When will the violence end?

When will the violence end? 
Every day in the news we see something that we really do not want to. In more recent years, it seems that more and more countries are beginning to revolt against their governments, with devastating results. I often find myself asking if it is all worth it. Hundreds of innocent people are dying on the streets of Egypt, and Syria and for what? We have seen no improvement in their conditions for a number of months – there is no stability, there is no resolution on the horizon, so why won’t the violence end? 
In this series of blog posts, I want to look into countries in which there is a civil war, a genocide, or some sort of violence that is ongoing and apparently - unstoppable and examine the details why they are fighting, what they are fighting for and if there is any resolution on the horizon.


Syria
The violence in Syria began in March 2011 in the city of Deraa. In July 2012, The Red Cross issued a statement explaining that the violence is so widespread now, that it is in a state of civil war.

The basics
The trouble in Syria began with a protest. The protestors took to the streets of Deraa after fifteen schoolchildren were arrested and then tortured for writing anti-government graffiti on a wall. The protests were originally peaceful, initially calling for the children’s release, democracy and greater freedom for the people of Syria – however, the government responded violently, calling for the army to open fire on protesters and crush the dissent. The following day, they shot at mourners at the victims’ funerals, killing more people and causing the violence to spread across the country. The protestors began to call for the President, Bashar al-Assad, to resign, of course, he refused, and offered to change some things about the way the country was run, but the protestors didn’t believe him (to be honest, no one believed him). By April, the death toll had reached 200 people, by May it was 1,000, that August it had hit 2,000 and Assad announced that his government was in ‘no danger of falling’ and that ‘the solution in Syria was a political one, but violence should be dealt with firmly’.Finally, the UN issued a statement saying that the Syrian government had committed crimes against humanity – but of course Assad denies that he ordered the army to kill protestors.This year, the government of Syria, have been reportedly using chemical weaponry to quell the violence from protestors. On top of this, there has been numerous suicide bombings, cluster bomb attacks, thermobaric weapons (fuel-air bombs) and scud missile attacks on the protestors. This year the death toll has reached 100,000, some papers are calling it a genocide.

Are they getting help?
The UN has been very critical of the violence in Syria, but they cannot agree on how to help the ordinary people of Syria. Peace monitors were sent in 2012 to monitor the people of Syria, and as part of a peace plan, but the UN pulled them out of Syria, because it became too dangerous. The UN has not sent in any armed troops into Syria – this is because the members of the UN cannot agree that this is a useful solution. Russia and China have been the two main countries that have blocked any moves to move in and help the Syrian civilians. Russia has strong political ties with President Assad, and they have in the past participated in weapons trading. Western countries like the US and the UK support the anti-government rebels, and this June, a ban was lifted to allow European countries to send arms to help them. However, this is controversial because it is impossible to agree that sending weapons is the right way to end the war. The answer was seemingly no, they were not getting help anytime soon – not from political organizations anyway. It seems that the US, UK and France are doing all they can to provide enough evidence to go into Syria, and convince the UN that they have reasonable grounds to intervene, but the progress is slow and limited.Since May 2013 Russia and the US have been trying to organize a second peace conference in Geneva – nothing has been confirmed yet. However, they got help from humanitarian organizations like USAID and Islamic Relief.Until now, the in the aftermath of the first chemical weaponry attacks on innocent civilians since the 
second world war, the British and US governments have issued reports that they may have to take action, planning missile attacks. Four battleships have been moved within missile range of Syria in preparation to deter the Syrian government from performing such barbaric acts. 
This assault is said to be sanctioned within the next ten days. Leaving it any longer will supposedly send the message that chemical attacks are okay, which of course, they are not. 
William Hague said 'We believe it is very important to there is a very strong response so that dictators, whether Assad or others who might slaughter their own people, know that using chemical weapons is to cross a line, and that the world will respond'. (about time someone begins talking sense) 

What do I think?
I am not a big fan of Britain getting involved worldwide in violence such as this, but it has got to the stage where something other than a ‘peace talk’ is necessary. I think this is difficult though, because it seems for too close to home for some, as it is so similar to Iraq – and I have read recently that the popular opinion is that Syria won’t be dealt with until Iraq is completely closed. I think the UN are not trying hard enough to implement these 'peace preventions' they speak of at their peace talks, and that so much more could have been done before now to save some of those 100,000 lives. I also think that this violence has been going on for far too long now, it's almost getting to the stage of becoming a permanent civil war - something which we definitely do not want. I quite frankly, do not understand why Assad doesn't step down. It's harsh to believe, but he just is not going anywhere. He does not care how many lives are lost, he's just a power hungry man who doesn't want to let go of what he has - and in this case, his government, army and supporters will kill anyone who gets in the way of him retaining this power. However, I'm not entirely convinced that Assad resigning will even end the violence, his supporters won't like him being forced out of power and I expect that they will be just as violent towards to protestors. Much to my dismay, I don't think that there will be an end to the violence in Syria for a long time. In light of what came to the news this morning, regarding the missile attacks lined up against Assad, I'm undecided. I can see how it will be beneficial, and I can see how it will not. Going into yet another middle-eastern war is extremely expensive, but then again, when it's saving lives of innocent people.. is there really a cost? 


I would love to read what you think about Syria, I struggle to form an actual opinion and I would love to read your comments about it. Please comment below, and give the blog a follow on here with your google+ account or on bloglovin.
 muchos love
ysabelle 
xxxxxxxxxx