FEW will disagree that Syria constitutes the biggest diplomatic failure of the past two years.
In that time, the country has slipped into anarchy as President Bashar al-Assad has unleashed his forces in an attempt to crush those who oppose him and the death toll has grown dramatically. The world be ashamed that, according to the UN's newest figures, it has allowed at least 60,000 people have been killed in some of the bloodiest fighting seen in the Middle East.
It is difficult to see any outcome that will end the fighting. Assad and his cronies seem determined to tough it out, even if they are only left with the capital Damascus and a friendly Alawite enclave with access to the Mediterranean. At the same time the rebels are equally determined to fight for as a long as it takes to oust their nemesis, even if that entails the destruction of what remains of the country's infrastructure.
In the midst of all this mess the rest of the world has twiddled its thumbs and done nothing apart from uttering the usual platitudes about the need for something to be done.
Burned by America's experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama has refused to become embroiled, fearful of a further foreign policy disaster in his second term in office. That unwillingness to act has passed the initiative to Russia and China, who both refuse to support any policy that involves a new beginning without their ally, Assad.
While that intransigence is understandable – regime change does not have a good record in recent years – it is clear that nothing will save Syria now unless Assad stands down. It must say something when even Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah and a key Assad loyalist, argues that a political solution has to be found sooner than later.
A chance comes this week when the UN's envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, chairs talks with US and Russian officials: for the good of everyone in the region, this must be grasped as the opportunity for a new approach.
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