TIME Syria

U.N. Security Council Gets Serious on Syria Aid to Limited Effect

Syria has failed to comply with a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding access for humanitarian aid to besieged civilians, and more than 9 million people there overall are thought to need assistance, but real repercussions are unlikely unless Russia gets on board

It didn’t take long. Just two months after world powers celebrated the unanimous adoption of a groundbreaking resolution by the United Nations Security Council calling for the delivery of aid to millions of desperate Syrians, U.N. humanitarian chief Valerie Amos all but admitted defeat. “Far from getting better, the situation is getting worse. Violence has intensified over the last month, taking an horrific toll on ordinary civilians,” Amos told reporters after a closed-door Security Council briefing at the United Nations in New York on Wednesday. “I’ve told the Council that Resolution 2139 is not working,” she said, referring to the measure that even staunch Syria ally Russia had supported.

The resolution specifically demanded that the regime of President Bashar Assad cease its use of indiscriminate barrel bombs dropped on civilian areas, and threatened “further steps” if its calls to open the way for the delivery of essential humanitarian aid went unheeded. Yet just hours before the Council met, the government unleashed a barrage of barrel bombs on a school in the northern city of Aleppo, killing 20 and further underscoring the resolution’s failure to improve the situation. While some anti-government militias have prevented humanitarian access in the areas they control, the resolution was largely directed at the Syrian government, which the Council singled out for continuing to use siege tactics on civilian populations, preventing humanitarian assistance and denying medical aid—actions the council has described in the past as violations of international humanitarian law. In a 60-day assessment of the resolution’s implementation, released last week, the U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon noted, “People are dying needlessly every day,” and demanded that the Security Council “take action.”

Ban’s report, as well as assessments by a wide array of UN agencies, international aid organizations and human rights groups, shows that Syrians are still besieged, still starving, and still being denied medical assistance. “We have seen no significant change on the ground [since the resolution was implemented,]” says Vanessa Parra, Humanitarian Press Officer for Oxfam America, an international aid organization operating in Syria. “There have been some piecemeal instances of assistance getting through, which is welcome of course, but not with any predictability, and not in any way that fundamentally alters the dire humanitarian situation.”

In her remarks following the Security Council meeting, Amos called for a robust response to the Syrian regime’s intransigence. “I think the onus rests on the Council to not only recognize that reality, but to act on it,” she said. But the threat of “further steps” is increasingly looking meaningless. Any decisive action by the Security Council, such as sanctions or military action, would require another resolution, one that most certainly would invite a Russian veto.

For 27-year old Samer, an anti-regime activist from Homs who asked to go by only one name to protect his family, it is incomprehensible that any nation would hold back humanitarian access for political gain. Especially, he points out, when civilians caught in the middle of the warring sides are the starving victims. “I wish Russia would take part in constructive dialogue instead of preventing humanitarian organizations from doing their job,” he says.

According to the U.N., more than nine million Syrians — nearly half the population — are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance. Many are in hard to access areas or in territory held by the opposition. Yet in defiance of the U.N. resolution, the Syrian government has strictly limited access to areas outside government control, meaning that the U.N. and other international aid agencies cannot reach the populations most in need. Furthermore, the Syrian government, citing a legal justification of sovereignty, will not allow humanitarian aid to come across any rebel-held border. With all but one border post on the northern frontier with Turkey in rebel hands, and access to Jordan’s border crossings in the south similarly limited, the Syrian regime is essentially funneling all international aid deliveries through the few remaining corridors that lead to the capital Damascus, while depriving large swaths of the country of essential assistance.

The U.N. operates in Syria only with government permission, and has, until now, been beholden to regime dictates that it not access populations in need except via regime-sanctioned corridors. International humanitarian law experts challenged that practice in an open letter to the UN on April 28, saying that current conditions trump traditional practice. Kristyan Benedict, the Syria campaign manager for London-based Amnesty International, says that the humanitarian imperative is paramount. “The UN needs to reconsider its adherence to these rules. Topline, we want unfettered cross border humanitarian access. I don’t think anyone can justifiably say that the concept of state sovereignty is more important than saving lives, especially when the state claiming sovereignty continues to commit war crimes.”

Samer, the activist from Homs, says that it is time to focus on saving lives, even if that means breaking international law by going against regime wishes. “There should be an international committee to protect UN workers and they should deliver aid under international protection, no matter what the regime says,” he tells TIME via Skype. The risk is that the government can kick out the U.N. entirely if it defies regime directives, as officials have already threatened to do to international aid organizations registered in Damascus that have been caught conducting cross border operations elsewhere in the country. Aid agencies, as with the U.N., are forced to weigh the costs and benefits of defying the rules. It’s a complex calculation, says Benedict, one made more difficult by the U.N.’s political role in the country, and continuing hopes for a lasting political solution. Breaking the rules, says Benedict, “does not mean we are going to reach everyone, but the question is, could we be reaching more people than what is currently allowed by government permission?”

And if the regime does decide to retaliate by kicking out the U.N., he adds, it may make for more clarity on future Security Council decisions. “Sure, the regime authorities may tell the U.N. to get out. But if they do, it would further make the case that the government is using civilians as pawns in a political game. Totally denying access to humanitarian aid would be a clear sign that the leadership has lost all legitimacy.” And Russia, he says, at that point, may be forced to reconsider its unquestioning support for Syria.

With reporting by Hania Mourtada/ Beirut

TIME Syria

Assad Claims a ‘Turning Point’ in Syria As Military Makes Gains

Soldiers loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad gesture from their tank, as they pass Mar Bacchus Sarkis monastery, in Maloula village, northeast of Damascus, after taking control of the village from rebel fighters April 14, 2014.
Soldiers loyal to Syria's President Bashar Assad gesture from their tank, as they pass Mar Bacchus Sarkis monastery, in Maaloula village, northeast of Damascus, after taking control of the village from rebel fighters, April 14, 2014. Khaled al-Hariri—Reuters

The Syrian president claimed the military's capture of three rebel-held towns is a "turning point" in the bloody conflict. But an all-out victory for the regime is still far from guaranteed, as rebels make gains in other parts of the war-torn country

Syrian troops reclaimed the ancient Christian town of Maaloula on Monday, the crowning jewel in a series of significant military gains that had the regime of President Bashar al-Assad crowing over its pending triumph even before the smoke cleared.

The army’s swift capture of Maaloula came less than 24 hours after an Assad speech in which he claimed that the war, now in its fourth year, was going in the regime’s favor. “This is a turning point in the crisis,” President Assad told crowds gathered at Damascus University Sunday afternoon, lauding the “army’s achievements in the war against terror.”

Not long after the conclusion of his speech, Syrian government troops, accompanied by fighters from the Lebanese militant group Hizballah, moved into the few remaining towns along the Lebanese border still in rebel hands. The towns fell like dominoes, depriving opposition fighters of vital supply lines and cutting off access to the rebel-dominated suburbs around the capital, Damascus. The rebel defeat was undeniable.

Still, state TV overstepped in its enthusiasm, claiming military victory over neighboring towns like Jibbeh and Jbaadin that had never been in rebel hands in the first place, according to volunteer observers for the UK-based, anti-Assad Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group. It appears that regime forces may have taken them pre-emptively, concerned that they might provide refuge for rebels fleeing other areas.

The town of Maaloula, which has changed hands three times since the start of the war, is an important symbol for a regime that has attempted to gain legitimacy by claiming to protect the country’s Christian minority from the threat of radical jihadists. Residents still speak Aramaic, a language dating back to the time of Jesus Christ, and the town was known for its stunning church and monastery carved out of cracks in the surrounding cliff face.

In December, rebel groups affiliated with the al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front kidnapped 12 nuns from the monastery. In March, the nuns were released unharmed in exchange for scores of government detainees. As they left the nuns praised their former captors, and blessed them in their endeavors in TV appearances — an indication, perhaps, that the rebels were not quite the devils that the regime made them out to be.

Maaloula may have fallen, but all-out victory for the regime is still not guaranteed. Government forces have all but secured a vital corridor linking Damascus to Latakia province on the coast, a stronghold of the Alawite minority to which Assad belongs, but rebel brigades have made inroads in the province’s north, threatening a refuge once thought impregnable. Last month rebels captured the sole remaining government-controlled border post with Turkey, cementing their control of Syria’s entire northern border.

But Assad remains defiant. His comments at Damascus University on Sunday, combined with the regime’s assertions that presidential elections will be announced shortly, make it clear that he will not budge, despite repeated international calls to stand down and reconcile with his opposition. Even if the regime does manage to reclaim significant parts of the country, victory will be hollow. According to a UN report, the Syrian economy is likely to take 30 years to recover to pre-war levels, and that is only if the war ends now. The country’s health system has collapsed, according to Kristalina Georgieva, the European Union’s commissioner for international cooperation, humanitarian aid and crisis response, and a looming drought threatens to deprive a further 2 million Syrians of food this year, according to the World Food Program.

With more than 150,000 dead, thousands missing, nine million displaced and al Qaeda digging deep roots in the country’s northeast, staying in power may take a worse toll on Assad’s government than letting go.

TIME Syria

The World Shrugs at Alleged Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria

A man, affected by what activists say was a gas attack, breathes through an oxygen mask inside a field hospital in Kfar Zeita village in the central province of Hama, April 12, 2014.
A man, affected by what activists say was a gas attack, breathes through an oxygen mask inside a field hospital in Kfar Zeita village in the central province of Hama, April 12, 2014. Reuters

The Syrian regime and the opposition agree that an attack took place in Kfar Zeita, but they each blame each other. Given the political situation, the truth may never be known.

It’s not often that the Syrian regime and opposition groups fighting for its downfall can agree on something. But when it comes to the alleged April 11 chemical attack on the rebel-held village of Kfar Zeita, neither side has any doubt it happened. What they can’t agree upon is who is to blame. Video footage taken from a local field hospital and published online by anti-regime activists shows scenes of chaos and terror, as harried medical workers pass oxygen masks around a crowded room and struggle to revive pale, listless patients lying on the floor between hospital gurneys. Toddlers, stacked four to a bed, cough and scream in fear if they aren’t laying unnaturally still. It is impossible to tell for certain what happened, but existing footage indicates some sort of chemical agent may have been involved. “A helicopter came and dropped a container,” says anti-regime activist Abdallah Abu Raed via Skype from Kfar Zeita, describing the scene on Friday. “A sort of yellow dust spread in the sky and coated everything. You can’t really distinguish the smell because as soon as you inhale it you pass out.” The noxious substance affected some 150 people, he says, and by Monday afternoon, several victims had been transferred to neighboring Turkey for treatment. Two children and an old man had died, he says.

Within hours of the alleged attack, opposition leaders were blaming the Syrian government, saying the military had added chlorine gas to its by now habitual deployment of improvised barrel bombs full of explosives and shrapnel dropped from aircraft flying over rebellious civilian areas. The next day state-run television responded with reports that the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front had orchestrated the attacks, and that the rebel group was planning further attacks on other towns. The state-owned news agency did not say from where it had obtained the information, but on April 1 – ten days before the attack – Syria’s representative to the United Nations in New York, Bashar al-Jaafari, claimed that Syrian government authorities had intercepted phone calls between militant groups planning to launch chemical attacks in order to frame the government.

Taleb Abu al-Hasan, commander of the local 111 rebel regiment in Kfar Zeita, tells TIME via Skype that such pre-emptive accusations are standard government propaganda. “Whenever the regime is about to do this, they blame someone else ahead of time to deflect blame before the attack takes place.” The rebels, he adds, are bracing for a similar attack in the nearby town of Morek, “because the regime is saying that their intelligence has gathered evidence that al-Nusra is planning to use [chemical weapons] there.” The towns of Kfar Zeita and Morek have been thorns in the side of regime forces since the rebels seized them several months ago. They threaten a key supply line to military units vital for maintaining government control over the northern town of Aleppo, says al-Hasan, and that’s why he believes they are likely to be next of the regime’s hit-list. It’s simply too convenient, he suggests, that Morek, which is already under rebel control, is threatened by another chemical attack by the al-Nusra Front.

If past cases of alleged chemical attacks are anything to go by, there may never be definitive proof of culpability for the Kfar Zeita attack, or any subsequent attacks, for that matter. It may impossible to prove that any chemical agents were used it all. It took months for U.N. investigators to determine that a chemical weapons attack had actually taken place on Aug. 21 in the Damascus suburbs, even after hundreds had died from apparent symptoms of exposure to toxic substances. Even then investigators were not able to assign blame. Figuring out what happened in Kfar Zeita, about 200 km north of Damascus in contested territory, will be even more difficult given ongoing war, the region’s inaccessibility and the unwillingness of either side to let go of the propaganda opportunities presented by continued ambiguity.

The U.S., for the moment, has been cautious in assigning blame. “We are trying to run this down,” Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said on the U.S. weekly television news program ‘This Week.’ “So far, it’s unsubstantiated, but we’ve seen, I think, in the past that we will do everything in our power to establish what has happened and then consider possible steps in response.”

Of course, “possible steps” are likely to be limited. Under a deal brokered by ally Russia, President Bashar Assad agreed to give up Syria’s substantial chemical arsenal by June 30 in order to avert a U.S. military response in the wake of the August attack. (The Syrian regime blamed the rebels for that attack as well). And the U.S. and its Western allies may not want to issue fresh threats against the Assad regime now that Syria is on the brink of reaching the goal of relinquishing its chemical weapons — today the organization overseeing Syria’s compliance, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, announced that 65 percent of Syria’s chemical stockpiles had been removed from the country. “All of these countries have a vested interest in seeing Syria disarmed,” says chemical weapons expert Jean Pascal Zanders. “Right now that is the biggest priority, which is why I am thinking no one will want to rock the boat over this issue right now.”

With reporting by Hania Mourtada / Beirut

TIME Syria

Syrian Rebels Appear to Have a New Type of U.S.-made Anti-Tank Weapon

The recent appearance of an American anti-tank missile on the social media of a Syrian rebel group fighting the government of President Bashar Assad raises questions about U.S. assistance in the war, and its effectiveness

For all the weapons currently in use in the Syrian war, few are American made. It’s emblematic of strict U.S. control over the manufacture and distribution of weapons of war. But the recent appearance on YouTube of a uniquely American anti-tank missile being launched by a moderate rebel group fighting the government of President Bashar Assad in Syria has fostered speculation that the U.S. or its allies may have finally started arming the rebels. For months, U.S. security officials have leaked information to journalists about the supply of light arms to moderate rebels in Syria’s southern areas, and congressional approval for further deliveries through September. This is possibly the first evidence of the American armaments in use in Syria, though their appearance in the northern province of Idlib, far from the U.S. approved rebel group’s area of operations is a disconcerting development. So far only three instances of the BGM-71 TOW anti-tank guided missile in rebel use have appeared on social media sites coming out of Syria, so it’s impossible to know how widespread the weapon’s distribution is, or if its just a one-off. Still, it raises questions about whether or not such weapons would even make a difference in a war that is nearing unshakable stalemate.

“It’s potentially a very significant development. These missiles have not been seen before in Syria,” says Charles Lister, a specialist on the Syrian conflict and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center think tank, who first wrote about the missiles in IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly. Even if the weapons were passed to the rebels from a government that bought them legitimately from the U.S., strict regulations apply to their transfer. “Even if country like Saudi had decided to send these to the rebels, technically the U.S., and [President] Obama would have known about it and given its blessing,” says Lister. It is of course possible that the missiles in question were bought on the black market, and as long as the number of star turns on social media sites run by rebels stay low, that is the most likely scenario. Even if the U.S. or its allies didn’t want to advertise the fact that they were supplying weapons to the rebels, the ubiquity of social media on the Syrian battlefield would mean that their distribution wouldn’t stay secret for long.

Either way, the missiles will not turn the war, says Lister. Anti-tank missiles are a formidable weapon, to be sure, but they can’t take down the aircraft or helicopters that give the Syrian military its superiority. A missile may be able to take out a tank five kilometers away, “but in terms of the entire conflict, even in large numbers they will not be a game changer,” says Lister. More reassuringly, should they fall into the wrong hands, they are unlikely to be useful for terror groups in Syria bent on attacking Western targets.

If anything, says Lister, the appearance of these particular weapons in the Syrian battle space only serves to underscore the futility of arming rebels this late in the conflict. Now that the Syrian military has regained control of most of the southwestern parts of the country, linking the capital, Damascus, to the coastal enclave of Latakia that is home to Assad’s Alawite sect, the government is feeling much more secure. Meanwhile, the opposition has cemented control in the east of the country, and it is unlikely that the government will ever be able to take it back. “We are now at the stage where the stalemate is well consolidated,” says Lister. “Should the U.S. or its allies want to change that dynamic, it would be an inherently complex and mammoth effort, and I am not sure the United States wants the opposition to win militarily anymore.” That doesn’t necessarily mean that the U.S. will cut off supplies. More likely, it will only keep the tap open enough to allow the rebels some maneuvering room for future negotiations.

TIME Syria

Syrians, In Their Own Words

A Damascus-based documentary film collective combats the clichés of war with intimate portraits of anonymous Syrians who bare their souls to camera

+ READ ARTICLE

When the short film “Of God and Dogs” took the Short Film Grand Jury prize at the Sundance Film Festival in January, no one should have been surprised. A powerful piece that explores murder, guilt and an unusual quest for redemption, it was the kind of film that that seemed destined for critical acclaim. But the filmmakers weren’t some budding auteurs fresh out of film school. “Of God and Dogs” was produced by the Abounaddara Collective, a group of Syrian social activists and documentary makers based in Damascus who decided to combat the standard media narratives about the conflict in the country with intimate portraits of anonymous citizens—both inside Syria and in exile. The short films, ranging in length from 26 seconds to 12 minutes, address themes as varied as a woman’s reasons for taking off the veil to the confession of a young Free Syrian Army soldier who killed a man he knew to be innocent—the subject of “Of Gods and Dogs.” New videos are posted every Friday on Vimeo.

Abounaddara is the Arabic nickname for a man with glasses, a reference that reflects the peculiar take on the world when it is seen through the eyes of filmmakers more interested, according to the collective’s manifesto, in “stories of everyday life [rather] than in grand narratives.” Though the content isn’t overtly political, members of the collective prefer to remain anonymous, a stance that has its roots in the pre-war days when the artistic freedom of Abounaddara’s filmmakers was at risk of being curtailed by government censorship. Founded four years ago, most of the collective’s pieces are posted online only. The subjects are unnamed, as is the location of filming. Most take place in Syria, or among Syrian refugees in neighboring countries.

Some of the collective’s early, pre-war pieces are elegantly produced portraits of Damascus’ artisans and laborers, a celebration of an art and culture that is likely to be forever stolen by a conflict that has seen so much destroyed. Each is cleverly titled. The “Smiters For Damascus,” about the ancient craft of brass hammering, warns in a subtitle, “Enemies, take flight! The Damasceneurs are striking back.”

The Smiters for Damascus from abounaddara on Vimeo.

Another piece, ostensibly about a traditional fabric painter in an old Syrian souk, captures a spirited exchange in which a potential client asks for a widows’ discount. The fabric painter tartly responds that he is a widower too, at which point the widow’s daughter weighs in with the offer of her mother in marriage, as a way to score a cheaper price. Like all the other pieces by the collective, there is no narration. The subjects reveal their characters through their own voices, and invite the viewer to join in their laughter as the mix of commerce and marriage proposals takes an uproarious turn.

The Stamp Man’s Last Stand from abounaddara on Vimeo.

But art, no matter how much it attempts to eschew politics, cannot stand apart from the kind of violence and destruction that has rocked Syria over the past three years. More recent pieces reflect the country’s new reality, even as the short films attempt to break free from the shadow of the war. In “Snapshots From History In the Making,” a Syrian protestor is caught in the middle of an existential crisis by an aerial bomb attack in his neighborhood. He doesn’t even flinch as a round of detonations shake the pink walls of his room. “It won’t be long,” he says matter-of-factly. “The plane will pause, then it will come back for a second raid.”

The short films are by turns poetic, poignant, inspiring or, in the case of a 26-second video in which the camera hovers over the shrouded corpse of a child who starved to death in a besieged part of Yarmouk, depressing. Some are all of those things at once. “Death is so ubiquitous that we cling to life even more,” says a middle-age exile in the 3-minute soliloquy that makes up “Confessions of a Woman.” She admits to the shame of living in a borrowed apartment even as she speaks of recently falling in love—for the first time. “Now I tell myself, I’m sorry that I didn’t do it sooner.”

Even though the collective’s work shies away from overtly partisan statements, a theme of fierce independence and a love for Syria’s multi-sectarian fabric shines through, particularly in pieces poking fun at Islamist rebels who would remake Syria in their own image. “The Islamic State for Dummies” allows one such fundamentalist to hang by his own noose as he struggles to explain why establishing an Islamic state in Syria does not mean taking the country back 1,400 years. “Whoever opposes cutting a thief’s hand,” he says, defending Islamic law, “It means that you are a thief or want to steal without accountability.”

Another thought-provoking piece, titled “Marcell,” allows the pro-rebel female protagonist to justify her decision to stop wearing a veil the moment Islamist rebels in her town started demanding it. “I will not yield,” she declares, her thick hair tumbling in curls around her shoulders. “Do we want to leave the fate of our children up to the military?” she asks, referring to Islamist militants. “If so, we might as well do it now, by reconciling with the regime.”

While some of the documentaries are clearly well produced affairs complete with music and deft editing, most are uncut and unrehearsed. They are delivered straight to camera, visible evidence of the preoccupations of a people determined not to be defined by war, but to live in spite of it. “War or no war, we’re still hip, right?” a beautician and teacher asks her class as she demonstrates how to craft an elegant wedding updo in a darkened bunker.

TIME Syria

Syria’s Economy Will Take At Least 30 Years to Recover, Says the U.N.

An elderly Syrian man and a child walk amidst debris in a residential block reportedly hit by an explosives-filled barrel dropped by a government forces helicopter on March 18, 2014 in Aleppo.
An elderly Syrian man and a child walk amidst debris in a residential block reportedly hit by an explosives-filled barrel dropped by a government forces helicopter on March 18, 2014 in Aleppo. Baraa Al-Halabi—AFP/Getty Images

Even if the Syrian conflict were to end today, it would take decades to rebuild the economy to pre-war standards, according to a new report. Some experts say the devastation has reached World War II levels

To many, the cost of war is immeasurable. How is it possible to assess the value of lives lost, of broken health, of destroyed and dislocated families? Assessing the economic impact, however, is an easier undertaking. It is quantified in lost productivity, declining GDP, and, in the case of Syria, a bitter prognosis about the amount of time it will take to recover from a three-year war that has already claimed 150,000 lives. A recent report from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency estimates that it will take decades for Syria to recoup the cost of war. “Even if the conflict ceased now and GDP grew at an average rate of five per cent each year, it is estimated that it would take the Syrian economy 30 years to return to the economic level of 2010,” says the report, calling the situation an “economic catastrophe.” The survey, conducted by UNRWA’s microfinance department, focused mostly on the impact the war has had on the organization’s 8000 client borrowers in Syria, so it tends to skew towards the lower rungs of the country’s economic spectrum. Still, as a window into the financial status of small businesses in a country where accurate polling is hard to come by, it offers a bleak assessment of Syria’s future.

More than two-thirds of UNRWA’s clients had fled their homes by June 2013, according to the survey, and only 13% of their businesses were still functioning. Overall, notes the report, citing the most recent economic data available, Syria’s economy lost a total of $84.4 billion during the first two years of the war alone, and 2.33 million jobs. As a result, half the workforce is unemployed and more than half the population is living in poverty. “The current crisis in Syria is the deepest and most destructive of people’s lives and livelihoods that the program has encountered over the past two decades,” says the report. UNRWA’s micro-finance agency should know: previous projects were based in the economic swamps of Gaza and the West Bank.

Capital flight, de-industrialization, looting and destruction of Syrian factories and businesses both large and small has seen GDP contract more than 30% each quarter of the last fiscal year, an unprecedented economic chute, says Jihad Yazigi, editor the online economic digest The Syria Report. “You can’t even compare the destruction in Syria to Lebanon’s civil war, or Bosnia. This is on the level of World War II. We are seeing a reversal of decades of economic development, and I don’t know how, if ever, Syria will recover.” He says that the UNRWA assessment is optimistic. “It could take 40 to 50 years to recover.”

Either way, the economic toll will not be limited to Syria alone. There are more than 2.5 million Syrian refugees in neighboring Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey, and even though international aid agencies help host countries, it is rarely enough to make up for the infrastructural burdens. And the refugees are likely to remain in place until they have something worthwhile to go back to, which could take years. “How are we going to get these people back to their villages in Syria, to rebuild what has been destroyed?” asks Sami Nader, an economist and professor at Lebanon’s St. Joseph University. “All the factories are destroyed; where will they work?” According to the United Nations, there are now more than one million Syrian refugees registered in Lebanon, making up a quarter of the country’s population. Lebanon’s own economy, beset by insecurity and political volatility, was already on the verge of bankruptcy, says Nader. “This Syria situation could just push us over the edge.” The cost of war isn’t just immeasurable. It doesn’t know borders, either.

TIME ebola

6 Things to Know About the Latest Ebola Outbreak

GUINEA-HEALTH-EBOLA
Doctors Without Borders staff carry the body of a person killed by viral haemorrhagic fever, at a center for victims of the Ebola virus in Guekedou, on April 1, 2014. Seyllou—AFP/Getty Images

In the West African country Guinea, 122 people were diagnosed with Ebola. One of the most lethal viruses known to humans, it has reportedly spread to the country’s capital and possibly to neighboring Liberia

In the past several months, Ebola has leaped from a remote forested corner of Guinea in West Africa to the congested coastal capital of Conakry, spreading panic and fear in its wake. Even if it doesn’t liquefy internal organs in quite the graphic manner described in the 1995 thriller Outbreak, the Ebola virus, which inspired the movie, is one of the most lethal known to man, on par with untreated HIV/AIDS. So far 122 people have been diagnosed in this latest outbreak, in addition to six suspected cases in neighboring Liberia. Eighty-three cases have resulted in death. In response Senegal has closed its borders and Senegalese singer Youssou N’dour cancelled an upcoming concert in Conakry. Ebola has killed at least 1700 people since it was first identified in simultaneous 1976 outbreaks in Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan, but rarely has it reached urban centers, where cramped quarters can make transmission even easier. Conakry has 13 suspected cases so far, prompting extreme measures even in neighboring countries: on Monday Liberia’s Health Minister Walter Gwenigale warned citizens to stop having sex because the virus is spread via bodily fluids.

So just how bad is Ebola? And how likely is it to jump the Atlantic? Here is a quick primer on what you need to know:

How bad is the outbreak?
The Medical NGO Doctors Without Borders is calling the Guinea outbreak an “epidemic of a magnitude never before seen,” but there have been far higher death tolls in the past: a 2001 outbreak in DRC killed 187; a year before that 224 died in Uganda. What makes this particular outbreak so serious is its geographic spread. Not only is it the first time that Guinea has seen Ebola, but cases have been found across the country in areas hundreds of miles apart, instead of concentrated in one isolated area. This complicates quarantine practices, and makes the job of health workers responding to the outbreak even more difficult.

Where does it come from?
The Ebola virus only hitches rides with human hosts as an afterthought. Its natural reservoir is thought to be in Africa’s population of wild fruit bats, though it is also prevalent in chimpanzees, gorillas, porcupines and forest antelope. That’s why health officials are encouraging locals to avoid eating so called “bush meat,” or any kind of animal found dead on the forest floor.

How is Ebola transmitted?
It’s not just through sex. Direct contact with infected blood, organs, mucus, or other bodily fluids risks transmission, from kissing to sharing needles, soiled towels and bedding. Even those rare few who survive Ebola remain infectious for a while — men can transmit the virus in their semen up to seven weeks after recovery. Health workers and mourners preparing the deceased for funerals are at particular risk. In response, the World Health Organization has already sent 3.5 tons of protective material to Guinea, including biohazard suits, disinfectants and burial shrouds designed to prevent further infection.

Could it jump continents through international flights?
Hollywood notwithstanding, it hasn’t. Victims are usually too ill to travel, let alone board a plane. Still, it could happen. One variation of Ebola found in China and the Philippines did make it to a U.S. laboratory via infected macaques, but according to the WHO, no illness or death in humans has ever resulted from that particular strain. Some countries are already taking precautions. Saudi Arabia has announced the suspension of visas for Muslim pilgrims from Guinea and Liberia.

Ok, so Ebola doesn’t liquefy organs. What does it do?
Either way, it’s not pretty. Ebola starts with a sore throat, red eyes and possibly a rash, followed by the onset of fever, intense muscle pain, severe headaches, “vomiting, diarrhea, rash, impaired kidney and liver function, and in some cases, both internal and external bleeding,” according to the US Centers for Disease Control. In rare cases, spontaneous bleeding from body orifices and skin punctures, even needle marks, can occur. Death, which can take place anytime between 2 to 21 days, is usually caused by multiple organ failure, loss of blood or shock, according to clinical surveys conducted in the wake of the first outbreak in 1976.

Is there a cure or a vaccine?
Not yet, but we are getting close. One potentially promising treatment in development in Canada was fast-tracked by the U.S. government earlier this month, but it will take months if not years for a full rollout. Because Ebola is so rare, and usually only infects small populations in remote corners of Africa, investment into finding a cure or a vaccine has been limited. That may change. Ebola is on the U.S. list of potential bioterror agents because humans have no natural immunity. As a consequence, the U.S. has started funding vaccine research. In the meantime, the only thing that can be done for infected patients is to treat symptoms and prevent secondary infections through the use of antibiotics, pain medication, anti-clotting drugs and IV hydration. That, and stopping the disease’s spread in the first place.

TIME Egypt

Egypt’s Christians Place Their Faith in Al-Sisi’s Presidential Bid

Women walk in front of huge banner for Egypt's army chief, al-Sisi in downtown Cairo
Women walk in front of a huge banner for Egypt's army chief, Field Marshal Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in downtown Cairo, March 13, 2014. Amr Abdallah Dalsh—Reuters

The army chief-turned-presidential candidate, Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, is the miracle that Egypt's 8 million Christians have been waiting for after weathering an Islamist leadership, but supporting a potential dictator could be dangerous

When Field Marshall Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, Egypt’s defense minister, declared on national television that he was stepping down to run for President, it put an end to months of fevered speculation. Nine months ago, in a similarly televised appearance on July 3, 2013, Sisi announced that he had just overthrown President Mohamed Morsi. He was flanked by Egypt’s two most important religious leaders, the Grand Sheikh of al Azhar Mosque and Pope Tawadros, head of Egypt’s Christian church. It was supposed to be an encouraging statement — Egypt’s two faiths united on one stage, standing by a military man who decided that a secular coup was better for the country’s stability than the rule of an Islamist, no matter that he was the country’s first freely elected president.

For Egypt’s eight million Christians, many of whom had fervently prayed for God to deliver them from an Islamist leadership that threatened to write their rights out of the country’s new constitution, it was a miracle. They hailed al-Sisi as a messiah, the only one who could have saved them. But that slavish mixing of religion and politics also made them a target. Within days the full brunt of the Islamists’ rage was directed at Egypt’s Christians in one of the worst spasms of communal violence the country has ever seen. Sixty-three churches were burned, Christian orphanages and businesses were ransacked, and graffiti assaulting Egypt’s Christians as “dogs of Tawadros” was scrawled across the ruins. In October, unknown gunmen opened fire on a wedding party at a Cairo church, killing five, including an eight-year old girl. “It felt like we were at war,” says parishioner Nagah Sehata, who was in the church office when he heard the gunshots.

Now that Sisi is planning a presidential run, he can count on solid support from a Christian population traumatized by fears of continued communal attacks, no matter how many questions come up about his dictatorial tendencies. As de facto head of a military-led government, Sisi has presided over unprecedented crackdowns on the media, on freedom of speech, and on political organizations. His government has overseen the sentencing to death by a loyalist court of 529 Morsi supporters for their supposed role in the death of a police officer, and another 1000 members of the Muslim Brotherhood — Morsi’s political party, now declared a terrorist group — have been killed by security agencies.

Still, Christians backing Sisi defend their choice. “If Egypt had not been saved by Sisi, you would have seen an exodus of all the Christians from Egypt,” Naguib Sawiris, a Christian and one of the country’s most prominent businessmen, told TIME last month. Majority rule in the Arab world leaves minorities at risk, he says, so better to support a secular-leaning coup-maker than risk marginalization and oppression by popularly-elected Islamists.

That kind of thinking may preserve Christian interests in the short term, but it risks putting them on the wrong side of history, says Michael Wahid Hanna, an analyst at the New York-based Century Foundation, a foreign policy think tank. “Christians in the region are forced into these Faustian bargains, in which they end up supporting authoritarian regimes for fear of what the alternative would look like,” says Hanna. “But the price is that it can aggravate underlying sectarian tensions and create further animosities and bigotry.” That leaves them even more vulnerable, and thus more likely to defend the strongmen who abhor democratic change. The Egyptian Christian leadership’s long history of accommodation with dictators is testament to this dangerous tendency.

When the revolution of January 2011 threatened President Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year reign, Christians had every reason to be apprehensive. Under Mubarak, Christian leaders could expect patronage and protection. So when tens of thousands of protesters assembled in Cairo’s Tahrir Square to call for Mubarak’s ouster, the head of the Coptic Church at the time, Pope Shenouda, ordered Christians to stay home. Father Abdelmessiah Bassit was one of the few priests who defied Shenouda’s directive, believing that it was better for Egypt’s Christians to stand with the people. “Shenouda warned me that it would be an Islamic revolution, not an Egyptian revolution, and that it would destroy us,” he muses. “Shenouda was right.” Little more than a year later, the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood had been voted into power, led by party stalwart Morsi.

Under Morsi, physical assaults against Christian targets declined, but a far more pernicious anti-Christian rhetoric rose in its place. Female Christian students were asked to wear veils on some university campuses, and churchgoers were forced to lower the volume of their prayers and hymns in Muslim-dominated neighborhoods. Morsi declined to attend Christmas mass, breaking an annual tradition typically carried out by Egypt’s head of state. When the Islamist-dominated parliament rammed through a new constitution that effectively enshrined Islamic law above all else, Christians feared the eclipse of their rights and identity. Bassit, regretting his early support for the revolution, urged his congregation to pray for Morsi’s downfall. Sisi’s coup, he says, was God’s answer.

The country, beset by economic collapse and a rise in terrorism, will pose a challenge to any future leader. Christians are already praying for Sisi’s success, but they will bear the brunt if oppression grows or he fails in office, says one prominent Christian blogger, who asked that his identity not be revealed for fear of retaliation. “If Sisi can solve Egypt’s problems, he will ride a wave of popularity to cement his power and we will have another dictator. If he fails, Egyptians will lose faith in the one institution that has stayed pristine through all this upheaval – the army,” says the blogger. “Either way we will pay the price.”

—with reporting by Ashraf Khalil / Cairo

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 45,379 other followers