Please write to your MP by clicking on the link below and copying and pasting the following text into the relevant area. Then kindly share with all your contacts on social media!
Re: In support of no-bombing zone over Syria
As your constituent, I am writing to you with regards to civilian protection in Syria. In order to protect civilians, reduce the refugee exodus, decrease the threat of radicalisation, and induce a political settlement in Syria, the UK needs to take action to protect Syrian civilians from the primary perpetrators of the atrocities - namely the Assad regime, and more specifically its indiscriminate aerial bombardments. Specifically:
1. The Syrian crisis is the root of two of the most serious global problems right now: the refugee crisis; and the threat posed by ISIS;
2. Anti-ISIS strikes will not tackle the root causes: (a) ISIS is neither the root cause of the Syrian crisis, nor is it the predominant driver of refugee flows; (b) the impact of any UK contribution will be marginal at best; and (c) anti-ISIS strikes in the absence of protection have been a radicalising factor on the ground so – ironically – UK strikes against ISIS might just make things worse;
3. Alleviating those global problems requires tackling them at source. So we need a policy that (a) stems the killing in Syria – the majority of which is a result of the Assad regime’s aerial bombardment; (b) reduces the humanitarian impact, including slowing the exodus; (c) combats extremism; and (d) leads to a political solution;
4. A no-bombing zone is the first step to turning the crisis around. It is the only policy option that (a) saves lives; (b) reduces the exodus; (c) reduces radicalisation; and (d) makes a political solution more likely;
5. By ensuring civilian protection and stopping the aerial bombardments – including those by Russia – the UK would stop the largest source of killing in Syria, namely the Assad regime's air force. 60% of civilian deaths are caused by the regime's helicopters and planes. In 2015 alone, the regime killed seven times more civilians than ISIS;
6. Implementation of a no-bombing zone would not require pre-emptively striking inside Syria which would risk the lives of British military personnel. Rather, it could be enforced from ships in the Mediterranean which would only execute strictly limited strikes if aircraft violate the prohibited ban on bombing. This sea-based option requires very limited military intervention.
I hope that you will also raise the above points on Syria to both the FCO and DFID. Thank you very much for your time.