The savage response of President Bashar al-Assad to the unrest in Syria ends once and for all any hope that this man can bring about democratic reform in his country.

In towns and cities across Syria the regime has brutally cracked down on any dissent, sending tanks and troops to kill peaceful demonstrators. At least 800 people have been killed so far and thousands have been arrested and tortured.

When Assad took over the presidency upon his father’s death in 2000 there was some hope in the West that this UK-trained ophthalmologist, married to a British-born former investment banker, would usher in a new era of change in Syria.

Assad, considered by some to be a moderniser, had initially hinted at bringing about political and economic reforms, and he was courted by the West, particularly the French and Americans.

However, in reality virtually no reforms took place, Syria remained a police state. Its very strong ties with Iran and Hizbollah continued to be a cornerstone of its foreign policy and it was linked to the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri.

Trying to engage with Syria, which plays a strategic role in the Middle East, was worth the try, but that phase is now probably over. Assad has proved to be as ruthless as his father, Hafez al-Assad, in dealing with dissent, and this latest crackdown shows he is unwilling to change the nature of his brutal regime.

Unfortunately, there are no easy options when dealing with the situation in Syria. Like Libya, the Syrian regime does not have strong ties to the West, so little influence can be exercised over Damascus. Unlike the situation in Libya, however, there is no international appetite for military action against Syria, with the Arab League, China and Russia opposed to this option.

Getting the Arabs to support military action against Libya was not difficult as Gaddafi was isolated in the Arab world and had no friends. Syria is different; it plays an important role in regional Arab politics and military strikes against Damascus would be a much more complicated affair.

First of all, Syria’s geography is much more complex than Libya’s and most Libyans live on a thin coastal stretch, and secondly, military action in Syria could have severe regional implications.

This does not mean the international community should turn a blind eye to the terrible events in Syria.

The EU and the US have so far imposed sanctions on leading members of the Syrian regime who are linked to the crackdown against pro-democracy supporters.

Assad has so far been kept off this list, in an apparent attempt to get him to change course, or as Ayman Abdul Nour, a former Syrian Ba’ath party member who became a dissident said, “to give him a window of opportunity to run away to England with his British-born wife. If you leave the door completely closed, he will fight until the end.”

I personally believe this tactic of keeping Assad off the sanctions list will not get the Syrian President to rethink his decision to crush the country’s pro-democracy movement. Nor will it get him to step down.

In the absence of a military option, the EU and the US should impose additional harsher sanctions against the regime, including Assad, without hurting the Syrian people, and recall their ambassadors from Damascus. Washington and Brussels should also make it clear that anyone connected to the violence in Syria will be held accountable for their actions.

Of course, the whole international community has a duty to try and stop the violent repression of the Syrian people. Unfortunately a recent European attempt to get the UN Security Council to condemn Syria’s behaviour towards anti-government protesters collapsed due to opposition from veto-wielding Russia and China.

Such an attitude by Moscow and Beijing can only be described as shameful and disgraceful, especially when one considers the resolution was simply going to condemn Syria’s behaviour and urge the Syrian government to exercise restraint.

The Arab world can play its part in trying to influence events in Syria. Egypt, a leading player in the Arab world which got rid of its authoritarian President three months ago, should be condemning the repression in Syria and urging Assad to stop killing his own people.

Other Arab countries such as Tunisia, Morocco, Qatar, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates should do the same, and the Arab League certainly needs to be more vocal in its criticism of Syria.

Turkey, which has become an important trading partner of Damascus, and which has considerable influence in that country, can play its part in trying to find a solution. So can Russia, which has ties to Syria that go back to the days on the Soviet Union. One hopes that despite its public silence over events in Syria, Russia is working behind the scenes to exert pressure on Damascus to show restraint in dealing with the protesters.

Syria and Libya, the two most repressive police states in the Arab world, which over the years have not implemented any political reforms, have proved to be the most ruthless in dealing with dissent in their countries. This is not surprising, considering the nature of the regimes and the fact that the West has little influence over these countries.

While in Libya’s case there existed an international political will to take military action, no such will exists in dealing with Syria, for a number of reasons.

It is important, however, that pressure is increased on Damascus – not just by the US and the EU but also the Arab world and other global and regional players – to stop this terrible repression, which should definitely not go unpunished.