Simon Tisdall (The fire spreads while Obama looks away, 11 April) uncharacteristically displays the naivety of all who argue for western humanitarian intervention in Syria. The idea that safe corridors or no-fly zones won't inflame the situation or lead to wider Nato involvement defies logic and recent history. A no-fly zone is another way of saying foreign control of air space. A humanitarian corridor has to be patrolled by foreign troops. In Libya the no-fly zone morphed seamlessly into a Nato bombing campaign. The consistent thread in Obama's approach to the Arab spring is the pursuit of US foreign policy interests. The revolts across the Middle East are essentially a threat to which the US has responded by supporting repression in Bahrain, continuity in Yemen and co-option in Libya. If Nato steps up its intervention in Syria it will not only increase the killing but ensure the west's firm grip on a post-Assad Syria, something no democrat should support.
Chris Nineham
Vice-chair, Stop the War Coalition
The UN/Arab League-initiated ceasefire in Syria has had a surprisingly sceptical welcome in the west. Simon Tisdall spoke of "Barak Obama's 'shrug your shoulders' Syria policy" and equates allowing international mediation to a "do-nothing" policy. In Indonesia, David Cameron threatens a "day of reckoning" for the Syrian leader's "savagery", an unhelpful remark at this delicate stage of the ceasefire. The excellent Timothy Garton Ash (Europe has left Syria to a distinctly Ottoman fate, 12 April) reckons the "chances of an effective ceasefire seem vanishingly small".
What if the ceasefire holds and the Syrian people are enabled to achieve a peaceful transition as a result of this international mediation? What if the UN's reputation is boosted for future crises? What if in future UN mediation will take the place of "coalitions of the willing"? Maybe too much scepticism will undermine the chances of a more peaceful, better-regulated world.
Harry Davis
Thames Ditton, Surrey