions
The UN should profit from the temporary truce to establish safe havens if it is to stem the flow of refugees
Your support helps us to tell the story
This election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.
The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.
Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. Your support makes all the difference.
Once again President Vladimir Putin has caught us out: by “withdrawing” from fighting in Syria he has neatly exploited the vacuum left by current US foreign policy and paralysis among the EU nations. There is a conditional ceasefire in Syria, and a tenuous deal has been reached on that country’s refugees. Is this the long-awaited solution to the refugee crisis?
No it isn’t. What will encourage Syrians to return home is the feeling that finally things might get better. What is on offer won’t do that. Something more is needed, and the politics are not encouraging. The shooting down by Turkey of a Russian aircraft some months ago was stupid and unnecessary – a fighter intercept would have sufficed – and it made co-operation between the allies and Russia that much harder. Partial (and possibly temporary) Russian force withdrawals will not change that.
The Russians have been keener on attacking what they deem to be anti-Assad “terrorists” than on taking on Islamic State (Isis). Turkey has hardly helped, concentrating its attacks on Kurdish forces. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is taking Turkey back into civil war, damaging the important tourist industry, and creating deep uncertainty in nations looking to bring Turkey closer to the West. Will he help progress to a pluralist regime in Damascus?
Meanwhile the allied campaign, with the Iraqi forces, has been steadily chipping away at Isis, whose dreams of a country straddling Iraq and Syria and expanding outwards are crumbling. Increasingly, it is turning more to Libya, where chaos will surely continue to reign unless the coalition chooses to intervene.
Assad is more secure than before as Russian air power, unconstrained by democratic imperatives and used with a brutality and probable illegality comparable to Assad’s own barrel bombing, takes effect. So for now we will have to live with a Moscow and Tehran-backed Assad.
Isis being on the retreat is, of course, welcome and means there is one less wolf around the Syrian sleigh, but it is unlikely to persuade parents that Syria has become a safe place to bring up their children. Turkey and the EU’s agreement this weekend is more about domestic Turkish and German politics than about saving and securing lives. The proposals do not sit comfortably with many in Europe nor at the UN. Problems will almost certainly emerge and the deal may not survive.
The numbers of refugees who will actually be selected as legitimate is unclear: 18,000 is a figure from an existing EU plan from camps in the Middle East; how many of these would be from Turkey? And there are, it would appear, 54,000 unallocated places from a plan to redistribute refugees from Greece and Italy.
Last year, some 360,000 refugees from Syria arrived in Greece and this has shown no sign of stopping. Uncertainties abound. This morally questionable plan is supposed to persuade Syrian refugees that the door is closed to Europe and that the only route in future, for legitimate refugees, will be via Turkey. Will that really stop the economic migrants? Those on the ground know the realities they face – it is unlikely they will reach the conclusion the diplomats want.
At the end of the Bosnian civil war an interpreter was asked what she would do when it was over. She said, bluntly, that she was off to Canada, as it would take 10 years for things to settle down, and a further 10 for any real economic life to return to the country. Such are the sentiments of many refugees now fleeing shattered Syria for Europe. The death of hope is the signal to migrate, and a sticking plaster deal will not change the mind of a desperate and terrified people.
Unless we are simply to cross our fingers and hope the current ceasefire produces something enduring, what surely is required is the presence of UN forces not just observing the ceasefire but establishing safe havens for the future. Areas which are not under attack and are now being relieved with humanitarian aid could be made the safe havens which might persuade a family to stay.
A belief in a future for Syria, internationally policed, could become a real prospect. False hope given to the Kurds by Bush senior at the end of the Gulf War ended in 1.3 million people fleeing to neighbouring Iran and Turkey in 1991. However the military operation to provide “a safe haven” was remarkably successful in reversing a calamitous situation, and here Srebrenica must not be used as an excuse for doing nothing. Firm, resolute action induced mass movement back into northern Iraq within days of its deployment.
The UN should seek a Security Council resolution to establish safe havens in Syria while the iron is hot. Crucially, this peace agreement will need the support of a Marshall plan for Syria to repair war-damaged infrastructure and restore normal market mechanisms quickly – housing, urban water and electricity supplies. It is in the first 100 days that peace can be won. It could be the moment for our own Department for International Development to shine; it has the expertise.
Let the Turkish refugee camps be turned into townships with facilities for a normal life: schools, clinics, business training and investment in business. Ensure, too, that the underlying and prime objective of these camps is not to provide transit for economic migrants – or indeed terrorists – but to lay the foundations for return to Syria of a properly representative population capable of rebuilding the nation.
What is on offer now is a Russian withdrawal which may not be total, a plan for refugees that is flawed and shaky, and a ceasefire which is conditional. It is most unlikely to be enough for a shattered community to believe in, but it can be built on. At the moment we have a shaming lack of political vision, a failure to look beyond mere expediency. Further and robust diplomatic action is needed to convince the people that Syria has a future – this is the only realistic prospect of halting the flow of desperate humanity. And all the military and political jostling will not change it.
Sir Michael Graydon is former chief of the air staff. Dr Gilbert Greenall is a former senior adviser to the UK government on humanitarian affairs
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments