Diplomacy: Syria - Russia, China and fear of war have led to West’s inaction
Syria has slipped down the agenda of Western leaders
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.For all its intensive diplomatic activity, the international community has been powerless to prevent the escalating horrors of the Syrian civil war.
It has not been for want of trying, with numerous attempts to negotiate ceasefires, open dialogue and impose sanctions on President Bashar al-Assad having little impact on the bloody impasse.
For the moment Syria has slipped down the agenda of Western leaders whose efforts are focused on defusing the crisis provoked by the deployment of Russian troops onto Ukrainian soil.
As the initial protests in the southern city of Deraa in 2011 spiralled into civil war, and evidence of human-rights atrocities mounted, Britain, the European Union and the US called for Assad to step down and imposed sanctions on the nation’s ruling elite.
A six-point peace plan for Syria, drawn up by the former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and backed by the Arab League, was launched a year after the war began, but foundered within two months as the violence intensified. A similar initiative by the UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi also failed.
The biggest stumbling block to concerted international pressure on Damascus has always been Russia, which has enjoyed a close relationship with the Assad regime, and refused (along with China) to join UN Security Council resolutions condemning Damascus.
The process of bringing all the participants around the negotiating table – based on setting up a transitional government in Syria – began last May with two rounds of talks taking place with little progress in Geneva this year.
The hunt for a lasting settlement – potentially using military firepower – was given new impetus by the release of footage of a chemical weapons attack on a Damascus suburb, with world leaders warning a “red line” had been crossed. By the end of August, it seemed that US-led strikes on Syria could happen within days.
By now David Cameron had taken from William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, responsibility for leading the British response to the Syrian crisis.
He struck a notably hawkish stance, calling MPs back from their summer break last year to vote on a Commons motion that left open the possibility of “military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons”.
Mr Cameron suffered the most humiliating moment of his premiership when the motion was defeated after Tory MPs queued up to condemn a rush for war and raise fears that intervention could inadvertently hand power to jihadists operating in Syria.
It was the first time a Prime Minister’s foreign policy had been defeated in a parliamentary vote since the 18th century.
It also marked a turning point in the world’s response to the tragedy in Syria as President Barack Obama backed off from intervention.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments