THE new position of the UN Refugee Agency on Syria seems to me deeply flawed.

Where is the ethical basis for a policy which focuses the greatest benefit on just five per cent of refugees? Where is the prospect of an eventual return home if refugees are settled in a much more prosperous country?

We need to distinguish between refugees being supported by the more affluent counties and them being supported in the more affluent countries. We need poorer countries to see hosting refugees as a source of income.

If they turn their noses up at this it may be because they are too used to getting something for nothing from the aid system.

This is not to justify a 'do nothing' policy on Syria or to accept that we can allow many years to pass before refugees are able to return.

We are right to avoid involvement in regime change with the prospect of another frying-pan-to-fire outcome, as in Iraq or Libya. But we could intervene to promote rationalisation of the front lines so that control of individual cities is no longer disputed.

Through a neutralist approach (unlike the pretence of neutrality initially adopted in Libya) we might establish a de facto partition which may be the least bad outcome for the medium term.

John Riseley, Harrogate.