Syrian boy, 11, claims he played dead to escape pro-Assad gunmen who killed five members of family in Houla
 |
| The casualties of the Syrian government assault on Houla, in an image provided by Shaam News Network. |
The young survivor's chilling account emerged as Russia continued to blame both Syrian troops and opposition militias for the weekend rampage in the town that left at least 116 people dead and prompted fresh outrage against the regime's crackdown.
It comes on the eve of Kofi Annan's scheduled meeting on Tuesday in Damascus with Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, which is seen as the last hope of salvaging the UN special envoy's failed peace plan.
Speaking to the Guardian, the young survivor said government troops arrived in his district at around 3am on Saturday, several hours after shells started falling on Houla.
"They came in armoured vehicles and there were some tanks," said the boy. "They shot five bullets through the door of our house. They said they wanted Aref and Shawki, my father and my brother. They then asked about my uncle, Abu Haidar. They also knew his name."
Shivering with fear, the boy stood towards the back of the entrance to his family home as gunmen then shot dead every family member in front of him.
"My mum yelled at them," said the boy. "She asked: 'What do you want from my husband and son?' A bald man with a beard shot her with a machine gun from the neck down. Then they killed my sister, Rasha, with the same gun. She was five years old. Then they shot my brother Nader in the head and in the back. I saw his soul leave his body in front of me.
"They shot at me, but the bullet passed me and I wasn't hit. I was shaking so much I thought they would notice me. I put blood on my face to make them think I'm dead."
Apparently convinced their work was finished, the gunmen moved on to other areas of the house, from which they proceeded to loot the family's possessions, the boy said. "They stole three televisions and a computer," he said. "And then they got ready to leave."
On the way out of the house, the boy said the gunmen found the three men they had been looking for. They killed them all. "They shot my father and uncle. And then they found Aref, my oldest brother, near the door. They shot him dead too."
The Guardian contacted the boy through a town elder who is a member of the Syrian Revolutionary Council and is now caring for him. We are unable to independently verify the account and have chosen not to name the boy for security reasons.
The boy said he waited until the armoured personnel carriers had moved from his street, then ran to his uncle's house nearby, where he hid. He said the same militiamen knocked on the door minutes later, asking his uncle if he knew who lived in the house that they just rampaged through.
"They didn't know he was my relative and when they were talking to him they were describing six people dead in my house. They included me. They thought I was dead."
Throughout a 15-minute conversation, the boy remained calm and detached until he was pressed on how he knew the gunmen were pro-regime militia men, known as al-Shabiha. The irregular forces have been widely accused by residents of Houla of entering homes and slaughtering families. At least 32 of the dead are children and many of them appear to have been killed at close range.
"They got out of tanks and they had guns and knives," he repeated. "Some of them were wearing civilian clothes, some army clothes.
"Why are you asking me who they were? I know who they were. We all know it. They were the regime army and people who fight with them. That is true."
Damascus has denied its forces were responsible for the massacre, and again blamed terrorist groups. Houla is a stronghold of the Free Syria Army in Homs province. Many military defectors have returned there to live with their families.
Damascus suggested on Monday a UN inquiry should be established to verify what took place in Houla.
Guardian Ed - Syria: horror of Houla
Is this massacre a sign of things to come? It certainly did not come out of the blue
Barely had Kofi Annan's feet touched the ground after Friday's
massacre in Houla, when reports came through of another mass killing
from an artillery assault on Hama. The war Bashar al-Assad is waging
against his own people does not pause for the arrival of a UN envoy. It
carries on simultaneously and often in the same area. Annan is getting
no more and no less than the treatment reserved for a growing list of
foreign intermediaries.
The horror of Houla is more than just a humanitarian challenge. In a 15-month conflict which has largely been left to run on its own steam, is this massacre a sign of things to come? It certainly did not come out of the blue. Most of the 13 neighbourhoods of Homs that have been emptied of residents by the fighting are close to Allawite communities, from the Shia sect forming the backbone of the regime. For months, the adjoining Allawite villagers heard the chants of defiance from Houla, which had become a stronghold of the opposition militia and home of many of the families of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Perhaps that is why, when men in uniform appeared in the enclave after the shelling had largely stopped on Friday evening, they killed men, women and children alike, some of them infants. Some of the victims had their wrists bound, according to one video. Many had shots to the head or had been hacked to death. A reconstruction of events by Human Rights Watch, which talked to survivors, confirmed the indiscriminate nature of the killing.
Russia suggested that the violence in Houla had been intended to sabotage Annan's visit, and Assad's regime blamed al-Qaida, as it now does for every civilian who dies. As only one side in this conflict has tanks and artillery, a non-binding resolution by the UN security council, which criticised the use of artillery and tank shells on homes in Houla, is explicitly a condemnation of the Syrian government alone. However, to keep face with a policy it is in the process of jettisoning, Russia continued to suggest on Monday that the close-quarter killings in Houla could have been conducted by the rebels' own side. Some fighters linked to al-Qaida are indeed in Syria, a combination of jihadis with close tribal links from Iraq's Anbar province and zealots from Libya. The big car bomb attacks in Damascus are probably their work. But to suggest "armed terrorist groups" alone account for civilian deaths, or that the ranks of the opposition fighters have been "stiffened" by Islamist jihadis linked to al-Qaida, is doing Assad's work for him, especially in the context of a war that is rapidly becoming sectarian. Nor, when reporters enter rebel-held areas, is there evidence of Assad's claims that the opposition groups are foreign terrorists. The Guardian found on its latest foray into rebel-held territory that the FSA were not flush with ammunition – every bullet seemed to count. Nor was there any trace of foreign jihadis. It was not difficult to find them in Chechnya. Rather, they found you.
Assad is undermining the Annan plan at the risk of losing the support of the last two members of the UN security council, which have held out against a Libyan-style intervention – Russia and China. With a senior commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guards admitting the presence of Iranian forces in Syria, it is brutally clear what will happen down the line if the conflict carries on. Syria will disintegrate into a Lebanese-style civil war, with shockwaves throughout the region. Already tremors are being felt in Lebanon itself.
This is in no one's interest, but least of all that of Russia, which wants to keep a naval foothold in the country. The more the conflict degenerates Houla-style, the sooner Russia will be tempted to consider what is being called in Moscow the Yemenskii variant – the Saudi-backed plan for Yemen which saw the dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh off, but kept family members initially in place. For Russia, civil war and sectarian chaos in Syria is as potent a threat to its strategic interests as a Nato intervention. It's late to the table, but Russia's support for Annan could yet save the plan.
The horror of Houla is more than just a humanitarian challenge. In a 15-month conflict which has largely been left to run on its own steam, is this massacre a sign of things to come? It certainly did not come out of the blue. Most of the 13 neighbourhoods of Homs that have been emptied of residents by the fighting are close to Allawite communities, from the Shia sect forming the backbone of the regime. For months, the adjoining Allawite villagers heard the chants of defiance from Houla, which had become a stronghold of the opposition militia and home of many of the families of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Perhaps that is why, when men in uniform appeared in the enclave after the shelling had largely stopped on Friday evening, they killed men, women and children alike, some of them infants. Some of the victims had their wrists bound, according to one video. Many had shots to the head or had been hacked to death. A reconstruction of events by Human Rights Watch, which talked to survivors, confirmed the indiscriminate nature of the killing.
Russia suggested that the violence in Houla had been intended to sabotage Annan's visit, and Assad's regime blamed al-Qaida, as it now does for every civilian who dies. As only one side in this conflict has tanks and artillery, a non-binding resolution by the UN security council, which criticised the use of artillery and tank shells on homes in Houla, is explicitly a condemnation of the Syrian government alone. However, to keep face with a policy it is in the process of jettisoning, Russia continued to suggest on Monday that the close-quarter killings in Houla could have been conducted by the rebels' own side. Some fighters linked to al-Qaida are indeed in Syria, a combination of jihadis with close tribal links from Iraq's Anbar province and zealots from Libya. The big car bomb attacks in Damascus are probably their work. But to suggest "armed terrorist groups" alone account for civilian deaths, or that the ranks of the opposition fighters have been "stiffened" by Islamist jihadis linked to al-Qaida, is doing Assad's work for him, especially in the context of a war that is rapidly becoming sectarian. Nor, when reporters enter rebel-held areas, is there evidence of Assad's claims that the opposition groups are foreign terrorists. The Guardian found on its latest foray into rebel-held territory that the FSA were not flush with ammunition – every bullet seemed to count. Nor was there any trace of foreign jihadis. It was not difficult to find them in Chechnya. Rather, they found you.
Assad is undermining the Annan plan at the risk of losing the support of the last two members of the UN security council, which have held out against a Libyan-style intervention – Russia and China. With a senior commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guards admitting the presence of Iranian forces in Syria, it is brutally clear what will happen down the line if the conflict carries on. Syria will disintegrate into a Lebanese-style civil war, with shockwaves throughout the region. Already tremors are being felt in Lebanon itself.
This is in no one's interest, but least of all that of Russia, which wants to keep a naval foothold in the country. The more the conflict degenerates Houla-style, the sooner Russia will be tempted to consider what is being called in Moscow the Yemenskii variant – the Saudi-backed plan for Yemen which saw the dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh off, but kept family members initially in place. For Russia, civil war and sectarian chaos in Syria is as potent a threat to its strategic interests as a Nato intervention. It's late to the table, but Russia's support for Annan could yet save the plan.
Ian Black: Syria is looking like Bosnia 20 years ago
For world leaders, condemnation is the easy bit. Nato's role in Libya will not be replayed in Syria, and Assad knows it
 |
| UN observers start their daily brief in the basement of their mission in Homs, Syria. |
Expressions of outrage over the massacre at Houla in Syria
echoed around the world over the weekend. From Hillary Clinton in
Washington, to William Hague in London, and the UN security council in
New York and of course from Bashar al-Assad's
Syrian opponents, the words were powerful and condemnatory –
commensurate with the slaughter of innocents, including 32 children.
But words are the easy part. And words can be qualified and mislead.
Russia, Assad's most loyal ally, signed up to the UN statement (which notably failed to ascribe blame), while its deputy ambassador quickly added that the circumstances of the carnage were "murky". Sergei Lavrov, its foreign minister, was also trying hard to sound even-handed when he met Hague in Moscow. Syria itself, defiant as ever, denied responsibility for the "terrorist massacre" and complained of a "tsunami" of abuse, as if it were the principal victim.
Agreeing a coherent and effective international response to the bloodiest crisis of the Arab spring is looking more rather than less difficult, despite levels of cruelty and depravity that will surely rank Houla alongside infamous killing grounds in conflicts elsewhere.
Responses so far suggest more of what has been tried and found wanting over the last 14 months: on top of a non-binding UN statement, there is talk of yet more EU sanctions; another meeting of the large and unwieldy Friends of Syria group; a frosty few minutes at the Foreign Office for the Syrian chargé d'affaires in London.
Two encounters might, just, make a difference: Kofi Annan is meeting Assad on Tuesday to discuss what remains of the peace plan that bears his name. Six weeks on, the ceasefire remains a fantasy. Assad has yet to withdraw his forces from towns, let alone launch a dialogue with the opposition. Armed actions by the rebels of the Free Syrian Army and suicide bombings that have been blamed (though far from definitively) on al-Qaida or other jihadi groups have made that even harder.
Hague, meeting Lavrov, was seeking to persuade the Russians, in effect, to stop backing Syria. But there was no sign that Lavrov will waive his veto and sign up to what the British call the "accountability track" – setting in motion moves to refer Syria to the international criminal court for war crimes. And anyway, would it make any difference? It didn't affect the Libyan regime at all last year.
Still, with evidence that the Syrian army deployed tanks and artillery against Houla – and that a Russian freighter docked in Tartous on Saturday, bringing in further supplies of weapons – there might be some discomfort that could be leveraged into greater pressure on Damascus.
Annan and Hague are both exploring whether the "Syrian-led political dialogue" element of the UN/Arab League plan could be merged into a more explicit scheme for transition, borrowing the negotiated Arab-backed model that led to Yemen's Ali Abdullah Saleh stepping down – albeit while leaving much of his regime intact.
US officials talked up this option over the weekend but it is hard to see why its chances should be any better now than before.
Hanging over the whole bleak story is this unchanging truth: last year's Arab-backed Nato intervention in Libya will not be replayed in Syria. Every idea that has been suggested to help the opposition and weaken the Damascus regime – for example humanitarian corridors, no-kill zones, safe areas or no-fly zones – would all require offensive military operations. Those are just not on the cards. Assad knows that.
It is a cruel irony of the Syrian crisis that the world knows a lot about what is happening. In the age of YouTube and Twitter no one can claim ignorance as they did when Assad Sr sent the tanks into Hama in 1982. But knowledge turns out to make no difference.
Syria in 2012 is looking more and more like Bosnia 20 years ago: efforts by the international community to mitigate the conflict either have little effect or actually make it worse. If 300 UN observers have proved ineffective, would 10 times that number be any better? Will Houla prove to be a defining moment? The bitter truth is that there may be many more such atrocities before anything much changes.
But words are the easy part. And words can be qualified and mislead.
Russia, Assad's most loyal ally, signed up to the UN statement (which notably failed to ascribe blame), while its deputy ambassador quickly added that the circumstances of the carnage were "murky". Sergei Lavrov, its foreign minister, was also trying hard to sound even-handed when he met Hague in Moscow. Syria itself, defiant as ever, denied responsibility for the "terrorist massacre" and complained of a "tsunami" of abuse, as if it were the principal victim.
Agreeing a coherent and effective international response to the bloodiest crisis of the Arab spring is looking more rather than less difficult, despite levels of cruelty and depravity that will surely rank Houla alongside infamous killing grounds in conflicts elsewhere.
Responses so far suggest more of what has been tried and found wanting over the last 14 months: on top of a non-binding UN statement, there is talk of yet more EU sanctions; another meeting of the large and unwieldy Friends of Syria group; a frosty few minutes at the Foreign Office for the Syrian chargé d'affaires in London.
Two encounters might, just, make a difference: Kofi Annan is meeting Assad on Tuesday to discuss what remains of the peace plan that bears his name. Six weeks on, the ceasefire remains a fantasy. Assad has yet to withdraw his forces from towns, let alone launch a dialogue with the opposition. Armed actions by the rebels of the Free Syrian Army and suicide bombings that have been blamed (though far from definitively) on al-Qaida or other jihadi groups have made that even harder.
Hague, meeting Lavrov, was seeking to persuade the Russians, in effect, to stop backing Syria. But there was no sign that Lavrov will waive his veto and sign up to what the British call the "accountability track" – setting in motion moves to refer Syria to the international criminal court for war crimes. And anyway, would it make any difference? It didn't affect the Libyan regime at all last year.
Still, with evidence that the Syrian army deployed tanks and artillery against Houla – and that a Russian freighter docked in Tartous on Saturday, bringing in further supplies of weapons – there might be some discomfort that could be leveraged into greater pressure on Damascus.
Annan and Hague are both exploring whether the "Syrian-led political dialogue" element of the UN/Arab League plan could be merged into a more explicit scheme for transition, borrowing the negotiated Arab-backed model that led to Yemen's Ali Abdullah Saleh stepping down – albeit while leaving much of his regime intact.
US officials talked up this option over the weekend but it is hard to see why its chances should be any better now than before.
Hanging over the whole bleak story is this unchanging truth: last year's Arab-backed Nato intervention in Libya will not be replayed in Syria. Every idea that has been suggested to help the opposition and weaken the Damascus regime – for example humanitarian corridors, no-kill zones, safe areas or no-fly zones – would all require offensive military operations. Those are just not on the cards. Assad knows that.
It is a cruel irony of the Syrian crisis that the world knows a lot about what is happening. In the age of YouTube and Twitter no one can claim ignorance as they did when Assad Sr sent the tanks into Hama in 1982. But knowledge turns out to make no difference.
Syria in 2012 is looking more and more like Bosnia 20 years ago: efforts by the international community to mitigate the conflict either have little effect or actually make it worse. If 300 UN observers have proved ineffective, would 10 times that number be any better? Will Houla prove to be a defining moment? The bitter truth is that there may be many more such atrocities before anything much changes.
