Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Jeanine Wagner
PSCI-230-02
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
Al Jazeera. "UN Suspends All Syria Aid after Convoy Bombed." News from Al Jazeera. Al