Compromise on aid to Syria: an indictment of poverty for the global community


comment

Status: 07/09/2021 8:34 p.m.

Ruler Assad continues to wage war against his own people, Russia is all about power and the West looks further afield. The compromise on aid to Syria is therefore not a success, but an indictment of poverty.

A comment by Thomas Aders,
SWR

In the language of diplomacy, the compromise that the United Nations reached today is a success. In reality it is a sign of poverty for the world community, because the war of the Syrian rulers against their own people continues unabated. Until Bashar al-Assad has the last province under his control again.

Everyday life in Syria is horrific: innocent families have been bombarded with barrel bombs and poison gas again and again. For more than ten years, Syrians have been suffering from the barbaric regime of President Assad in this civil war; For more than ten years we in Europe and in the West have been looking the other way and leaving people to their fate. The families who hope in vain for our help – they will never forgive us for our inaction.

Hunger as a weapon – like in the Middle Ages

Because one border after the other was closed by Moscow and Damascus and only the crossing in Bab al-Hawa is open, millions of people in large areas of this once wonderful country are already threatened with hunger, including tens of thousands of children. Russia was and is always all about power in the Middle East. And the Syrian regime uses hunger as a weapon, just like in the Middle Ages. Freezing.

In Syria, there has been a brutal drought for weeks, food is becoming scarce everywhere, and prices are rising rapidly. And exactly then, grain fields are set on fire. Whoever is not for us – according to Damascus – is against us and should atone for it.

Russia no longer rejects humanitarian aid deliveries for Syria in principle; the UN has now extended them by one year in a compromise. Could have been worse. So far so good. Really?

Editorial note

Comments generally reflect the opinion of the respective author and not that of the editors.



Source link