When Syria sank in bloodshed, 600,000 dead, entire cities razed to the ground, children gassed 

No one has convened an "emergency summit".

The Syrian Paradox: A World's Silence Amidst Unprecedented Atrocities

The Syrian civil war, a decade-long conflagration that has claimed the lives of an estimated 600,000 people, razed historic cities to the ground, and witnessed the horrifying use of chemical weapons against children, stands as a stark testament to the international community's selective outrage and inaction. While other conflicts, often with far lower death tolls, galvanize immediate global attention and emergency summits, Syria's descent into hell was met with a deafening silence and a piecemeal response that ultimately failed its people.

From 2011 onwards, as peaceful protests against Bashar al-Assad's regime morphed into a brutal armed conflict, the world watched, seemingly paralyzed. The narrative of "never again," so often invoked in the wake of genocides, felt hollow as reports of barrel bombs, starvation sieges, and massacres became a grim routine.

The Scale of Atrocity: A Snapshot of Syria's Anguish

• Human Cost: Over half a million lives lost, a number that continues to be revised upwards as more information emerges from the rubble. This figure dwarfs the casualties of many conflicts that have triggered immediate international intervention.

• Urban Devastation: Cities like Aleppo, Homs, and Daraa, once vibrant centers of culture and commerce, were reduced to ghost towns. Satellite imagery revealed entire neighborhoods flattened, infrastructure obliterated, and a landscape scarred by endless bombardment. The deliberate targeting of civilian areas became a hallmark of the conflict.

• Chemical Weapons: The use of sarin and chlorine gas against civilians, particularly inGhouta in 2013 and Khan Sheikhoun in 2017, crossed a universally recognized red line. The images of children convulsing and dying from nerve agents shocked the world, yet these heinous acts did not trigger the kind of decisive, unified international response that many expected.

The Absence of an "Emergency Summit": A Confluence of Factors

The failure to convene a truly impactful "emergency summit" for Syria, akin to those seen for other crises, can be attributed to a complex web of geopolitical interests, strategic paralysis, and a fragmented international response:

1. Geopolitical Gridlock: The Syrian conflict quickly became a proxy battleground for regional and global powers. Russia and Iran staunchly backed the Assad regime, while the United States, European powers, and Gulf states supported various opposition factions. This deeply entrenched division at the UN Security Council, particularly Russia's veto power, effectively stymied any robust, unified international action.

2. Fear of Escalation: There was a palpable fear among Western powers of being drawn into another costly and unwinnable war in the Middle East, especially after the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. This reluctance translated into a preference for limited interventions, sanctions, and humanitarian aid, rather than a full-scale effort to halt the bloodshed.

3. Refugee Crisis vs. Root Causes: While the Syrian refugee crisis did prompt international conferences focused on humanitarian aid and resettlement, these largely addressed the symptoms rather than the root causes of the conflict. The focus was on managing the spillover effects, not on forcibly ending the violence that was creating the refugees in the first place.

4. Complex Factionalism: The Syrian opposition itself was highly fragmented, comprising various ideological and armed groups, including extremist elements. This made it challenging for external powers to identify and support a credible, unified alternative to the Assad regime, further complicating the prospect of a decisive intervention.

5. Shifting Global Priorities: As the conflict dragged on, other global crises and domestic concerns often overshadowed Syria in the international agenda. The initial shock and outrage gradually gave way to a weary acceptance of the conflict as an intractable problem.

The Lasting Scars

The lack of a decisive international response to Syria's atrocities has profound implications. It has not only condemned millions of Syrians to unimaginable suffering but also eroded the credibility of international norms against war crimes and crimes against humanity. The world's failure to act decisively in Syria will undoubtedly be studied for generations as a tragic example of collective inaction in the face of widespread human suffering. The question remains: what lessons, if any, have truly been learned from Syria's descent into a man-made abyss?

                       ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When Christian minorities were massacred in Sudan, South-Sudan, when Yemen, Libya

the same chancelleries remained silent.

Are they not humans? 

And suddenly, as soon as it comes to Israel and Hamas terrorist, everyone improvises themselves as strategists and moralists.

Why should world peace be done like this?

The stark difference in the international community's response to the Israel-Hamas conflict compared to mass atrocities in places like Sudan, South Sudan, Yemen, and Libya is primarily rooted in geopolitical importance, strategic alignment, and media visibility, rather than a lack of concern for human life.

The seemingly contradictory reactions stem from the following critical factors:

1. Geopolitical Significance and Escalation Risk

The Israel-Hamas conflict receives overwhelming attention because it is seen as a potential flashpoint for a regional or global war.

• Involvement of Major Global Powers: The conflict directly involves key allies of the United States (Israel) and states supported by Iran (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis). An escalation could draw in these major powers, unlike the internal conflicts in Sudan or Libya, which are largely contained within their regional boundaries.

• Direct Threat to Global Interests: The conflict, especially when it spreads to the Red Sea (via Houthi attacks from Yemen) or the Israeli-Lebanese border, immediately threatens global energy markets, vital maritime shipping lanes, and the intricate structure of Middle East diplomacy (such as the Abraham Accords).

• Nuclear Dimension: The conflict takes place in a region where nuclear-threshold states (like Iran) and nuclear-armed states (like Israel) are present, raising the stakes to an existential level that other conflicts do not pose.

2. Strategic Alignment and Domestic Politics

The chancelleries you mention—primarily Western democracies—have a deep, long-standing, and complex relationship with Israel that influences their foreign policy priorities.

• Historical and Values Alignment: Western nations, particularly the U.S. and many European countries, have a historical, cultural, and political bond with Israel, viewing it as a democratic ally. This automatically ensures a high level of diplomatic and military engagement in a crisis.

• Domestic Political Pressure: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a highly emotional and visible issue that deeply divides or engages domestic electorates, religious groups, and vocal diaspora communities in Western countries. Leaders cannot remain "silent" without facing severe internal political repercussions.

• Clear 'Good vs. Evil' Narrative: In the initial stages, the attack by Hamas (a designated terrorist organization) provided a clearer, more immediate framework for condemnation of an aggressor, allowing Western leaders to quickly adopt the role of moralists and strategists in support of a defined ally.

3. Fragmentation vs. Centrality

The other conflicts, while horrific, are often seen as less "central" and more complicated in the eyes of the international community.

In short, the perceived "silence" on Sudan, Yemen, and Libya does not mean the suffering is unseen, but rather that the conflicts lack the geopolitical leverage and strategic urgency to displace the Israel-Hamas crisis from the top of the global agenda. The difference is one of strategic calculation and risk management, not a judgment on the humanity of the victims.

                                   ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In Africa as millions killed and displaced by foreign sponsored fighters the AU-African Union are busy talking about social media and political elites from all African countries are busy ruling with authoritarian style labeled democracy.

The frustration highlights a major critique of both the African Union (AU) and many African political elites regarding their priorities in the face of immense human tragedy. This disparity in focus, where governance issues like social media and the maintenance of political power seem to overshadow mass atrocities, is a product of political structure, external influence, and institutional limitations.

1. The African Union's Institutional Constraints

The AU faces significant limitations that impede its ability to intervene decisively in major conflicts, especially those involving foreign-sponsored fighters.

• Sovereignty and Non-Interference: The foundational principle of the AU is state sovereignty. Member states are highly reluctant to condemn or intervene in the internal affairs of others, creating a "political denialism" that delays action until conflicts are already devastating. This is particularly true when an incumbent government is fighting a rebellion.

• Financial and Logistical Dependence: Despite its mandate, the AU's capacity for large-scale military or peace-enforcement operations (like the African Standby Force) is severely hampered by a lack of financial autonomy. Many AU peace missions are heavily reliant on funding and logistical support from external non-African partners (like the UN, EU, and other global powers).

• Focus on Process over Protection: The AU often focuses on high-level diplomatic protocols, organizing summits, and issuing communiqués, which can be seen as prioritizing a political process over the immediate and robust protection of civilians—a responsibility that is often delegated to under-resourced regional bodies.

• Shifting Priorities (e.g., Social Media): Discussions on social media are not necessarily an arbitrary distraction but often reflect the elite's fear of digital mobilization by the opposition and the widespread issue of disinformation that complicates conflict resolution and elections. However, this focus on information control can indeed appear disproportionate when compared to the urgency of mass killings.

2. Authoritarianism Under the Guise of Democracy

The phenomenon you describe—political elites "ruling with authoritarian style labeled democracy"—is widely recognized by political scientists as "competitive authoritarianism" or "illiberal democracy."

• Facade of Institutions: Many African leaders, especially since the end of the Cold War, adopted the form of democracy (multiparty systems, regular elections, state constitutions) to secure international legitimacy and foreign aid.

• Subversion of Substance: While the form is democratic, the substance is authoritarian. Leaders maintain power by subverting key democratic practices through means such as:

  • Manipulating the electoral process (voter suppression, gerrymandering, control of electoral bodies).

  • Weaponizing state resources to benefit the ruling party.

  • Suppressing political dissent and severely limiting freedom of speech for opposition and civil society.

• Elite Self-Preservation: The primary concern for these elites is regime survival and the maintenance of their patronage networks. Addressing complex, resource-intensive conflicts or criticizing fellow leaders who operate similarly could destabilize their own power base. They are, therefore, preoccupied with internal governance issues—including control of the media and civil society—that directly impact their ability to stay in office.

3. The Role of Foreign-Sponsored Fighters

The prevalence of "foreign-sponsored fighters" further illustrates the paralysis of African institutions.

• Proxy Conflicts: Many African conflicts are driven by external state and non-state actors (regional rivals, global powers, private military companies) who support local factions to advance their own economic or geopolitical interests (e.g., access to resources, counter-terrorism).

• Undermining African Solutions: The intervention of these powerful external actors, often with superior resources and training, marginalizes the AU's efforts and makes African-led mediation and peace enforcement exceptionally difficult. When a conflict becomes an international proxy war, the AU’s leverage dwindles, leaving it to focus on less impactful, non-military issues.

In essence, the apparent indifference to mass slaughter is a symptom of a system where political survival and deference to elite interests are prioritized over the foundational principles of human rights and security. The institutions created to protect Africans are often undermined by the leaders who comprise them, creating a tragic cycle of inaction.