Evil will triumph if the West fails to act in Syria

Unless we punish Assad and Putin for bombing hospitals, we set a terrible precedent

The final battle for Idlib, one of the last pockets of Syria still holding out against Assad, seems to have begun. With the Syrian regime viewing civilians still living in the area as terrorists, three million people face either being killed or forced to flee as refugees. And the methods being used to crush the resistance are grimly familiar. In the last 10 days, 12 hospitals have been destroyed in attacks mounted by Russia and Syria – unconscionable crimes that have proved a useful tactic for Putin and Assad but which have gone largely unchallenged by the international community.

While the UK and other members of the Us-led coalition have devoted much military courage and materiel over the last three years to wiping out Isil in Iraq and Syria, they have shown

far less willingness to get involved in operations against the Syrian regime. By leaving Putin and Assad to do what they want in Idlib, however, this narrow approach is indirectly creating the perfect conditions for the jihadists to reform, regroup and regrow. It is also creating a terrible precedent. Attacks on hospitals and the use of chemical weapons – morbidly effective tactics that have allowed Assad to win a conflict that he would certainly have lost otherwise – have become normalised in Syria.

The UN and Western governments seem to think that nothing can be done, except to let Assad have his victory and then pick up the pieces afterwards. This is crass and illogical. In addition to the thousands of innocent children and civilians who will die before the dreadful conflict in Syria is done, we are, in effect, giving licence to every other dictator, despot, rogue state and terrorist to copy Assad’s crimes against humanity in order to achieve their evil ends.

There is, in fact, much that can be done. The international response must start with the UK, US and France reaffirming their joint commitment to strike key Syrian regime assets if chemical weapons are used. We were pleased to see Jeremy Hunt doing just this earlier this week. Ensuring that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is able to operate in Syria and remove the remains of Assad’s chemical weapons stockpile also needs to be made a priority.

But these are just the start of the options which the UK, even on its own, must consider, if we are to regain our moral compass and send a message to those who want to terrorise and create evil. We can, for example, track the aircraft attacking hospitals and hand the evidence to the International Criminal Court for future prosecutions. When the doctors operating in these hospitals in Idlib are taking great risks to collect evidence about chemical attacks to pass to the OPCW, surely tracking the planes that are trying to kill them is the very least we can do.

We should also do more, including the implementation of further economic sanctions, to ensure that the Geneva Convention is being upheld. Currently, Russia is ignoring much of it and we have a responsibility to make sure it is respected. The chemical attack in Salisbury has shown Putin’s disregard for international law. Bullies like him will only react to a show of strength and this must include freezing Russian assets in the UK.

To ensure that Assad, too, complies, we can threaten to remove the £1 billion that the UK has already pledged for reconstruction in Syria. It is only the West that has the financial resources to rebuild Syria, and the offer of assistance should be made on the condition that the rules of war and the Geneva Convention are adhered to.

Having failed in its humanitarian response during the conflict, the UK Government will have to take a deep and thorough look at this in the aftermath. For a start there are, on occasions, circumstances that call for muscular humanitarian intervention, where we enable the delivery of aid through military support, preferably under the auspices of the UN. We believe this approach might have produced a better outcome in Syria – and still could.

Our recent meetings with ministers in the Foreign Office suggest that they are at least now prepared to look at some of these options. The appointment of Rory Stewart, a well-travelled former administrator in Iraq, to run the Department for International Development holds further promise that platitudes will be replaced with effective action.

Ultimately, and most urgently, we need peace in Syria, and that means a wholehearted commitment to multilateral peace talks whatever the political, diplomatic and financial cost. In the meantime, we must not ignore our humanitarian responsibilities in Syria, not least because continuing to do nothing in Idlib is helping to create the perfect conditions for Isil to recruit new bombers who will directly threaten London, Paris and New York.

It is an old saying that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men and women to do nothing. It is about time our leaders took notice.