syrian-conflict

The conflict in Syria has now escalated to the point of all-out civil war, the Red Cross declared on Sunday. The Geneva Conventions governing the rules of “non-international” armed conflict will now come into effect across the country, and all sides (including Syrian President Bashar al-Assad) are now potentially liable to war crimes prosecutions. The news comes as reports emerge of fierce fighting in the Syrian capital of Damascus between rebels and government forces.

Last month, we asked you how the EU should respond to the Arab Spring, including the question of ongoing violence in Syria. Sam sent in a comment that struck a fairly positive note: “I rate Europe 9 out of 10 when it comes to the way they responded to the Arab Spring. However, I still blame Russia for the violence in Syria; had they agreed with the rest of Europe then Assad would have been gone.

Others, however, were adamant that the best approach was for Europe to keep out of the issue entirely. Catherine, for example, sent in a comment asking: “Can anyone explain why Europe should intervene at all? What does it have to do with us?

We took these comments to Ernst Stetter, Secretary General of the centre-left Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS), for his reaction. Is Sam right to praise the European response, and should Russia shoulder most of the blame for the continued violence?

It’s not easy to be so optimistic. It’s a very difficult situation we are facing at the moment; we have just published, as FEPS foundation, a little booklet on the opposition factions within Syria, and there is a lot of division within Syria. We have to take care also of the situation in the whole region… There is a special role for Europe to play now in [the Middle East], and we have to look that this is not any more a simple question of Israel and Palestine, this is now a question of change in the whole region.

The FEPS booklet (Divided they stand: an overview of Syria’s political opposition factions) makes it clear that the “disunity” of the Syrian opposition is a “major obstacle to any peaceful resolution of the conflict.” What is more, it goes on to argue that the “international community’s slow response to the Syrian crisis was partly dictated by the realization that Syria’s weak and divided opposition groups could not – and still in 2012 do not – provide an effective alternative to the Assad regime.”

Last week Štefan Füle, European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy, condemned the deaths so far in the Syrian conflict of “more than 17,000 people, the disappearance of around 67,000 people and the arbitrary detention of 200,000 people” adding that this “does not respect the very fundamental human right – immortalized by John Lennon – of all the people, living lives in peace.”

Commissioner Füle spelled out some of the measures the EU had already taken against Syria, including adopting 17 rounds of sanctions since May 2011; suspending all loans and technical assistance programmes to Syria; training pro-democracy activists in the country to circumvent internet censorship and protect themselves against government monitoring, and providing aid and humanitarian assistance to the Syrian population and refugees in neighbouring countries. The commissioner didn’t mention whether or not the EU planned, along the lines of EU member-state France, to start supporting the rebels more actively by supplying communications equipment.

As the Kofi Annan peace plan for Syria is systematically ignored by both sides and the conflict looks set to enter an even bloodier phase, international diplomacy remains deadlocked, bringing with it uncomfortable memories for the EU. Last week marked the 17-year anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia and Herzegovina, when, from 11 July until 22 July 1995, more than 8000 people were murdered whilst Europe looked on helplessly. Today, the European press is starting to wonder if we aren’t seeing history repeat itself.

What do YOU think? How would you rate Europe’s response to the conflict in Syria? Has Russia been the major obstacle? Or is the disunity of the Syrian opposition a major reason for the lack of progress? Should the EU stick to sanctions and humanitarian assistance, or should it follow the lead of some of its member-states and support the Syrian opposition more actively? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policy-makers and experts for their response.


33 comments Post a commentComment


  1. Radu Micu

    EU should be there when someone needs it. There are many things to do. Those human beings can’t live their lives with no help at all. Go there. Help them out. Don’t ask. (Re)act!

  2. Elia Johan Mikael Elenius

    If a state fails to protect it’s citizens, either because it is unwilling or unable (this case unwilling), it looses it’s right to sovereignty. How many Sebrenicas we need to have? Unilateral military action would undermine the international order, but can political stalemate prevent us from intervening in beyond pale situations like this? We need more decisive action. Least we can do is to help the opposition to defend themselves.

    29/08/2013 Ria Oomen-Ruijten, MEP, has responded to this comment.


    29/08/2013 María Muñiz de Urquiza, MEP, has responded to this comment.

  3. Misa Alomerovic

    EU should stay away becouse Syria isn’t her problem,but it could be with the asylum seekers and refugees.Many people have already been killed in the comflict.Syria itself needs to find solution to the crisis(with or without foreign assistance).Any interference from EU,USA or Russia only exacerbates the already existing situation there,and perhaps it’s going to be another war with Israel (Egyptyan-Israelian border looks like in the 70s).I think that nobody knows the real situation in Syria.If anyway EU (France and UK) does something like in Libia then a current civil war situation will be replaced with another.

  4. Savvas Rivas

    Article 2(4): prohibition of use of force

    - against the territorial integrity or;

    - political independence of any state or;

    - in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the UN

    Forcible intervention in another state is prohibited in international law under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter which states:

    “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”.

  5. Talis Briedis

    Syria is becoming a puppet of Russia. The Kremlin is still actively interfering with EU COUNTRIES and others, like Syria. The EU HAS TO START TAKING A FIRM STAND AGAINST THIS OPRESSOR! Just because Russia is no longer SOVIET, does not meant the communist dictators are gone along with their dreams of domination!

  6. Tünde Novák

    Syria egy csodálatos ország! Békén kell hagyni!Majd mindkét fél elfárad,és megnyugszik!A beavatkozás a legveszélyesebb!!!T

  7. catherine benning

    Syria is not Europe. Can you lease explain why you feel we should be interferring in another nations military crisis.

    Did Europe create this situation? if these people have decided to fight for a different way of life, tha tis their decision. Why does Europe consider it has a right to interfere?

    Look at Iraq and Afghanistan and take note of the chaos promoted by the west in those countries. you do not understand the people of these countries or their desires and need for a type of government.

    Leave the place alone.

    Besides, whose money are you going to use to intervene in the situation? The European tax payers money? And yet, many Europeans are starving. Will you consider feeding them before you set up an army to help the US government to, once again, devastate the lives of people not of this union?

    • Vikas

      Anonymous,I fear you’ll have a hard time challenging yitnhnag by calling yourself anonymous. If I may encourage you to use your first name so I could keep track of who’s who, that would be most helpful. I have no way of knowing which anonymous commentator you are otherwise.I wonder why you feel the need to psychoanalyze me. I’m quite sure there are many wonderful Arabs. I’ve never suggested that Arabs are all the same. In fact, I have several dear friends who are Arabs, Middle Eastern, Druze, etc. As for Jews being pro-Israel the bulk are, especially in Israel. That’s merely a reality largely ingrained in a quest for human survival. Would you expect an Israeli to want to see the destruction of their nation-state that they built from swamp and dirt?I find it questionable that you’re so offended I’m pointing to the inhumane treatment Jews suffered under Syria’s regime. Should I ignore that to appease anonymous commentators such as yourself? Should I deny my heritage to appease your distaste for Israel?Peace is mirage if you expect the bulk of Israeli Jewry to hide what they went through under Arab nationalist regimes. I haven’t an ounce of European blood. So when anti-Zionists and/or anti-Semities tell me to go back to Europe, I can only conclude that they don’t know the realities of what Mizrahi Jewry faced in their native lands or that they are hateful. I hope it’s the former as ignorance, through education, can be corrected. With best regards,Reut R. Cohen

    • Juli

      Glad to see you back.He was detained just one year after 9/11. Things were difeerfnt then. Perhaps confusion and reorganization to meet the threat caused a blunderbuss approach to be used.Paul

  8. Bart

    Overall, I evaluate the EU’s action positively, and am of the opinion it should continue along the path taken.

    First, there are several reasons why the EU has an obligation to do all that it can to end the Syrian civil war:
    - Moral reason: no-one should stand idly by as citizens are being massacred for political, religious or other reasons.
    - Security reason: Syria is close to the EU, violence such as this creates soft and hard security risks. Soft, i.a. in the form of migration pressures, increased trafficking of weapons, etc; Hard, conflict between Turkey and Syria, flaring up of violence in Lebanon, failed state as new breeding ground for more violence,…;
    - Political reason: engage with Middle Eastern partners in the area to solve problem in a fashion which is led by the neighbourhood, and create goodwill in other hot potatoes: e.g. Iran nuclear issue.

    However, there are equally several reasons why the EU should be careful to take a leading role and/or be careful about the kind of intervention:
    - There is no single ‘the rebels’. Sectarian violence such as this one is careful, not well understood by many of us, and one should tread carefully so as to not unleasch or aggravate some of the above-mentioned risks, or get involved.
    - We are out of money. The world has globalized, new powers have emerged, and we are weakened by the financial crisis. With great power comes great responsibility… and new world, or regional powers, ought to be pressured into taking responsibility.

    As a consequence, the EU’s action should so far be evaluated positively. Ashton, with Clinton, and others, trying to create multilateral momentum to stimulate legitimate (e.g. not EU-US imposed) regime change. A key role should be for the Arab League, which should grow up and mature as a regional organization, and clean up its own back yard. The EU should be crucial in stimulating such regional integration.
    Should we do another Libya? No, for many reasons. 1) We can’t afford it, 2) going the military option would only draw Western forces into a protracted mess with no clear exit strategy, 3) Western forces should remain at strength to create leverage in the Iran issue.

  9. Albert Saxén

    Now, yea. (Russia the obstacle.)
    Am always glad to see Debating Europe show up in my news feed

    Radu, yes; exactly, and Savvasr, i was just going to say UN; they really could be there, like the U.S., when needed and not shine w their absence

  10. Eusebio Manuel Vestias Pecurto

    A avaliação do desempenho da UE em realção há Siria na minha opinião tem sido positiva Agora temos a Russia e a China que o seu papel no conflito é um escadalo internacional a Liga Árabe deve criar pressão sobre estes dois paises Quanto mais tempo este conflito durar mais o regime massacra o seu povo E o senhor do bigott está a ser uma ameaça para a comunidade internacional

  11. Albert Saxén

    Yea, t is like w Iran; sanctions but also,help the opposition, by giving them the technological tools needed.
    Libya we shldnt hve gone in. But, Talis, I’m Finnish n I kno that all too well

    “our politicians have all
    been born before or during the Cold War which is hopeless and who
    are hopeless. They have no backbone. Still afraid, scared of something
    and equally to do something because of something that ceased to exist
    19 (21 now as this came out in ’10) years ago. This is fine, it is understandable what balancing on a tight rope for decades without sacrificing national interest (and some
    did. Their silence is understood) did. Like in Estonia, it is not a crime
    to have been a communist … but it is to (still) be serving your former
    bosses. Just as is the case with Finland; when one lives their life like
    this, fine, but when passes laws that everyone, the rest of us have to
    go by then time has come to step aside. That is when should get out of
    public life.

  12. Nikolai Holmov

    The EU has only soft power at its disposal. That is a simple fact of life. There is no military option for the EU acting as the EU. There is unilateral, bilateral, multinational from nations within the EU, and even a NATO response (but not all EU nations are NATO nations) but nothing that the EU as “the EU” can do militarily.

    Sanctions, humanitarian issues, post conflict development, mediation, negotiation, et al, the EU can do.

    In effect the EU is doing all it can as an entity as its remit and capabilities as “the EU” does not provide for any other kind of intervention other than that of soft power.

    The EU member states have other vehicles at their disposal for more robust and direct intervention but they are subject to UN mandates where R2P is still struggling to find its place along side the UN Charter.

    It should also be pointed out that it is not only Russia who is preventing UNSC agreement. China has also vetoed over the issue several times. Even if Russia dropped its veto, that doesn’t mean China would. Russian and Chinese foreign policy is not the same thing, in fact quite often it has frictions to the point where if their positions are the same it is by coincidence and not design.

    Quite what more anyone can expect of the EU legally and practically, as an entity given its current role and remit granted by the member states, it is hard to identify.

  13. Christos Mouzeviris

    I think we should be real careful, we should tread very carefully. The Russians have already sent troops down there..The Chinese too… So have the Americans… The Turks are threatening Russia… The Syrians showed their teeth to the Turks by shooting one aircraft down.. Can Europe enter such situation? We can not afford to enter a war right now.. Most of us anyway. But then again we do not want another Bosnia…I think we should only intervene under the UN lead, and only but only if we have to.. The Russians won’t let go of Syria so easily, it is their only ally in the region. It is sad that the Syrian people must pay for the geopolitical games of power between East and West, between the established powers of this World..But it has always been this way. And this is far more serious than the Yugoslavian wars… It could implicate all major World powers.. Can Europe be at odds with Russia? It is not in our interests. Give the UN full power and control over the situation, and if needed Europe will assist the UN and bring peace… But the question is, will the Americans allow it? They have ignored the UN so many times before… Aren’t we enough involved in hostilities in the Arab world? Can Europe be seen to be siding with America once again and get involved in yet another war in the Arab world? I do not trust the western media, after what they have been saying about Greece during this crisis.. All the propaganda and lies, the slander.. So in this case too, I do not trust our media again, and I am a skeptic about our motives to enter such war and get involved.. Who says that we are always on the right? They say that the Christians of Syria are being attacked by those same rebels that the EU wants to support… So why doesn’t Europe protect those people too? Are we using one-sided drama stories to justify our plans to expand our sphere on influence? Because if that is the case, I will not support any move that implicate Europe in this..Not for this, not for the interests of our rich elites… I will not consent to sacrifice human lives to materialize this propaganda………

  14. Andrea Pavón Guinea

    People who proclaim Europe has nothing to do in Syria, might you explain to me what does ‘the responsibility to protect’ (in this case, the responsibility to protect when a state is unwilling to do so) mean?

  15. Andrea Pavón Guinea

    By the way, 100% agree with Nikolai

  16. Ozcan

    you can’t do s*** over there, Syria is not a pushover on the payroll of the west, like with the other dictators in the arab spring. Syria is for real.

  17. Peter Schellinck

    Besides sanctions and humanitarian assistance the EU can take up a diplomatic and neutral negotiation role. Only Russia can force the issue and their actions will be instrumental in shaping the EU-Russia relationship.

  18. Lazaros Kalaitzidis

    I hate it when people say the “how many Srerbrenicas” phrase. Srebrenica was a UN safe zone, is this the case with Syria? Not to mention other things that happenned inside Srebrenica before the massacre, or outside the city.

    Appart from that, what about the Christians that are being slaughtered by the rebels as Christos also stated? Why nobody talks about helping them?

    And in the end, who the **** are these rebels? Does anyone know ANYTHING about them? Who are they, what do they want? Where did the find their arms (this can be intresting) etc etc.

    In other words, give us a break, not even ONE european soldier in imperialist wars. If the americans want another puppet state let them go sacrifice their own people.

  19. Peter Schellinck

    The fighting in Syria is not just about opposition against the regime. It also reflects the regional tensions between Sunni and Shia Muslims, Arabs and Kurds, and Arabs and Iranians that have shaped events in Iraq, Lebanon, and Bahrain in recent years. The dynamics are a recipe for chaos and too much for a EU plate. What is at stake is not just an extension of the Arab spring; it’s gunpowder against world peace. Unfortunately, a prospect of a wider war with Arab and Turkish participation looms on the horizon.

    Moscow is deeply conservative and has always been fundamentally opposed to the idea of international action and regime change imposed from outside of a country. In the Syrian case, Moscow might have been more successful as a peacemaker than Ankara. Today however they missed the boat and it now looks more like a face-saving gesture is being rolled out.

    Also, Russia’s strategic interests are at stake. In Tartus, Syria hosts the sole remaining Russian naval base on the Mediterranean. This base was all but forgotten until 2008, when then-Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered a major refurbishment of the base. Currently 600 Russian technicians are refurbishing it. To have to give up this Middle Eastern beachhead would be a shame, as far as the Russians are concerned. It’s the base for nuclear U-boats!

    Additionally, Russia has real commercial interests in Syria. Contracts to sell arms to Damascus total $5 billion. Having lost $13 billion due to international sanctions on Iran and $4.5 billion in canceled contracts to Libya, Russia’s defense industry is already reeling. Besides arms exports, Russian companies have major investments in Syria’s infrastructure, energy and tourism sectors, worth $19.4 billion in 2009.

    Beyond commercial and strategic interests, the Kremlin’s greatest fear is of instability in the Middle East and Central Asia. Russian policymakers already worry about the northward spread of Islamic militancy and opium if the departure of NATO from Afghanistan leads to Taliban resurgence and state collapse.

    So, in this geopolitical chaos and conflict of interests what can the EU honestly do? Besides sanctions and humanitarian assistance the EU can take up a diplomatic and neutral negotiation role. The EU has the capacity and skill to operate as an experienced moderator. Words are our strongest weapon and our ability to conceive consensus our medicine. The situation needs a cure not an extraction.

  20. Andrea Pavón Guinea

    Thank you very much for your analysis, Peter. It was fascinating.

  21. Nikolai Holmov

    To take this a little further, one has to ask why this question is even being asked. The issues here, legally at least, all revolve around the UN and “the EU” is not a UN member. It is defined as a “super-observer” as far as the UN goes which in effect is a recent upgrade from “observer” and now allows the EU to address the assembly as the EU, but nothing more, and over certain agreed and commonly held positions of the Member States.

    Naturally UNSC nations like France and the UK will never allow the EU to talk for them over anything serious as they are veto wielding nations.

    Ultimately this comes down to the UN Charter verses R2P which is an uncomfortable fit should issues climb the R2P scale to that of physical intervention (or not). We should all remember that R2P does not start and end its scale of response at physical intervention.

    As the UN Charter is really the net result of a grubby little deal between the US and the then USSR regarding sovereign integrity post WWII and entering the Cold War, with powers of veto included at US behest for permanent UNSC members, and R2P is the afterthought to justify the actions in Kosovo and is loosely based on one of the four core concepts of the Wilsonian Doctrine circa post WWI (but more diplomatically framed), it is hardly surprising they are an uncomfortable fit with those taking the UN Charter or R2P side both feeling justified legally. (Or at least having legal justification for their position no matter how nefarious their true intent is.)

    Those who take the UN Charter line obviously cite Libya as R2P going far too far and literally taking sides under that guise. Even the authors of R2P have expressed their regrets that the R2P envelope was pushed by those involved and anticipated a pendulum swing back towards a firmer stance on the UN Charter to the detriment of R2P by some nations as a result, long before Syria escalated into what it is today.

    It will take years, and probably many terrible incidents to come, for R2P to find comfortable ground vis a vis the UN Charter, to identify circumstances where the ultimate R2P level of physical military intervention is reached and is accepted by all UNSC members as justified (even if they have no interests in the zone of conflict, which simply complicates matters if they do).

    In such cases when R2P does occur, the question then is whether the EU can be neutral and act as a negotiator when some, the majority, or all its member states have intervened, albeit via another vehicle (most likely NATO with UN blessing).

    After all the EU is not a state, it is a supra-structure. It is not a UN member. It does not represent the interests of a single member but represents the interests of Europe as a whole – which can mean European interests are not the same as a national or even multiple national interests of EU members in some circumstances, but alternatively the actions of some of the parts can be seen to taint the neutrality of the whole.

    Should we be even asking what more the EU can do when this is a UN and UN members problem centered around UN rules. The EU has done all it can by being the focal point of consensus of its members and articulating their will.

    Fortunately there seems to be a consensus over Syria. What will happen when there is no consensus will be interesting given the “silver thread” of human rights that is supposed to run through EU foreign policy and has been very publicly pronounced time and time again.

    Just how robust that “silver thread” will be when it comes into conflict with the national interests of any excessively influential EU Member in a third nation remains to be seen.

    To some degree, the EU entity itself must be careful in how it handles issues such as the UN Charter and R2P (despite not being a member) as sooner or later, the EU entity may come up against the projected national interests of one or more of its internal parts.

    It maybe a blessing that the EU as an entity only has soft power in its arsenal in the long term.

    However, the EU as an entity has already intervened having put in place sanctions against Syria and some Syrians. It would therefore be seen as a tainted mediator/negotiator in the case of Syria by some involved anyway.

    • Tatiana

      In Australia you will not be able to claim a Centrelink (Social Security) payment of any sort for at lest two years, uelnss you come from a war torn country.If your have a qualification that meets the skills shortage, such as Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, in which you will granted a work permit. But still wont be entitled to a Centrelink payment. I might add that to receive a Disability Support Payment, you need to have good medical reports, x-rays etc, Centrelink will then request that you see a medical professional to rate your ability to work (they pay for this) and if your deemed as being able to work more the 15 hours a week you wont be entitled to DSP, and put Unemployment Benefit, which means you will have to actively look for work. If you require medical attention you can and will receive it, but at your cost. As for Government Housing Commission Homes/Units there is a 4 year plus waiting list depending on what state/area you want. And there is not a lot of private rentals going in some areas. There is a large amount of paper work for immigrating to Aussie. You will also have to apply for Medicare, which will help off set some cost of medical care. I was born in New Zealand and was not allowed to claim a Centrelink payments of any sort for at lest two years, which meant I had to to work, thankfully I was young and fit and able to work. I have been living in and married to an Aussie for over 20 years, and in recent years I have had to claim Centrelink Disability Support Payment, due to an acquired disability, which has impaired my ability to work full time, I am lucky that I have married a Aussie, and have been paying taxes since I came here, which helped. In June of last year my sister who is also a Kiwi, but had been living in England for over 20 years, immigrated to Australia, and she could not claim a Centrelink payment for two years, or have any medical treatment uelnss she paid for it. So she had to return to New Zealand late last year for medical treatment, as England was unwilling to pay for her treatment either, even though she had been paying taxes for a while. Unfortunately nearly every country has people living on the streets, for many reasons, can’t afford the rent, or pay the utilities, mental health issues, family problems etc. So its unlikely you will get away from this anywhere. I have helped a few people in claiming for Centrelink payments, and the process is daunting, frustrating and stressful, and they DON’T make it easy.

  22. Armiz

    This is a very difficult siutation and I am afraid can not be answered simply. However, there are many things you can do to help, starting with a small community. You can for instance, teach people to grow a variety of fruit and vegetables to trade with each other and provide sustenance for their own community. Educate the women in various trades like sewing,crocheting, spinning woolinto yarn, knitting, rug making, basket weaving so that they can make their own clothing and blankets and sell the rest to the outsiders. Teach the men in the group the proper care of animals like cows, chickens, and goats which can not only help them in the fields but will also provide milk, eggs and cheese for their diets. There are various trades that would be beneficial to learn as well like carpentry, blacksmith trades etc Educate the children the basics of reading and writing so that they may be able to make it in the world if circumstances would dictate it. Teach them the importance of caring for the environment by encouring every individual to plant trees (particularly fruit bearing ones)not only to replenish the ones that are cut down, but also to serve as a food source. Most importantly, implement some sort of family planning so that unwanted lives are eliminated and the problems brought on by poverty are diminished. These are just some starters. With your big heart and continuous effort, much of their needs will at least be met.

  23. Steve Austin

    Stay out of Syria, if you involve yourself you then end up with ownership and responsibility, like Europe needs more muslim immigrants at this time.

  24. eusebio manuel vestias pecurto

    A UE deve e tem a sua responsablidade nas decisões dos estados membros das Nações Unidas agora é preciso fazer alguma coisa como proteger os cidadãos civis deste jogo de politicas da Siria

  25. Karl Shirvanian

    “Syria & the World”

    The world just looks on while Syrians are slaughtered in Syria…

    A country ruled by one family for more than 40 years, their power came from the way he developed the government with family members and those from his minority Alawite, a Shiya group in a majority Sunni nation. Dictatorship is the family business!

    Although the large parts of the international community have called for al-Assads resignation from power, but no direct action or intervention is done to prevent the ongoing civil war in Syria since 2011, to prevent the massacres, crimes, torture, slaughters of thousands of innocents, child victims being tortured to death, homes being distroyed & eventualy an economically distroyed Syria with high growing numbers of Syrian refugees in foreign countries.

    The United States of America, led by Barack Obama, has provided the same level of indifference to Syrias people as well as Israel, & the other countries of the world. Syria is suffering from serious human rights abuses since the dictatorship of Alassad, but today human rights abuses is significantly increased & reached to a level of crimes against humanity.

    The world is very cautious to interfare in whats going on in the entire Middle East, due to the high level of risks that things can develop further into a bigger & faster war creating a larger mess in the region which will hurt the huge powers. If the west did make a direct interfer in Syrias current civil war to make Alassad step down, Syrias allies, Iran, Russia & China could plan a joint war game against the west. Thus, only secret support to Syrian oppositions through the west is carried out.

    The world just looks on while Syrians are slaughtered in Syria…

    Karl Shirvanian

required
required Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.