At the start of December, I wrote a piece for Foreign Policy reviewing proposals for “humanitarian corridors” into Syria and/or the creation of a buffer zone on its border with Turkey as safe haven for displaced civilians. I noted that the precedents, ranging from Bosnia to Sudan, weren’t good:
Today’s U.N. mission in Darfur is mainly concerned with guarding aid convoys and displaced persons’ camps. Yet the Darfur case underlines the problems with such humanitarian operations. Although the mission involves 25,000 personnel, their vulnerability to attacks by bandits and interference by Sudanese forces has led some to conclude the peacekeepers are effectively hostages themselves.
Would a humanitarian operation in Syria fare any better, even if the situation there deteriorates to the point that the anti-interventionists in Beijing and Moscow back down? A few factors are positive: Syria is at least smaller and far less remote than Darfur. But it is hard to see how any outside force, whatever its make-up and mandate, could avoid being targeted by one side or other in the evolving conflict. The U.N. force in Lebanon has lost personnel to terrorist attacks, even though these have been smaller than the attacks on U.S. and French troops in Beirut in the 1980s.
So even if outside forces were to deploy to protect humanitarian corridors, buffer zones or safe areas in Syria with the best intentions, they could soon be dragged into fighting or forced to exit. The need to keep international personnel safe could also be an obstacle to mediating a peace deal.
But this week, these ideas are very much back in play. France is talking about humanitarian corridors again:
France said on Wednesday it was discussing a new U.N. Security Council resolution on Syria with Russia and wanted the council to consider creating “humanitarian corridors” in the country.
“We are renegotiating a resolution at the U.N. Security Council to persuade the Russians,” French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe told France Info radio. [ . . . ] “The idea of humanitarian corridors that I previously proposed to allow NGOs to reach the zones where there are scandalous massacres should be discussed at the Security Council,” Juppe said.
Turkish officials meanwhile say that they still don’t want to create a buffer zone, but they have started talking about humanitarian corridors too. I can see that the need to do something – anything – in Syria feels very strong now, but I stand by my conclusions from December:
While talk of a humanitarian intervention in Syria may be comforting in the short term, it is deceptively dangerous. Arab, European, and Turkish planners should be ready for all eventualities. If Syria sinks into war, peacekeepers may be required to stabilize it later. But “humanitarian corridors” and “safe areas” are not a strategy to prevent that war escalating now.
