The Tribune

WITH video coverage of natural disasters and war zones beamed instantly around the world these days, people have become almost accustomed to witnessing human suffering from afar. But the images and stories of the scale of destruction and horror this past week following Monday’s severe earthquake in southern Turkey and northern Syria have been hard to take in.

The UN’s humanitarian chief said at the weekend that this was the worst event in the region for a hundred years. It is saddening beyond measure to watch what has been happening as so many people have been affected by this disaster, with - so far - more than 30,000 deaths and thousands missing or injured. Loss of life on such a huge scale without warning in the middle of the night is truly shocking – and, now, it is heartbreaking to see harrowing images of people trapped in the rubble of destroyed buildings.

This tragedy is, of course, receiving widespread media coverage and the facts do not bear repetition here. But it might be interesting to mention briefly two broader dimensions; namely, the political background to the rescue effort in response to what is being called Turkey’s most devastating earthquake since 1939 and the effect of the civil war in Syria on relief efforts there.

A little research shows that Turkey lies on two fault lines and its building codes date back more than 80 years. But some people are now reported to be questioning whether such a large-scale disaster could have been avoided if these codes, which had been updated as recently as 2018, had been properly enforced rather than the government recently offering an amnesty for code violations. They also accuse President Erdogan of allowing rescue efforts to be delayed and for not doing enough to save lives. Reportedly, he has admitted shortcomings but has blamed fate for the disaster, saying “some have always happened. It’s part of destiny’s plan”.

The country has more experience than any other of dealing with earthquakes. In this latest one, more than 6,000 buildings collapsed and numerous roads were damaged so access to the affected areas has been limited. Erdogan has accepted that there were delays in mounting a search and rescue operation. But, according to reports, a massive one was launched across ten of the country’s eighty-one provinces involving people from the professional and voluntary sectors. Apparently, Erdogan has promised action to limit future illegal construction, though it is widely acknowledged that this will be no easy task. Such an important issue will affect him politically in a highly polarised country and, it is suggested, there is little chance of unifying the country before elections in May.

As for Syria, the BBC has described the situation as “a crisis within a crisis within a crisis”. After a decade and more of debilitating civil war, the country is now reeling in the wake of this crushing earthquake. But the seismic shock has not broken the entrenched conflicts and obstacles which are now obstructing the ability of rescue teams to reach the worst-struck areas in the northwest, which is largely ungoverned and in the hands of rebels, and deliver humanitarian aid when access is extremely difficult.

However, the Syrian government has reportedly given the go-ahead for delivery of aid to all parts of the country, including both state-controlled areas and those held by rebel groups.

The main problem seems to be that, in order to achieve greater access, more border crossing points from Turkey are needed than the single authorized one that Russia and China, which support the Syrian government, have agreed to at the UN.

Reuters has reported that governments and international organisations from around the world have responded with offers of support to both Turkey and Syria – including disaster teams from the US, UK, Canada, China, Spain, the EU and the WHO, to name just a few, together with a host of others amounting to some thirty in all. It is clear that these countries may have to be in it for the long haul as extended assistance will be needed in the months ahead.

As for Britain specifically, the nation has an organisation, the Disasters Emergency Committee, which coordinates fundraising for a number of different charities. The UK Minister of State for Development and Africa, Andrew Mitchell, has said in the press that all concerned learnt from the experience of dealing with the earthquake in Haiti in 2010 about the importance of coordination as the key to an international response. After asking the Turkish government what the UK could do to help, within hours a team was assembled in London comprising some 80 specialists, sniffer dogs, state-of-the-art equipment and an emergency medical team to support the international effort and save lives.

He went on to say that the situation in Syria was different and highly complex after more than ten years of brutal conflict which had devastated a once thriving country. He reported that the UK funds The White Helmets, the volunteer community-based humanitarian organisation known as Syria Civil Defence which operates on the ground in Syria. They had leapt into action in the northwest and had described the situation there as “absolutely catastrophic”.

This earthquake disaster has reignited the debate in Britain about international aid - in particular, what it is for and how generous it should be. The issue came to the fore in 2020 when Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was Chancellor of the Exchequer and reduced the UK international aid budget. It might be interesting to examine this issue in a future column. But, for now, it seems that, while there are doubts domestically about long-term development aid, most people agree that disaster relief is money well spent.

SAD MOMENT BUT START OF A GOLDEN REIGN

ONE of the best known and memorable photographs of modern British history is of Queen Elizabeth coming down the steps of an aircraft in London on February 7, 1952, with Prime Minister Mr Winston Churchill waiting on the tarmac to greet her (he was then ‘Mr’ as he was not knighted until the following year).

Each February, people look back with nostalgia at this sad but historically iconic moment. For the young Princess had acceded to the throne at the age of twenty-five following the sudden death of her father, King George VI. She and her husband, Prince Philip, had been visiting Kenya as part of a Commonwealth tour and returned immediately to London on receiving news of the King’s passing.

Amidst the sadness, this was also seen later in a more positive light as marking the beginning of a second glorious Elizabethan age in Britain which was to last for seven decades. At the time of The Queen’s own passing on September 8 last year so much was written about her extraordinary life and achievements as the nation’s longest-serving monarch and also head of the Commonwealth that it would be superfluous to add to this today as people recall the time so long ago of her accession to the throne.

Suffice it to say that, as a symbol of stability, she was regarded as the most reliable, consistent, steady and enduring monarch who carefully and successfully steered the nation through turbulent times. She presided over a period of huge sociopolitical change and rapid technological expansion as Britain was transformed in so many different ways into a thriving modern nation.

It is sobering to be reminded that at the time of The Queen’s coronation in 1953, which is the formal investiture of a monarch with regal power, substantial rebuilding work in Britain was continuing after the destruction of the Second World War and food rationing still existed. But her coronation was seen as a turning point which signalled the end of years of austerity and restraint and the beginning of gradual progress towards post-war prosperity.

ZELENSKY IMPRESSES ON VISIT TO EUROPE

HAVING written about tanks for Ukraine in my last two columns, I hesitate – for fear of repetition – now to cover President Zelensky’s surprise visit to Europe last week that was only his second trip away from Kyiv since the Russian invasion a year ago. However, his visits to London, Paris and Brussels were sufficiently important, I think, to justify some comment today.

On Wednesday, he was in London where he met the Prime Minister, addressed the UK Parliament and later had an audience with King Charles who received him warmly. In Paris the next day, he met President Macron as well as German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. He then travelled to Brussels where he gave an emotional address to the European Parliament. Presumably, his purpose throughout was to underline Ukraine’s urgent need for more weapons and military equipment to counter an expected Russian offensive in the spring.

While in London, Zelensky spoke to some 600 MPs and more than 700 members of the House of Lords in the 11th century Westminster Hall which is known as the cradle of democracy. He was given a standing ovation. He was effusive in his praise and gratitude for the UK’s help with the supply of weapons and military equipment and he singled out former prime minister Boris Johnson “for bringing the world together when it seemed impossible. You extended a helping hand when the world had not yet come to understand how to react”. Now, he said, “the UK is marching with us towards the most important victory in our lifetime – after we win, any aggressor, big or small, will know what awaits him if he attacks international order”.

He went on to ask the UK to supply modern fighter jets. The Prime Minister responded that nothing was off the table so that fighter jets “remain part of the conversation” even though he added that the UK’s Typhoon jets were a “very sophisticated piece of kit” and there were issues of support and maintenance. It could also take up to three years to train a pilot to fly one. But, as Zelensky said, “we have freedom, give us wings to protect it”. Whatever happens about the supply of fighter jets, it is interesting that some 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers have already travelled to the UK for training, including learning how to operate Challenger 2 tanks which could be on the battlefield in a matter of weeks.

In his formal address to the European Parliament, President Zelensky said that Europe is Ukraine’s “home”. He made a heartfelt appeal to lawmakers in Brussels to allow his country to become part of the EU because Ukraine and the bloc share the same values. He also thanked all the countries that had provided weapons and other assistance to Ukraine. But he also stressed that modern tanks, long-range missiles and modern fighter jets were still needed to protect its security – adding that this was also Europe’s security.

Most commentators consider that Zelensky’s speech in Westminster Hall was a ringing endorsement of what Britain stands for – liberty, justice and the dignity of the individual. They agree that the outcome of this war is fundamental to the UK’s own security because, if Putin gets away with his invasion of Ukraine, other countries will be under threat -- not least the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania -- and a wider war could follow.

At Westminster, there was well-earned acclaim and adulation for the Ukrainian leader. Few figures have inspired such awe and wonder in what was a palpable rush of excitement as he addressed UK lawmakers. Heroic figure that he has become, Zelensky is recognised and admired for playing a vital role in thwarting tyranny and dictatorship. Most people in Britain will surely wish him well in his courageous stance.