Five Years of War Cripples Syria

After over five years of violent conflict in Syria, what is left of the country is heartbreakingly unrecognisable, and the destruction is only set to worsen. With 2011 being the year of Arab spring, where peaceful anti-government protests turned into a full-scale civil war, most Syrian children do not even remember a time of peace. To this day, a quarter of a million people are dead as a result of how prolonged the proxy war has become: Intervention of foreign powers has only made it bloodier. Approximately half of Syria’s pre-war population of 23 million have been killed or forced to flee their homes, and now their refugee population is the largest in the world.

But have all of these refugees been finding refuge? Many opt for travelling to Syria’s neighboring countries, with Lebanon harboring a staggering 1 million of them. Others are risking their lives to travel to Europe in hopes of finding acceptance there, and not all of them make it across alive. However, most have barely started a journey to real freedom: According to UN estimation, 6.6 million refugees are internally displaced in Syria, especially in cities, where there is stronger humanitarian support than the countryside. As of February 2016, the government only holds 40% of Syria, the rest belonging to other factions - for example, ISIL - that are involved in the war.

According to a review of the political science on the duration of civil wars, Syria's conflict will most likely last through 2020. In only 2016 the country’s unemployment rate sits at its all-time high at 50%, and will continue to creep up; Most Syrians have been plunged into extreme poverty. An estimate of £5 billion is thought to be needed to help the 13 million in need of support, yet the exponential rise of refugees means the figure will inevitably increase, making it even less possible to achieve. With this in mind, it seems that Syria’s future is a dark one.

AD

The Migration Cycle

When we say immigrant many words come into mind and over the summer it seemed to be a never ending news item. Immigrants are travelling across the globe in order to make it into the UK. Recently we have seen the chaos that has been provoked at Calais and how we have tried to stop them. As well as this, the recent evaluation of the migrants and refugees has made some interesting progress. We have now proposed to take in up to 20,000 refugees. Refugees are people who need to get away from their own country due to the fear of their lives being at risk. This switch in terminology has twisted the public viewpoint and since put pressure on the Government. However, we need to do much more as a continent in order to improve the situation as a whole.

First of all I wish to look at the source of the problem – the wars and poverty across the globe that have caused people to flee. Most of the immigrants want to get away from war and so try to make it to the UK. Most of the immigrants that are currently living in Calais are mainly from Syria and Afghanistan and have made the journey across the Mediterranean or through the land border at Turkey. From the media and politicians there is plenty of stigma and negativity surrounding the immigrants. Especially as Cameron called them a “swarm” and Katie Hopkins called them “cockroaches”. Neither of which is finding a solution to the overwhelming problem. One issue in the press that struck me the most was an article in the Daily Express which told of an illegal immigrant aged 13 being arrested. The dehumanisation of this piece astonished me and just shows the lack of sympathy the press has for children who have run away from their homes to be safer in the UK.

What we in Britain need to truly consider is the fact that the illegal immigrants are trying to make their way across because of our country’s actions. We started the war in Afghanistan along with the US so the immigrants are fleeing because of what we created and the destructive bombing that continues. As for Syria, the war that rages on and the air strikes that we place on it leads to thousands of civilians travelling to Europe to save their lives. Although we have done our best in supplying aid in Syria it isn’t nearly enough and the war has driven its people away. Whilst the UK has also managed to take in refugees of war there are plenty more looking for a safe home and for every refugee we take in, Germany takes in 24. What seems to be the underlying tone in most of the press is that they want to keep all immigrants out at all costs. This hardly seems fair as they are just human beings like you or I who wish to strive for a better life, one in which they have food and shelter.

However, as we do seem to be battling the current crisis with ‘the asset’ and police officers it seems way too focused and complicated than it really needs to be. First of all we are all aware that immigrants are trying again and again to get through the Channel Tunnel and across on the ferry now with more violence than ever before. This poses danger to the lorry drivers as well as the immigrants. It has also caused roads in the UK to be blocked by hundreds of lorries which are waiting to go to France. The solution to me seems quite simple but does require the cooperation of the French. All of the immigrants are based in Calais and most around France so the question is why are they allowed to stay in France? This is mainly because the French seem to be happy with letting the immigrants there as they know that they will soon move across to the UK. In order to stop the crisis we first need to try and remove the community that has been built around the port at Calais. Secondly we need the cooperation of the Gendarmerie and our own police force to remove any illegal immigrants from France and send them back either to the first European country that they came into contact with, (that mostly being Italy or Turkey as laid out by the Dublin Regulation) or back to their own country. Finally in the case of the hundreds of trucks that are being delayed hasn’t it occurred to them that there are plenty of other ports across the country which can get them to France such as Newhaven and Southampton.

All of this seems a bit harsh considering that we are sending them to their deaths. The immigrants are risking their lives to get to the UK every day. First by making the crossing across the Mediterranean to Italy on boats that are squashed and which pose so much danger. As we keep hearing, migrants are dying because the boat sank or they are being abandoned by those who claimed they could aid them. Then they try to make it past police and onto the trains by climbing over fences and holding onto Lorries. Then we send them back to their war stricken countries where they will try to repeat the process again. There is no real solution to this problem just that with so many wars across the globe that the problem has been heightened. If we want real change then we as a country need to stop creating wars and stop killing innocent people in air strikes day after day.

Obama's Impossible Decision.

   

It's alright. You can all stop worrying now. You can come out of the corner from which you have taken refuge, and take the tinfoil hat off of your head. I'm back. I know, I know, your life has been empty without me. Well, here I am again with your usual dose of madness. Except todays article is a little different from my usual, because I belive there are some things you just can't joke about, but things that probably belong on a history and politics blog. Like the current situation in Syria. So I apologise if  I send you into a sleep deeper than that of Henry VI ( look it up).
 Well, I suppose it's always best to begin with the facts, but to be honest there's very little we know for sure about the situation, although we can make an educated guess. What we know is this: On the 21st August the nerve gas Sarin was released in Damascus, killing many and permantly damaging many more. I won't go into the gory detail about what Sarin does, because the majority of the public have seen it on the news, but it's far to say that it's pretty nasty. However, from there, the 'facts' become bluured; namely who excatly released the gas, although an educated guess has been made that it was the government. This wasn't decided ''because the syrian governments obviously dodgy'', as the girl at my bus stop said this morning, but rather because it's thought that only the government has large enough stocks of sarin to cause harm and the means to disperse them, making it seem obvious that it must be the goverment who had released it upon the rebels, which may have been seen as a final attempt to end the civil war. But although the facts are largely agreed upon by the U.N ( though not Russia), ideas about what to do as the 'next step' are the cause of many a heated debate, not just in the houses of parliament, but also in ordinary housholds. I've just about separated the different ideas into four basic categories:

  There's School of thought One: That we should take miliary action on Syria to ensure that such gas attacks cannot happen again. If we don't do anything, the the U.N will appear weak, and that will be it's downfall - basically history repeating itself (Leauge of Nations, anyone?). It may bring us into a war, but we cannot let these kind of attacks go on unreprimanded.

  School of thought Two ( usually in debate with One): Syrias alliances with very powerful countries could potentially drag us into an incredibly destructive war, mainly based on allainces,which is again history repeating itself. Also, we can be seen to ignore other countries in the UN, that would basically undermine the point of it, and cause it to fall apart.

School of thought Three ( usually held up by the person annoyed by this debate): The UN is on its way out, thats clear. Either way people will get hurt, so why bother arguing about it. None is particularly better than the other, so it's just damage limitation that we're looking at.

School of thought Four ( One that I haven't heard as often as the others) : A military strike on the stores of Sarin would do more harm than good. A medium- strength missile would fail to destory all the Sarin, and a strong one would only succeed in blowing the sarin up into the air, where it could blow into many overpopulated areas. What we should be trying to do is provide people with the anti dotes for Sarin and Mustard gas, and also give them leaflets telling them what to do in case of a gas attack.
 
   Each idea has it's own individual problems, and at the moment all eyes are on America, watching to see what it will do. For the meantime, we'll have to be content in our intense squabbling. Whatever America does, it's sure to cause fireworks with the rest of the world, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

  So there we are. A moderately serious article from me. I haven't joked for so long, I can feel the 'bad joke' part of me slowly dying. I may have to call up the wonderful Nan and Grandad and annoy them with my horrendous sense of humour, just to get back to my old self again. I hope this article was at least a tiny bit informative, and I will be back soon to my old mental self, jabbering on about something or another. Thanks again for reading!

E.C

Should Obama seek congressional approval for Syrian action?

Following David Cameron's decision for Britain not to participate in any action against Syria following a parliamentary vote on the issue, President Obama surprised everyone by agreeing to seek congressional approval before any US action, rather than simply acting without authorisation as many commander-in-chiefs have done before. Is Obama right to seek congressional approval or does the process weaken both himself and the office of president?