Canada’s role in Syria

Editorial

Syria’s opposition, creating a sort of government-in-semi-exile, is meeting with leaders of Western countries, including Canada’s. They are almost certainly hoping for military, as well as moral, support. Foreign Minister John Baird is urging Canadians in Syria to evacuate while they still can, an ominous warning.

Continuing with the interventionist foreign policy approach of recent years, Canada has sent HMCS Vancouver to hover in the nearby Mediterranean. We joined the battle to liberate Libya, which, on the heels of our laudable mission in Afghanistan, has restored some Canadian confidence in our country’s role beyond the merely vocal. Now we are facing a choice over the situation in Syria.

While the Libyan intervention was comparatively smooth and successful, a similar venture into Syria, which is backed by Iran and has friends in Moscow, is a different matter entirely. Libya’s conflict was a civil war, certainly, but the incumbent dictator was nearing his last legs when foreign countries finally answered the call from his opponents to step in. Syria’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad, is in a different position. Though no less enthusiastic than the late Muammar Qaddafi in killing his own citizens, al-Assad has more friends inside and outside his country than did the Libyan. A civil war that drags in major regional and global powers is a far more daunting proposition than the Libyan intervention ever portended to be.

These are among the calculations Canada and other countries will be making in determining their reaction to the situation there.

A decade after the start of the Iraq War, Americans and citizens of other countries are as concerned about getting their militaries out of conflicts as they are about getting into them. There is a rightful hesitation for involvement based not only on the “weapons of mass destruction” canard – which has shattered the confidence of citizens to believe either the honesty or the intelligence of their leaders – but also on the exit strategy. The quick exit from Libya was a welcome outcome, but the advance fears that it could have become another entrenched pit of endless chaos and violence were real and justifiable.

Now, as Canada moves the HMCS Vancouver into position, Russia is also moving ships into place, and with the same objectives as Canada – to protect their own interests, albeit ones that do not coincide with those of the West.

For its part, the Arab League appears to be taking a rare stance in opposition to the terror of the Assad government. But this, too, is founded on realpolitik, a schismatic conflict for regional domination between the Saudis and the Iranians that is the riptide underpinning this whole conflict.

Meanwhile, events in Egypt’s Tahrir Square this week (remember Tahrir Square?) remind us that even the dispatching of tyrants does not always end the bloodshed. In this case, the latest conflict is over the military’s continued central role in government. If this immediate issue is addressed, there will still be the almost-certain crisis of rising expectations as daily life does not improve fast enough for the average Egyptian, or for citizens of other Arab Spring-liberated countries. Moreover, the idea that democracy is the inevitable daffodil that will poke its bright blossom out of the Arab Spring is already being tested by the democratically elected Islamist regime in Tunisia.

Then there is the small matter of a “duty to protect,” a common sense concept that emerged only in response to genocide in Rwanda. When a government cannot be trusted to protect its own citizens, or, more urgently, when a government is deliberately killing its own people, the countries of the world have a responsibility to intervene – no matter who their friends are, whose ships are in the water or their buying power.

Baird returned Tuesday from the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, “where he took part in discussions about important developments in the Middle East and North Africa region” and discussed, among other things, no doubt, bilateral commercial and “people-to-people ties,” according to a press release.

“Canada will continue to support people who are seeking to bring freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law to their respective countries,” said Baird. In both countries, he stressed that, “Canada will continue to protect Canada’s interests and promote Canadians’ values around the world. Religious freedoms and the role of women in civil society are two incredibly important features to safeguard in these new and emerging democracies.”

Baird’s comments are a bit confusing. Neither UAE or Kuwait are true democracies, nor do their leaders appear to be seeking the things Baird says we support, including women’s rights in the way that most Canadians would find acceptable. Neither is a beacon of religious freedoms. If anything, Baird’s comments sound like he is putting commercial interests ahead of the human values he himself raises as important. If Canada is intervening in places like Afghanistan, Libya and, perhaps, Syria, to truly promote these ideals, then it is all the more important that Canadians be confident that these values will flourish as a result of our efforts. Canadians, who may be called on to help implement the government’s policies, should demand assurances about expectations, outcomes and the real reasons we may get involved.

^TOP