World Media Watch: Syria truce ‘offers faint glimmer of hope’

Even as a shaky truce came into effect in Syria on February 27 and seemed to hold in most parts, global media outlets debated the impact of such a move in the wider context of the Syrian conflict.

“The Syrian war has lasted so long and diplomacy has proved so ineffective that the hope that it could end or at least be brought under some kind of control is hard to sustain,” said the Guardian in an editorial. “Yet the cessation of hostilities agreed by nearly all of the warring parties seemed to be holding… Most observers gave it a chance, not because of some sudden change of heart on anybody’s part, but because it is arguably in the interests of the key players to pursue their objectives in the future in a different way,” it said.

The paper argued that while the truce does not signify a permanent end to violence, it will still greatly reduce its role in the conflict. “It is also true that Syria is such a complicated and dangerous mess that even states which are opposed to each other sense the need to cooperate in order to avert dangers that they cannot deal with on their own. Syria is like a clover leaf motorway interchange in very bad weather, threatening a multi-vehicle pile-up at any moment.”

Examining the implications of the truce, the New York Times welcomed the fact that Syrians desperate for normalcy after nearly five blood-soaked years of war had slowly embraced the ceasefire. “They are planting potatoes in the garden, going to the market and playing in the street, resuming cherished everyday routines that have been cruelly disrupted,” it said in an editorial. It also acknowledged the importance of Moscow’s role in resolving the conflict. “Mr [Vladimir] Putin is an indispensable partner in the search for a lasting solution. This is a growing imperative for the West, and not just because the war is a disaster for the Syrians and the region. The huge flow of refugees from Syria and elsewhere has placed enormous strain on Europe,” it said.

The Globe and Mail was more sceptical of the truce’s outcome. “Even if Syria somehow turns the agreement into a longer term ceasefire, it will be a disfigured country, its cities in ruins and half its population refugees, having been torn apart by ethnic, religious and political warfare. The pieces will not be easy to put back together again,” it said in an editorial. However, while noting that “removing the [Al] Assad regime, once a Western priority, is further than ever out of reach,” the paper admitted that if the ceasefire holds, “Syrians will be thankful”.

Japan’s leading daily Yomiuri Shimbun meanwhile applauded the beginning of the ceasefire and said: “Large-scale fighting has been halted temporarily for the first time in the five years since the start of the civil war. The UN has announced a plan for peace talks to resume… The ceasefire must be maintained to help promote these talks.” But it also said pointed out that the effectiveness of the truce cannot be assured unless an international framework including the UN is established to confirm it, and said: “Unless the civil war is ended, [Daesh] will not be weakened and the outflow of refugees will not be curbed. The international community must not forget this.”

The Australian, while conceding that the ceasefire in Syria was far from ideal, still called it “a faint glimmer of hope amid the horrors of the Syrian crisis” and said: “Russia should be joining US-led coalition forces, including those from Australia, in the drive to destroy the menace of [Daesh]… US leadership has been notably missing, with Secretary of State John Kerry conceding the Munich agreement is merely ‘words on paper’. Syria’s stricken millions desperately need an end to the war. The Munich agreement, despite the unfortunate historical connotations its title evokes, is a small step.”