Apart from the strong whiff of political hypocrisy in Ms Bishop's article (how come hypocrisy always seems to appear in whiffs?) there are some fundamental problems in the way we look at these countries and their internal struggles.

A key discussion point is whether external intervention, of any kind, is ever warranted, in any circumstances.

Faced with images of innocent bystanders, families and children being blown apart by extreme violence, the gut reaction is to find any and every way possible to stop it happening. But callous as it may sound, those images should not be a deciding factor.

External interference can so easily serve to exacerbate the problems. As a case in point, the French and Francophone African interventions in Rwanda were significant factors in increasing the already substantial tensions between Hutu and Tutsi. It is of course impossible to speculate whether the 1994 massacre of close to a million individuals would have happened anyway. But it is worth recalling that the faction supported by the French when the Rwanda Civil War broke out in 1990 were the Hutu. And it was the Hutu that later instigated the massacre.

One unknown is, or should be at least, how much the international intervention has already contributed to escalating the tensions, and therefore indirectly increasing the death toll in Syria.

Ms Bishop does at least, somewhat reluctantly, appear to acknowledge this possibility:

"While it is true that intervention can have uncertain results, and there are instances where it has been to the detriment of those it intended to protect, that does not mean all international intervention has failed."

But she still seems determined to portray the non-interventionists, Russia, China and Iran, as running interference...

"Russia, China and Iran are rapidly approaching a critical point where they must choose - the side of humanity or the side of the dictator?"

Gee, Ms Bishop. If only the choice were that simple.

It's a vexed question Julia? However, the only way to remove Assard is through unification?
It is only their division that allows a divide and rule dictator to remain in power!
Libyans and Egyptians, really only have a single road to travel to live in freedom, and that is through a united we stand stance that defies Iran, China and Russia?
All of who would love to get their paws on Libya's copious oil?
If only to ensure that oil continues to function as an economic weapon, that could topple the west?
We who very possibly have hydrocarbon resources to our immediate north, to rival or eclipse the entire Middle East; should resist current attempts to lock up and lock away this possible economy saving bonanza and independence.
Look, our sweet light crude leaves the ground as a sulphur free, naturally occurring diesel, that produces, just 25% of the carbon of fully imported refined fuel products! A little carbon free chill filtering, utilising also naturally occurring nearby sub zero gas, would serve to remove the small soluble wax content, responsible for black smoke and or frosty morning blocked injectors?
Imported oil products reportedly cost over 10 billion, of increasingly scarce export dollars?
You'd think that climate change advocacy, would welcome the lower emissions that would result in its substitution?
Moreover, almost every mode of transport that ply our roads, rail and sea lanes, will run just as well on Compressed NG, or biogas!
We have hundreds of years worth of the former; and or, can make the latter indefinitely, or just as long as we humans produce biological waste.
We clearly need to take some action, to once and for all, end any dependence on a continually troubled Middle East. Which could conceivably cut off energy supplies, needed by a near bankrupt Europe; and or, the US of A?
Rhrosty.

According to Kofi Annan, the “tipping point” in the Syria conflict: a massacre of over 90 people, for which the Syrian regime of was blamed by the entirety of Western media. Within days of the Houla massacre, U.S., France, Great Britain, Australia and other countries expelled Syrian ambassadors.

According to Germany’s FAZ, the Houla massacre was committed by anti-Assad Sunni militants, the victims were members of the Alawi and Shia minorities.

The massacre occurred after rebels attacked army roadblocks outside of Houla, set up to protect nearby Alawi majority villages from Sunni militias. The rebel attacks provoked a call for reinforcements by the besieged army. Syrian army and rebel forces engaged in a battle during which time “dozens of soldiers and rebels” were killed.

“According to eyewitness accounts, “The massacre occurred during this time. Those killed were exclusively from Alawi and Shia minorities. Over 90% of Houla’s population are Sunnis. Several dozen members of a family were slaughtered, which had converted from Sunni to Shia Islam. Members of the Shomaliya, an Alawi family, were also killed, as was the family of a Sunni member of the Syrian parliament.

Immediately following the massacre, the perpetrators filmed their victims and then presented them as Sunni victims in videos posted on the internet.

Eye witness accounts collected from refugees from the Houla region by members of the Monastery of St. James in Qara, show armed rebels murdered “entire Alawi families” in the Houla region.

Mother Agnès-Mariam de la Croix of the St. James Monastery warned of rebel atrocities’ being repackaged in Western media accounts as regime atrocities. She cited the case of a massacre in the Khalidiya neighbourhood in Homs. According to the French monastery’s website, rebels gathered Christian and Alawi hostages in a building in Khalidiya and blew up the building; then attributed the crime to the Syrian army. “Even though this act has been attributed to regular army forces, the evidence and testimony are irrefutable: It was an operation undertaken by armed groups of the rebel opposition,” Mother Agnès-Mariam wrote.

Julie, more hypocrisy, when will you answer your critics

Australia and other concerned countries should work through the UN and other key stakeholders to press both sides in the Syrian civil war to immediately end the killing and the violence and embrace peace and democracy. The Syrian people should be given support to find a political solution that will deliver better social, economic and environmental outcomes. The West and the rest should accept the democratic choices of the people.

The arms dealers must be prevented from profiting from the destruction of Syria and other countries. This is why Australia should get a seat at the UN Security Council in October 2012 and start playing a more positive and significant role in international affairs in support of peace, development and cooperation.

If one were to assume Assad wants to remain in power, why would he seek to inflame 'world opinion' with such acts of atrocity? Is he insane or is the ‘news’ nonsense? I would suggest the latter. How does one explain what is happening in Syria? Are there similar events we can compare with the “Syrian issue”?

How about Yugoslavia, which is now no longer on the map? Its "evil" leader, Slobodan Milosevic is no more. He allegedly carried out atrocities against his own people. Humanitarian intervention was essential. The former country is now ruled by the west and is an important conduit for the transport of oil and a military base for western armies.

Likewise Afghanistan, in retribution for the so call ‘9/11 terrorist attacks’ by alleged Saudi perpetrators - the Taliban led by the 'evil' Mullah Omar was swiftly driven out and the ensuing chaos continues. Afghanistan has valuable mineral wealth (rare earth metals) and occupies a key geo-strategic position.

Iraq was 'surgically' bombed. Western humanitarians wanted to avoid further bloodshed which caused the death of over half-a-million Iraqi children in 'a price that was worth paying' during UN sanctions.

The 'evil' Saddam Hussein was hunted down and dispatched. The chaos and killing continues.

Then there was Libya, again, an 'evil' man was in control and had to be removed for the sake of 'world peace'. He apparently was threatening to do some awful things to his own people. He was evil incarnate. He was captured and butchered by the humanitarian liberators of that oil-rich country. Chaos and killing continue in Libya, but the oil is flowing.

So now we have a new 'evil' tyrant, hell-bent on slaughtering his own people. Clearly, he must be removed for the sake of world peace. Besides, he is an ally of Iran, a country that is extremely rich in oil and led, wait for it, by an 'evil' man who wants to wipe Israel off the map. Now what do you suppose is going to happen to Iran

Geoff of Perth

All excellent points, Geoff, and stem from information freely available to anyone who is not willing to accept the Western media's contrived hysteria.

The Western public relations formula for these 'interventions' to overthrow 'evil' regimes - starting with Yugoslavia, then Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya - has become so predictable and mathematical in its consistency that it beggars belief that anyone is still capable of believing it - or at least putting up a pretence of believing it and keeping a straight face at the same time.