The trouble with Assad...

THE UK Government says President Bashar Al-Assad is killing his own people in Syria.

Yet according to a recent BBC report, Assad is giving shelter to 1.6 million internally displaced Syrian refugees in the city of Latakia, who are well looked after. So is he, at the same time, killing his own people and saving their lives? There should be some serious debate about this issue.

The strongest case against Assad amounts to an argument that he should have given up territory to rebels rather than attempt to retake it, with inevitable loss of civilian lives.

Much is made of his use of barrel bombs, but, according to figures from Human Rights Watch, the average number of people killed by a barrel bomb is two, so these bombs are no more deadly or indiscriminate than the munitions used by Western armies.

According to the Syrian Observatory, when the death toll in Syria reached 100,000, 45 per cent of those killed were Assad fighters and just 15 per cent rebels. Assad has clearly been facing a powerful armed assault since early on in this war.

David Cameron says Assad must step down, but he has no right to make Assad’s departure a condition of serious peace negotiations — even if Assad is the monster it’s claimed he is. If the U.S. and UK insist Assad has to go and he refuses, peace talks come to a standstill. There’s no other peace process, so the people of Syria are condemned to war without end.

The U.S., with Russia, could enforce a ceasefire between Assad and moderate rebels, after which the Syrian army could lead the assault on ISIL in Syria. No other army can do that in a way which ensures stability after ISIL have gone. David Cameron should be using his influence to get Obama engaged in serious talks with Putin towards this end.

Dr BRENDAN O’BRIEN, London N21.