Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, Syria, United Nations

Syrian refugees in need of much better support…

Intro: With Syria’s troubled neighbours being forced to cope with unprecedented levels of refugees crossing their borders, the time has come for the West to do more

The sheer scale and numbers of people fleeing Syria’s civil war is an exodus that requires repeating.

Estimates of refugee movements vary, perhaps for obvious reasons, but many more than two million people have left the country since the conflict began.

Many in the West often assume that it is our countries that routinely absorb the largest numbers of refugees, but a glimpse of the facts reveals a far different reality. Undoubtedly, it is Syria’s closet neighbours that have borne the greatest burden – countries that, politically, already have enough problems to deal with.

Consider Lebanon, for example. It has taken more than 800,000 refugees displaced as a result of the civil war, a figure that is almost a fifth of its entire population. In relative terms, that’s the equivalent of the UK experiencing 12 million starving and impoverished people – men, women and children – flowing across its borders. Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and Iraq (including the autonomous Kurdish region in the north) have taken substantial numbers, too. To date, the most generous destination for Syrian expatriates has been Sweden, with more than 15,000 given safe haven.

The UN’s plea that the West accommodates an additional 30,000 has to be seen in the context of this vast and escalating humanitarian catastrophe. Anyone who has read the first-hand accounts, or seen media pictures of these desperately beleaguered people seeking to find shelter, and the basic necessities of life, will come to understand the scale of the tragedy that has affected so many families and individuals.

Estimated refugee movements in Syria.

Estimated refugee movements in Syria.

Aid agencies and charities working in the field have written to the British Government asking that the UK accept a proportion of the refugees. The plea clearly has a moral underpinning that is overwhelming. Though families in the UK may well be feeling the effects of austerity, most would find the suffering that many of these innocent civilians have undergone difficult to comprehend. Taking in our fair share would only amount to a small proportion of the total. More important, however, has to be the provision of fuel, food, water, shelter and sanitation to those tens of thousands struggling to survive in camps across the near east.

As we have come to realise there are many arguments, both for and against, about international aid. In the recent past, for example, there has been the issue over the Indian space programme and the substantial amount of British taxpayers’ money that goes towards it. Resisting that has been the vocal minority of Conservative MPs who would like to see aid given to that project drastically cut. Yet, both the Prime Minister and Chancellor have resolutely stood firm against the instincts of those on the Tory backbenches.

But we have an opportunity now for them to once again to show moral leadership by impressing on the country and international community. By demonstrating magnanimity of outlook and common humanity, the British Government should be forthcoming and welcome a fair quota of Syrian refugees who are in desperate need of help and assistance. It should also consider allocating more funds for the requisitioning of necessities for the refugee camps, as part of a co-ordinated international effort.

As peace talks over Syria will be held this week in Geneva, the Western partners at these talks should surely be able to collaborate and agree on such a plan of action. It is unlikely the war being waged by Bashar al-Assad on his own people will end anytime soon.

Like the conflict that prevailed in Lebanon, the bloodshed in Syria could drag on for many more years. The desperate plight of many Syrians needs to be supported for as long as it takes.

Standard
European Union, Government, Iran, Middle East, Politics, Society, United Nations, United States

Negotiations between Iran and the West on Tehran’s nuclear ambitions…

A NEED FOR AN AGREEMENT WITH IRAN

Expectations of an agreement over the Iranian nuclear programme have been high ever since the recent trip to Washington by Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s president, who declared to the United Nations he wanted better relations with the West. It is little surprise, however, that such a realisation has not been met. The immense difficulties facing the negotiations in Geneva in the last few days faded into the background amid speculation of a ‘historic deal’ and an imminent end to decades of mutual suspicion and misunderstanding. The Geneva talks concluded last weekend without any deal in sight, with many analysts branding the discussions a failure.

Related:

There is still some cause for optimism. Since Mr Rouhani took over the Iranian presidency from the bellicose and belligerent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June, the rhetoric emanating from Tehran has been markedly softened in tone and style. With international sanctions – both EU and US – biting hard on ordinary Iranians, domestic pressure for a deal on its nuclear programme with the West cannot be ignored. Particularly so given that inflation is running at 40 per cent, and that Iran’s economy has shrunk by more than 5 per cent since the imposition of sanctions took effect. The number of families below the poverty line has doubled to four in ten, exasperated by several currency devaluations that have had an adverse effect on the net worth of many Iranian families. Assets have depreciated and net incomes have been seriously eroded. Focusing minds, too, is the threat of Israeli air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, not to mention the Islamic Republic’s pivotal position in a volatile and unstable region, including that of Syria.

The difficulties for the West in reaching a mutual agreement with Tehran still rest upon two primary sticking points. One is the question about the future of the heavy-water reactor being built at Arak. The other is what to do with Iran’s existing stockpiles of highly enriched uranium and centrifuges. Tehran appears determined to retain its ‘rights to enrichment’ (enriched uranium is required and allowed for its medical programmes), though the international community, not unreasonably, remains sceptical. Enriching uranium to weapons grade material that would fit into the head of a ballistic missile is easily enough done.

Yet, we are far from stalemate. Just as those predicting immediate success were unduly hasty, so are those now rendering and calling for defeat. John Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State, spent eight hours at the negotiating table, the longest such high-level talks between the US and Iran since 1979 – no small achievement in itself. Mr Kerry’s assertion that ‘we are closer now than when we came’ cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. With negotiations to restart in a week’s time – albeit between diplomats rather than foreign ministers – the process is far from over.

Coupled into the equation is the danger of the moment. Barack Obama’s critics in Congress, largely fuelled by Israeli’s inflammatory opposition to a deal, are already pushing for more sanctions. In Iran, the frustration of public demands for immediate relief could well erode support for further discussions that many Iranians feel infringe on national sovereignty. Apparent divisions in the international community, exemplified by France’s outspoken warnings about a ‘fool’s game’ before the Geneva talks were concluded, will not help either.

Perseverance in seeking a deal along current lines remains key as no other constructive alternative exists, but in reaching an agreement concessions will be required from both sides. The notion that the Islamic Republic continues with some degree of uranium enrichment may not be palatable and will be contested by those who remain deeply sceptical of Iran’s objectives. However, it is allowed under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and – in return for close controls and even closer oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – it is a better and plausible option than either accepting an Iran with nuclear weapons or by attempting to bomb them out of existence.

A deal with Iran may have a high price, but the value will be enormous. This will not only patch up one of the world’s most dangerous and intractable disputes but, an accord between Iran and the West could also help to resolve any number of issues bedevilling the Middle East, not least the internecine civil war and bloody conflict in Syria.

Standard