To what extent have countries attempted to solve the problems caused by the Syrian civil war?
The Syrian Civil War is an ongoing conflict between President Bashar Al-Assad government and the people of Syria (rebels) who want a new government in place. Syria have become vulnerable because of the civil war and terrorist groups have used this in their favour. The most known terrorist group who are operating worldwide has been ISIS (Islamic State Of Iraq and Syria) they have been able to take parts of Syria under their control, they have been able to indoctrinate people worldwide who are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their goal, which is to “conquer the world” and kill any “non-believers”. Another situation caused by the Syrian war is the migration crisis, as the war between Bashar Al-Assad and rebel groups intensifies the death toll for three years has risen to more than 191,000. Many people flee the country in order for a better life in neighbouring countries such as Turkey and Iraq and some migrate to Europe to countries such as Greece or Hungary. However, as more than 3 million people are looking for asylum, countries just don’t have the capacity to let in all the migrants, which has created a massive overload at borders. Some countries have shut their borders, putting up wire fences and having armed police at the borders, and some have opened their borders to more migrants. But are countries doing enough? To date there has been little agreement on whether countries have done enough so far to solve the issues in Syria, some can argue that countries are doing as much as they can by: Military Intervention, Aid and opening up international borders. My essay will be on whether the countries such as Russia, United States and United Kingdom and leaders such as Putin, Barrack Obama and David Cameron have done their best to try and maintain peace in Syria and solve all the issues that have been caused because of the war. Problems that have arose are extreme migration and rise of terrorist worldwide, due to Syria being partially taken over by ISIS. This essay question needs to be addressed as recently Britain have launched their first wave of air strikes against Syria to try get rid of terrorist “headquarters” and halt any financial gains, by doing this “we” as a country can be seen as terrorist because innocent civilians will be harmed. There will be two perspectives, Perspective A: Countries have done their best to solve issues relating to Syria, and Perspective B: Countries are not doing enough to help the Syrian crisis.
Perspective A Is that countries have and are doing their best to solve all the issues caused by the Syrian Civil War. Many negatives have come about since the war started in early 2011, such as the war itself and how it affects the Syrian civilians, the surge of migration to other countries, terrorist taken advantage of the vulnerable country, and the split it is causing to European countries as they are forced to choose sides. I feel that countries are doing everything they can as so far they’ve tried everything from peace talks at the Genova conference to military intervention from a number of different countries. This is backed up by the BBC News and it states how “20,000 Syrian refugees arrive in the UK” it also says that the refugees will be given “ who have been given legal protection and access to housing, employment, education and, where they need it, expert medical care.”(BBC, 2015). This evidence is from the BBC news which is a left wing broadsheet newspaper, this will make it more credible and reliable as they have a reputation of being honest and factual. However, the newspaper could be said to be biased as it is based In the UK so will not try put the Uk in a bad light. The article is consistent as the paragraphs link and all of them are based on the Syrian crisis, the article however isn’t neutral and could be perceived as biased as it only states how good Britain are doing and all the “wonderful” things David Cameron is promising to do. Ultimately, the source is credible and their point is still valid as it is factual data that Britain have let in 20,000+ Syria immigrants.
Another source that backs up the perspective that countries have/are doing their best to solve the Syrian crisis is from the Washington post which states how “In September 2015, Secretary of State John Kerry announced the United States will give $419 million I humanitarian aid, bringing the total U.S. donation to $4.5 billion since the Syrian conflict began in 2011” (Ye Hee Lee, 2015) this shows how countries are doing as much as they can as the US alone have given $4.5 billion and are willing to give more. However, similar to the BBC this is an American based broadsheet newspaper so might be biased, also this source was mainly made to state how the USA are the biggest humanitarian aid givers and doesn’t give us any other side which could make it not credible or unreliable. Lastly a source that proves that countries are doing their best to help Syrians is from the Telegraph newspaper which is a UK based right wing broadsheet newspaper. It explains how “The United States has coordinated a massive airlift of arms to Syrian rebels from Croatia with the help of Britain and other European states”, In addition it states that countries are offering training to rebels and former Syrian army office (Telegraph, 2015). This shows that these countries and other countries that disagree with the Assad regime, and are trying to arm and train the rebels so they can win the civil war and all the trouble will stop which was caused by it. This source is very reliable as it is consistent throughout, factual as it gives actual statistics and information that has been researched. However, the Telegraph only know this information as they have been told by the governments involved , which might exaggerate the statistics or only tell them the high ones making this source biased. Overall, after analysing all three sources and evaluating all the criticisms of the sources the point is still valid that countries are attempting and trying their best to solve the Syrian crisis.
Perspective B is that countries are not doing enough to help Syria and are only making matters worse. Many countries have tried to intervene in the conflict in Syria and have even be the cause of the escalation in violence and increasing the crisis. Military intervention causes other countries to be more likely to be attacked by terrorist groups. The rearming of the Free Syrian Army could also be seen as a negative as if they get in the wrong hands they could be used against the rebels and against the countries. Most countries are beginning to shut down their borders or limit the amount of people coming in which is causing even more problems, as some migrants are finding illegal and dangerous ways to get into the country which most times ends in death, or they have to stay in refugee camps which often has poor sanitary and is overcrowded. This perspective can be backed up by a source from the Daily Mirror which explains that ISIS has “high-tech weapons looted from Iraqi army and bought from west” (Webb, 2015). It also explains how “Britain, France, Russia and the United States provided most of the weapons being used by ISIS to carry out appalling war crimes”. These support the point I made earlier that countries are just making the situation worse in Syria by adding more weapons as they could get into the wrong hands causing terrorist to have “high-tech weapons”. This source is from the a right wing tabloid newspaper, as it is a tabloid newspaper it can be deemed as unreliable as this type of newspaper mainly focuses on showbiz and gossip rather than factual news. In addition, in the article Oliver Sprague, Amnesty UK’s Arms Programme Director, said: "Decades of free-flowing arms into Iraq meant that when IS took control of these areas, they were like children in a sweetshop.” (Sprague, 2015) This quote was said by someone who is an expert in this area, which would make it more credible to use, also as it was made by someone who has no connections with Syria or the government it would be less likely to be biased. Another source that supports the perspective that countries aren’t doing enough to help Syrian refugees is a “Heartbroken Syrian refugee describes the moment his wife and seven children drowned while trying to flee ISIS terror” (Shammas, 2015) he explains how he “arranged with smugglers to be taken via boat” (Ali, 2015). This could show how mainly European countries need to help finder safer and legal ways for migrants to enter countries, as if not Syrian refugees will carry on using the illegal dangerous routes. However, the information in the source came from a Syrian refugee, who would feel that countries aren’t doing enough as his whole family have died due to there being no other alternative. This wouldn’t make the source neutral but biased which would cause it to be unreliable as it isn’t a balanced argument and only explains one side. On the other hand this article is consisted and it’s mainly interested in informing people of the sacrifices and risks immigrants take to flee to safety.
Lastly, a piece of evidence that supports perspective B is from CBN news and is titled “How Russia is making Syria’s humanitarian crisis worse” (Bowers, 2015). In the article it explains how “there are reports that warplanes are bombing rebel groups fighting the Assad regime, which could lead to ISIS gaining more territory” this supports the overall point of perspective 2 as it explains how Vladimir Putin the President of Russia is only making life worst for Syrian citizens, as the bombings are killing rebel fighters and allowing ISIS to take more control. Some of the quotes in this article are made by someone who is an expert in this area. Michael Bowers is the vice president of Mercy corps who are an organisation who try to help the world survive and thrive after conflict. As this company is trying to help Syria survive the war they are less likely to be biased as they are only trying to help the country. Overall, this source is reliable as it is based on facts and overall the article is consistent and focused on informing us on the Syrian crisis.
To conclude with countries are participating and committing of interventions with good intentions. In this essay I have covered the Migration crisis, the Military involvement and the action of bringing in more weapons into Syria and humanitarian. Most countries have tried at least one of these for example Britain have wanted to stay out of using violence to exterminate ISIS strongholds in Syria but recently Britain have been criticised for going back on their word and start their first wave of bombing. This has caused international outrage as many believe that the risk of Civilian casualties is too high. The question I am answering in this essay is: To what extent have countries attempted to solve the problems caused by the Syrian Civil War? Countries have done a lot in and out Syria to try and solve this major crisis and so far not one country has done something that hasn’t been criticised so although most actions come with criticisms countries need to just carry on with whatvthey are doing., but the real question is: Have they done the right thing? Overall, I feel that countries are doing their best to solve the Syrian crisis, as after analysing all the evidence there is no other alternative than to do what most European countries have done.