The Houla Killings of more than one hundred civilians on May 25, which included at least 80 women and children, represents one of the single bloodiest incidents in the 14-month-long clash between Bashar Al-Assad's Syrian government and the opposition forces.

The incident obviously poses a serious challenge to Kofi Annan's peace plan for Syria, and will add to the fragility of the situation in Syria as well. But in order to secure a soft landing for the Syrian domestic crisis, it has never been more important for the international community to support Annan's plan and to take a balanced approach regarding the crisis.

The Houla incident is still producing political and diplomatic fallouts after a new round of criticisms and condemnations against the Syrian government. Several Western countries, including France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada and Australia, have declared their decision to oust Syria's ambassadors and diplomats; external military intervention has once again been enthusiastically discussed in the capitals of many Gulf countries and the West.

However, it is not fair to just criticize the Syrian government even though it should at the very least be responsible for not providing necessary protection for its citizens. Some even doubt whether the government has done enough to control pro-government militias. But, simply punishing the government is not going to help the situation in Syria.

Annan's plan, despite criticisms for its poor viability in some ways, has no better alternatives. The Libyan case demonstrates that although external military intervention might be an efficient way to topple an incumbent regime, the cost is high. A war in the name of humanitarian concerns actually resulted in an even greater humanitarian crisis, with hundreds of thousands of lives lost. What's more, the war was by no way means a real solution to the problem. Analysts believe that the current infighting between tribes will likely result in the division of Libya.

Yemen's model cannot be applied to Syria either. The past hostility of the West toward Syria is still one of the major sources of Bashar Al-Assad's sense of uncertainty for his future, his family's future, and the future of his ruling group if he were to resign. Staunch ally of Saudi Arabia and the United States as he is, Yemen's Ali Abdullah Saleh even hesitated many times before finally deciding to step down.

After much bloodshed, it might not be easy for either of the parties, the government or the opposition, to sit down to negotiate a solution for the future of Syria. But, history will prove that Annan's plan is the only reasonable option that might avoid human casualties at the greatest level. An armed suppression of the incumbent government will cause more deaths, and an armed opposition assisted by external powers will equally deprive lives.

A negotiated solution, which is the core essence of Annan's plan, depends primarily on stopping violence from both sides. It seems reasonable for the West to question the willingness of Bashar Al-Assad to cease fighting, which could cause him to lose the already accumulated military advantage; but it is also legitimate to doubt the willingness of the opposition forces to agree to a ceasefire. The opposition, encouraged by the successful stories of Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen, and assisted by the West, Gulf countries and Turkey both materially and spiritually, shows very little interest for decreasing their "revolutionary enthusiasm".

The betterment of the situation depends on the West and regional countries adopting a balanced policy. It is important to pressure the government for a negotiated solution, and it is equally important to bring the opposition to the table through either persuasion or pressure. Otherwise, the political solution to the Syrian crisis will inspire little hope.

It is time for the West and some of the regional countries to make a choice. They can continue to support the opposition in the interest of maintaining geopolitical power, which might result in the collapse of the Syrian regime, a government that is hostile with the West, but at a higher human cost; or, they can protect humanitarian concerns by pressuring not only the government, but the opposition to come to the table for a negotiated solution.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit http://m.by33321.com/opinion/jinliangxiang.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.