Where are the demonstrations in western capitals to denounce the brutal onslaught on Aleppo? Around 300,000 people are exposed to carpet bombing, including bunker-busting and fragmentation ordnance. Is the weather so bad that no one wants to stand on a square? Or does no one care? Does no one think protesting would make a difference?
Take London. There have been several demonstrations linked with foreign affairs in recent months, but none of note about the siege and destruction of Aleppo. A cheerful crowd gathered in front of the French embassy to mock this summer’s banning of the burkini on the Riviera. In June, thousands took part in a “march for Europe” (one banner read: “Fromage, not Farage”). And last month, crowds gathered to support refugees. All worthwhile, important causes. But about the Syrian conflict? Almost nothing. Certainly nothing comparable to those crowds. The same applies to Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Rome. To be fair, in Brussels, last Tuesday, some people did demonstrate, holding “Save Aleppo” placards: There were a hundred or so demonstrators on Schuman Square. But street protests denouncing Aleppo’s plight are confined to small groups — often exiled Syrians and human rights activists.
There is none of the grass-roots mobilisation that other wars — Iraq in 2003, or the conflict in Gaza — have triggered. Nor have artists, trade union leaders, intellectuals or politicians, who have in the past been prompt to organise anti-war movements, shown any determination to get the crowds out to call for an end to the slaughter in Syria. It may be that we have become numb to the constant stream of horrifying news, including the more than 100 children killed week before last in Aleppo by air strikes.
Untold amounts of ordnance
It may be that Syria seems too complex an issue. But what is complex about saying civilians should be protected? What is complex about denouncing those who are currently dropping untold amounts of ordnance on neighbourhoods and hospitals?
Yes, it’s true western governments criticise Russia and Syrian President Bashar Al Assad. It’s also true that at the United Nations, diplomats have compared Aleppo to Guernica and Srebrenica. But do official statements make any show of public anger redundant? Aren’t basic human values worth standing up for in the face of atrocities — if only to show solidarity?
Or could it be that we are wallowing in an ocean of “post-truth” politics, where Syrian government propaganda has made us doubt it is breaking international law? Have we started to believe carpet-bombing can be understood as anti-terrorism? Have we started thinking it would be best for Aleppo to be captured swiftly? There’s a useful quote from Tacitus when that kind of logic sets in: “And when in their wake nothing remains but a desert, they call that peace.”
The Al Assad regime has suggested that safe corridors will be created in Aleppo, adding ominously that anyone who stays and doesn’t surrender “will face their inevitable fate”. It’s often been said, in the West, that there is no military solution in Syria. But a military “solution” is very much what the regime in Damascus is aiming for now. I am not saying that demonstrations in London or Paris would stop the tyrants. But if protests were organised, perhaps we’d feel less shame when we look back on these events in the future? Back in 2000, groups did demonstrate in London to denounce “the carnage ... on the Chechens”. Current British Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn was among them. He and many others could now be doing the same for Syrian civilians. Why aren’t they?
— Guardian News & Media Ltd
Natalie Nougayrede is former executive editor and managing editor of Le Monde.
