After the change of governments in Egypt and Libya, Syria has now become the focus of political attention in the Middle East. The United Nations has reported that over 3,500 people have died since the start of the Syrian uprising eight months ago. Matters have not improved despite the involvement of the Arab League.

The once peaceful opposition movement in Syria has now turned violent due to what the UN has deemed “the brutal crackdown on dissent.” The European Union must do all it can to help the Syrian opposition forces take President Bashar Assad out of power.

When opposition arose against President Bashar Assad’s regime last March, protests were peaceful, but the Assad-led government quickly turned its sizeable army on innocent civilians. As a result, the opposition has now begun to fight back with force as well. In Homs – the third largest city in Syria – there was a six-day assault of near-continuous bombing in which 40 civilians and 30 defected soldiers were killed, mostly by tank fire.

This event shows in most spectacular fashion that the Syrian government is not serious about the Arab League peace deal reached on 2 November. This agreement called for the Syrian regime to pull its troops off the streets, allow peaceful protests and release detainees. Yet, as demonstrated by Homs, the Syrian troops continue to use tanks and mass weaponry to attack residential districts, commit continued mass murder and loot civilian homes.

Though Syria did follow the Arab League agreements and released some political prisoners, thousands still remain in detention and dozens of innocent bystanders are arrested every day. Opponents of the Syrian regime continue to withstand the penetration of Syrian forces into other parts of Homs, which has furthered the bloodshed. Events in the Baba Amr are particularly disturbing, as the district has remained under siege for seven days and residents are deprived of clean water, food and medicine. Such conditions are clear violations of human rights and in total opposition to the peace deal Syria agreed to with its Arab League partners.

Qatar has now announced that the Arab League will hold an emergency meeting in Cairo today to discuss the prolonged violence and what steps to take next since Syria did not follow the peace agreement. Despite the involvement of the Arab League, there has been limited success in bringing internal peace to the country.

With the Syrian situation deteriorating, many in the West argue that Nato should intervene and solve the problem in the same manner as it did in Libya. Indeed, one must ask if Libya’s political transition changed anything for Syrians. The opposition movement has recently become violent and they are beginning to fight back, as seen in Homs. This was prompted in many ways by Libya – a country Syria may use as an example – and is what led Syria to attempt to overthrow Assad through violent means. With Gaddafi’s death, the Syrian opposition has been emboldened and plans to take Assad out of office by any means necessary.

However, there are many differences between Syria and Libya. The first of which is that Libya had Nato intervention, which refuses to intervene in the Syrian case because there is no possibility of a no-fly zone. Nato involvement is still widely unpopular among opposition leaders as well. Another difference between the two countries is that despite the atrocities committed by President Bashar Assad’s security forces, a large sector of the Syrian population still remains loyal to the government of Assad. This was not the case in Libya. Another issue is that military intervention in the much more urbanised and populous Syria is wrought with difficulties that did not apply in the case of the sparsely populated deserts of Libya. These striking differences make any sort of military intervention in Syria ill-advised.

Yet still, with Syria having such a strategic position in the Middle East – bordering Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel – I believe that the EU should assist Syrians in their struggle for a democratically accountable government in any way possible, except through the blunt tool of military force, which would not in any case be welcomed by the different opposition movements.

The EU has formally expressed its support for Syrian protesters and has endorsed the creation of the Syrian National Council, which is a Syrian opposition coalition. This is good progress, but the EU can do more to shift towards a stronger diplomatic stance and by agreeing on more targeted sanctions against the Syrian regime, such as last month’s sanctions on the Commercial Bank of Syria. These bar Europeans from conducting business with the bank and freeze its assets in Europe, cutting off a significant source of funding for the Syrian regime.

Measures such as these will not bring down the regime – even if coupled with more and more sanctions. It is not the responsibility of the European Union to do this singlehandedly – ultimate responsibility lies with the Syrian people. But where we have influence, we have a moral imperative to use it to uphold values we believe to be universal. Economic and diplomatic sanctions, even if symbolic in their effects, provide an important source of support and encouragement to the front against President Assad and, even if for this reason alone, we should continue to turn the screw.

David Casa is a Nationalist MEP