Wagner 1

Jeanine Wagner

PSCI-230-02

Attack on Humanitarian Aid Convoy in Syria

Interrupting the week long cease-fire, on Monday, September 19, 2016 the Syrian Arab

Red Crescent (SARC) warehouse and a United Nations aid convoy were attacked, killing more

than 20 civilians (BBC News, “Syria Aid Convoy Attack”). In the northern Syrian town around

mid-afternoon, the attack of the convoy began, and lasted well into the night before it was safe

enough for a rescue team to be sent in (BBC News, “Syria Aid Convoy Attack”). Many Western

nations have blamed the attack on a Russian sent air strike; however, Russian and Syrian

governments have adamantly denied this accusation stating that the damaged cause could not

have been the result of an airstrike (Al Jazeera). In total, 18 of the 31 lorries were destroyed,

approximately 20 civilians have died, and the SACR warehouse and its adjoining clinic suffered

damage (BBC News, “Syria Aid Convoy Attack”). The Western and Nonwestern articles briefly

described the details of the attack and placed blame on the party they believed should be held

responsible. However, they differed in the amount of detail used to support their claims, and how

they choose to continue to rally support from the people of their nations.

Similarities in Western and Nonwestern Coverage

The Western articles from BBC News share a few common characteristics with the

Nonwestern articles from Syrian and Qatar news sources in their coverage of the attack on the

humanitarian aid convoy. The first is a brief description of the attack. The sources concur that

there was an attack on the humanitarian efforts attempting to help civilians in northern Syria.

Another similarity is the attempt to prove both parties have investigated the incident and

attempted to figure out what actually happened. This is done through the use of reasoning and
 Wagner 2

primary and secondary accounts. A third similarity is the choice to name the party believed to be

responsible for the attack. The UN determined that at this point in time, the results of who is to

blame for the incident would be inconclusive (BBC News, “Syria Aid Convoy Attack”).

However, Western powers have placed the blame on the Syrian regime backed by the Russian

government, meanwhile Russia and Syrian representatives have adamantly denied these

allegations (BBC News, “Syria Aid Convoy Attack”).

Differences Between Western and Nonwestern Coverage

The Western sources, such as BBC News, have chosen to take a more detailed approach

to explaining the event. They have given explicit detail about what resources the convoy was

delivering to the town, what humanitarian organizations were backing the aid effort, and how

many civilians it would be intended to help. It also gave a rough timeline of the time prior to the

attack, during the attack, and after the attack which was provided by named witnesses (BBC

News, “Syria Aid Convoy Attack”). The Western source also quoted John Kerry when

addressing what to do to recover from this sort of attack in hopes that any other effort similar to

this could be thwarted (BBC News, “Syria War”).

Nonwestern sources do not focus on the details surrounding the event. They are not as

direct in informing their audience that the aid convoy was intended for civilian use and supplies.

They also glaze over details that the Western source paid very close attention to, such as who

sponsored/funded the supplies being carried by the convoy (Al Jazeera). They are more focused

on discussing why it is not possible that the damage done to the SACR warehouse and the aid

convoy was the result of an airstrike (Al Jazeera). In addition, they refuse to admit that the

deliberate attack of an aid convoy is a war crime. This minimizes the effect that the attack would

have on the emotional appeal of their readers.

 Wagner 3

Causes of Difference in Coverage

Each power uses its ability to pick and choose which facts of the event they highlight in

order to further their own agenda. Great Britain, for instance, aims to highlight the war crime

they believe has been committed. They want to persuade people that without a doubt, Russia was

the brains behind the attack. They do this by putting emphasis on the civilians that are directly

affected by the damage done to the caravan and SACR warehouse. Al Jazeera, a news source

from Qatar, does not want to implicate themselves in the conflict. They are also fairly confident

that they will not be attacked by Western powers for publishing Russia and Syria’s denial of

involvement, instead of placing blame on the alliance that might cause backlash for them. Syrian

news sources wish to keep Russia’s alliance, therefore, would not place the blame on Russia. By

blaming Russia, Syria would not only lose an alliance, but the Syrian regime would be making

themselves a target of the Russians as well as the Syrian rebels. Western powers need to show

authority and preparedness for the future by investigating the situation, coming to a conclusion

and paving the way for what should be done next. Meanwhile, Nonwestern sources need to

reassure their people that they will not stand for false accusations against their allies thereby

demonstrating that they still have strength in the fight and are not a lost cause yet.

Benefits from Each Point of View

While initially it appeared that the Western sources were displaying a more

comprehensive coverage of the event, upon further examination it seems as if they may only be

telling the public what they want us to glean from the situation. The point of view that Western

sources take on the event will benefit the humanitarian effort, because more people will lend

money and send supplies to help the organizations listed such as the Red Cross, World Food

Programme, and UN Refugee Agency (BBC News, “Syria Aid Convoy Attack”). It also tries to
 Wagner 4

convince the public that we need to get involved since a war crime and injustice toward civilians

has been committed. They use the story as propaganda to help the public support a bigger

intervention in Syria, which has not been the popular opinion in the past few months.

Nonwestern point of view benefits the Syrian regime and the Russian government in

attempting to persuade their people that they have been wrongfully accused of planning this

attack. The logic used in their arguments, to an uneducated eye, seems to be sound; however, it is

unclear at this point who is truly to blame. They are attempting to reinforce the idea that the

allegations made by the US are the result of feeling threatened by Russia and Syria’s opposing

power. It also makes the Nonwestern powers seem like the victim in the situation, and the West

appears to just be a bully.

The impact the attack had on the humanitarian aid convoy is yet another devastating

result of the Civil War in Syria. Both Western and Nonwestern sources give descriptions of the

event and choose a party to blame for the disaster. Yet they differ in which details are

highlighted and how they choose to support their arguments. The Western sources attempt to call

out an injustice among civilians, increase donations to humanitarian efforts, and convince their

people to support and intervention. Meanwhile, Nonwestern sources attempt to maintain morale

of their people and convince them that they are still seen as a threat in the eyes of the west.
 Wagner 5

Works Cited

Al-Frieh, Manar. "Ryabkov: US Proposal to Impose Ban on Aviation Activities in Some Syrian

Areas Ineffective." Syrian Arab News Agency. N.p., 22 Sept. 2016. Web. 22 Sept. 2016.

BBC News. "Syria Aid Convoy Attack: What We Know." BBC News. N.p., 21 Sept. 2016. Web.

22 Sept. 2016.

BBC News. "Syria War: John Kerry Urges Planes to Be Grounded." BBC News. N.p., 21 Sept.

2016. Web. 22 Sept. 2016.

Al Jazeera. "UN Suspends All Syria Aid after Convoy Bombed." News from Al Jazeera. Al

Jazeera and Agencies, 21 Sept. 2016. Web. 22 Sept. 2016.