Enormous numbers have had to flee violence in Syria; people of all political persuasion, ages, religious belief and background.
Their views are diverse and strongly held. One which is commonly expressed, however, is a disappointment with the ineffectiveness of the international community. A new report by Oxfam and 20 aid and human rights organisations shows there is good reason for this disillusionment.
In February 2014, in the face of a spiralling human catastrophe, the UN Security Council eventually united to pass Resolution 2139. This demanded an end to attacks on civilians and for Syrians to be able to access sufficient aid. The resolution, which was followed by two others later in the year, offered hope to Syrians. Our report shows that they have been largely ignored.
In the last year, the humanitarian situation has continued to worsen and the conflict has escalated: more killings, more displacement, more bombing and aid still isn't reaching those who desperately need it. There are reports of 76,000 people killed in the last year, out of a total of at least 220,000 deaths over four years. With difficulties in gathering reliable information in the war torn country, many think the real death toll is far higher.
There has been a 26 per cent increase in the number of people who have had to flee their homes because of violence. Some 11 million people, more than half the pre-crisis population of Syria, are displaced inside the country or have fled across international borders. That's the equivalent of 32 million people in the UK fleeing their homes to live in tents, refugee camps or overcrowded apartments. Two thirds of the entire population are now estimated to need emergency aid. One million homes have been totally or partially destroyed in the last year.
Behind each of these overwhelming statistics are people like Samah. She fled to find safety for her six children in the caves of surrounding mountains, explaining: "We are dying from cold, illness and hunger. I would rather be cooking rocks at my home than staying here waiting for an organisation to bring me a food basket every once in a while."
More and more people have stories like Samah's. Yet 2014 also saw a drop in aid funding at the same time as rich countries pledged to resettle just a paltry number of refugees.
The political track to tackle this crisis has also stalled. As Lakhdar Brahimi, the second UN Peace Envoy to Syria to resign, said: "[There are] ... plans of war ... no peace plans. I don't see anybody saying 'let's stop fighting and let's talk'." His replacement, Staffan de Mistura, has an unenviable task, trying to push reluctant parties to freeze the fighting in the city of Aleppo.
So what should be done? Security Council members can clearly do more, particularly as they are the main backers of some of those fighting. Indeed, 90 per cent of the arms used in Syria were manufactured in countries that are permanent members of the Security Council. They can use their diplomatic, political and financial influence to push for peace talks. They can insist that their demand for an end to violations is heeded; they can stop sending guns, bullets and military support to violators themselves; and they can insist on accountability and justice for the victims.
Neighbouring countries and regional powers can also de-escalate the conflict and implement practical changes to ease the plight of civilians. All governments can demand political action, offer a safe haven to five per cent of refugees who have fled the violence and fully fund the humanitarian response.
And we, as global citizens, campaigners and people with conscience or humanity must stand #WithSyria. We can show solidarity with those who are both suffering and striving for a better future, and insist to governments that something has to change.
Daniel Gorevan is Oxfam's policy advisor on the Syria Crisis and one of the authors of the report "Failing Syria".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article