No-fly zone in Syria: Too big an ask?

Last week, allies President Bashar al-Assad and President Vladimir Putin met in Moscow for further talks on the Syria crisis. The chat also gave Assad a chance to thank Putin for his campaign of airstrikes that started on 30 September.

The claim has been that the strikes have fundamentally decreased the spread of "terrorism" by targeting IS militants; however, among 370 casualties from the offensive, 120 have been reported to be civilians.

The number of civilian deaths in the Syrian conflict is not just a blemish of the hostilities but a long, deep, scar - and hundreds of thousands of deaths have been implored.

Some 20 percent of civilians killed in this conflict have been children

Experts note that the weapons that are employed by both opposition and government forces, will inevitably cause civilian damage. Some 20 percent of civilians killed in this conflict have been children.

The agents of their death include imprecise rockets, barrel bombs, unguided missiles and "hell cannons" - IEDs that have explosive gas canisters fitted within them that cause widespread damage.

So it is not just civilian deaths; but the damage to infrastructure has meant substantial displacement. On Tuesday, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported that around 35,000 people were reported to have been displaced from the southwestern outskirts of Aleppo after government offensives took place.

These airstrikes as well as those preceding them, make the requirement of a no-fly zone an increasing imperative, not least to stem the number of civilian casualties - it would also provide Syrians with some means of hope that they have not been abandoned, and that the international community is doing what it can to relieve the widespread suffering.

To date, attempts to lobby for a no-fly zone have been unsuccessful, with the Security Council failing to draft a resolution to enforce one.

Efforts have been described as wholly unrealistic and too difficult an endeavour to enforce. Russia, they say, would not commit to it, and veto any attempt by the Security Council to try and enforce one.

To forcibly try to do so would potentially mean combat with Russia and escalating violence even further.

The no-fly zone is not completely off the table - but it is not being given seriousness consideration by those with the power to enforce it.

It seems that the emphasis is now squarely on defeating IS, and the US and UK are determined that aerial strikes are the way in which that immediate task can be acheived.

The fallout from continued aerial bombardment is likely to have devastating effects: more civilian casualties, more displacement and more radicalisation, along with the burgeoning need for more and more aid.

The requirement for a no-fly zone that is not confined to refuges around the borders is not just desirable, it is essential - and the single-most important action that international forces can take at present.

Otherwise they risk loyalties being turned on their head in this raging conflict. Victims of the Syrian conflict will start looking at where they can seek protection from the sky. Those on the ground being able to provide it may very well be the IS militants the airstrikes were designed to target.

When all other parties are failing to protect civilians, groups such as IS can start to look like the lesser of several evils

When all other parties are failing to protect civilians, groups such as IS can start to look like the lesser of several evils - and that is a consequence that will push the war's conclusion further into the distance.

In order to move forward with establishing an effective safe zone, the discussion of a no-fly zone needs to be provided without forbearance, including the exact location or locations where these might be in Syria.

The most recent suggestions have been an area 60 miles east to west and 30 miles north to south of Aleppo. The objectives also need to be fully considered and genuine. The safe zone needs to be able to protect civilians and avoid their spillover into neighbouring states.

Conflating this primary objective with the ability for opposition forces to train without fear of attack, could dissuade Assad or his allies from obeying the restrictions. The fundamental principle of international law of protecting civilians must therefore be the driving force behind implementation of a no-fly zone.

Sophia Akram is a researcher and communications professional with a special interest in human rights particularly across the Middle East and Asia. Follow her on Twitter: @mssophiaakram

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of al-Araby al-Jadeed, its editorial board or staff.