Leading article: Progress in Syria – but not enough

 

Sunday 15 April 2012 18:38 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

The ceasefire in Syria so far has been patchy, inadequate, and violated by both sides, most egregiously by the forces of President Bashar al-Assad, who have broken a pledge to withdraw from all towns and cities and bombarded districts of Homs again yesterday. But the – distinctly relative – calm has shown that a ceasefire, however imperfect, is an improvement on the free-for-all that proceeded it, with the glaring imbalance of power between the regime and the opposition exacting a murderous toll.

The very small number of UN observers – six were preparing to enter Syria late yesterday, with another 20 or so on their way – only serves to underline the size of the task ahead. But the presence on Syrian territory of blue helmets at all is welcome progress. Two months ago, the UN process broke down in acrimony after a transition plan drawn up by the Arab League was vetoed by Russia and China. Britain and the United States heaped the blame on Russia, insisting that Syrian blood would be on its hands.

Even if that plan had passed, however, there can be no certainty that it could have been acted upon. Mr Assad had rejected it. There was no alternative diplomatic process and no basis for even the degree of intervention currently agreed. It may be that the difference between then and now is that Russia and China were so shocked by the mounting bloodshed that they reversed tracks. But the unanimous Security Council vote at the weekend to dispatch observers also follows much more careful diplomatic preparation, under the auspices of the special envoy, Kofi Annan, which included consultation in Moscow and Beijing and less overt sabre-rattling on the part of the Western powers.

The ceasefire will remain, at best, shaky. But a united international approach will be key. Mr Assad must not be given the luxury of exploiting foreign divisions to extend his time in power. Even if it does not explicitly stipulate the regime's departure, the six-point Annan programme is the best, indeed the only, plan on offer, and reducing the carnage has to be the first priority.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in