Commentary: As the G20 summit drew to a close in St Petersburg, Russia, UK PM David Cameron offered increased financial support to ease the humanitarian crisis in Syria. Cameron added a further £52mil bringing the UK's financial commitment to the Syrian humanitarian crisis, and neighbouring States, to £400 million.
This is just more money for Syria, courtesy of the UK though.
In August 2012 UK foreign secretary William Hague added an extra £5m in non-lethal equipment to Syrian opposition groups as it was "the right thing to do" and will "help save lives". We now know it was not and did not. It helped prolong the conflict, interfered in a civil war and extended the humanitarian crisis. At that time Hague said:
"The help for unarmed opposition members will include medical supplies and radio and satellite equipment. But it will not include weapons and is in addition to £27.5m humanitarian aid."
As the UN appeals for more countries to add money to help the humanitarian crisis it sounds like our "small insignificant British Isles" has done enough as far as financial aid goes. (see below)
As the BBC reports though in September, 2013, "The UN says it needs another $3.3bn (£2bn) to deal with the Syrian refugee crisis up to the end of this year" Friday Cameron urged other G20 leaders to dig deep into their pockets to help ease this ongoing crisis.
Some reports from the G20 claim that Cameron has been sidelined in talks on Syria following his humiliating Commons defeat last week. The PM refutes these rumours. The Evening Standard however reports "A senior aide to summit host Vladimir Putin dismissed Britain as "just a small island: no-one pays any attention to them".
"Downing Street demanded "clarification" of the remarks, which were denied by the Russian President's chief spokesman Dmitry Peskov, who said they did not reflect Moscow's true view of the UK and the "positive dynamics" of relations between the two countries. A Number 10 source said that the reported remark "highlights how a small island with great people can achieve a big footprint in the world".
Either way money once again given by the UK will be eagerly accepted.
As the UN appeals for more countries to add money to help the humanitarian crisis it sounds like our "small insignificant British Isles" has done enough as far as financial aid goes. Either way money once again given by the UK will be eagerly accepted.
President Obama for the US continued to garner support and France, the UK and Canada were among those supporting him. Whether that is just vocally at the summit or by direct means is not known.
The UN's Ban Ki-moon has once again gone on record to say that military action will not resolve the Syrian crisis. Perhaps this is why America looks set to act rather than wait for UN reports and resolutions. Russia tends to oppose action on Syria at the UN but would it in the face of hard evidence? The USA are quick to accuse Russia on their voting position but images of Obama and Chinese leaders in friendly postures are surely at odds with those accusations levelled against Russia? After all China has used its veto on Syria in the past and is not supporting strikes against Assad. Is the difference trade deals?
Tit for tat continues as Obama condemns the Assad regime for using chemical weapons and slaughtering Syrian civilians, whilst Assad and Russia blame the rebels for the deadly attacks.
By the time the G20 wound down the US and 10 other nations had agreed a strong international response, to the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria by Assad, was necessary.
Military strikes will in the short term allow the rebels to push forward and will act as a smacked backside to a naughty child but will either help the people of Syria?