Canada is prepared to join international military intervention in Syria if sanctions and diplomacy fail but says such a decision by the United Nations is neither imminent nor inevitable. The Harper government, however, announced Sunday it would keep a patrol frigate in the Mediterranean region until 2013 – a ship that gives Canada an asset to contribute to a naval blockade of Syria should the need ever arise.
The Conservative government said HMCS Vancouver, which helped patrol the waters off Libya, will remain in the region as part of a NATO counter-terrorism effort, Operation Endeavour, until relieved by HMCS Charlottetown in early 2012.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay, who warned this past weekend of the dangers of creating a “world police” force that is tasked with righting wrongs around the world, told journalists Sunday that Ottawa would nevertheless be ready for whatever is asked of it.
He told CTV’s Question Period that Canada’s armed forces are “prepared for all inevitabilities” but said in the case of Syria, there are a “cascading number of [international] sanctions that would have to happen before there would be any type of intervention.”
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s bloody campaign of oppression against his own civilians has killed about 3,500 Syrians, according to a United Nations estimate, but Mr. MacKay said it’s up to the United Nations to try to rein in the Mideast leader now.
Syria, which borders Israel as well as NATO member Turkey, is a potential powder keg in the Mideast region and soldiers loyal to Mr. al-Assad’s are well-armed.
Asked if he would take military intervention against Syria off the table, Canada’s defence minister told Global TV’s The West Block that he would not.
“We, again I would say to you, are very cautious when you get into the projecting of military intervention. But to answer your question, no, I don’t think we should suggest that it’s not an option. It’s not the preferred option, it never is.”
Mr. MacKay told the Halifax International Security Forum this past weekend that the NATO-led airstrikes that helped oust Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi are not a template for actions elsewhere.
Iran is a nuclear threat, Egypt is again in turmoil and Yemen teeters on the brink of collapse, but it was Syria that caused the most squirming at a weekend gathering of top global security officials.
The generals and defence ministers who met at the Halifax forum on the weekend shared many congratulatory slaps on the back for their role in ridding the world of Mr. Gadhafi.
But they worked at every turn to dampen expectations western countries would take similar action to help oust Mr. al-Assad.
Mr. MacKay said “we’re not there yet” when asked whether Western countries might consider intervention.
“It’s a tool that must be used after all other efforts have been tried and exhausted. We should not charge in. The consequences of doing so, the potential fallout is extreme,” Mr. MacKay said.
Lt.-Gen. Charles Bouchard, the Royal Canadian Air Force general who led the NATO mission in Libya, cautioned against applying the Libyan model to Syria.
“Libya should not be a blueprint for the future. Libya is just one more campaign from which we should take lessons,” Lt.-Gen. Bouchard said.
“One is in the Middle East, the other is in North Africa. I don’t want to sound flippant, but the neighbours make a difference,” he added, pointing out the border Syria shares with Turkey is just one factor that seriously complicates matters compared to Libya.
James Appathurai, a top NATO political official, pointed out that just on process the groundwork is far from being laid. The NATO mission in Libya was backed by U.N. Security Council mandate and had broad regional support.
Mr. MacKay signaled his cautious intentions when he posed his own question to a panel of experts: What can the international community do, short of waging war, to hasten the departure of President Assad?
The Syrian uprising causes discomfort among decision makers for good reason, according to Radwan Ziadeh, co-founder of the Syrian Center for Political and Strategic studies. While Middle Eastern regimes like Iran must temper despotic impulses because of the need to sell oil, Syria is far less constrained by diplomatic considerations.
“For years now, Syrian foreign policy has hinged on making trouble with its neighbours,” said Mr. Ziadeh. “Syria depends on unrest among neighbours. If you want to bring stability to Iraq, to Lebanon, to Syria, to Iran, you have to change the Assad regime.”
But the way to do that is far from clear.
Mr. Ziadeh said the West could be honest about the limitations of its power and the double standard it applies in these cases. The West intervened in Libya because the mission was relatively easy. It won’t intervene in Syria because it would be bloody and expensive.
Senator John McCain said he favours recognizing Syria’s transitional council, a move favoured by Mr. Ziadeh and a number of other experts. Sen. McCain also called on Russia and China to join in sanctions.
Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak suggested Mr. Assad’s downfall is well underway and may be complete without much Western help.
“I think that (Assad) went beyond the point of no return, there’s no way he will resume his authority or legitimacy over his people,” Mr. Barak said during an on-stage interview at the forum.
“It’s not a linear process, but now will go on an even steeper slope. People within his armed forces, civil service, start to see the end, how to hedge their personal bets.”
The Saudi king has directly criticized Mr. Assad and Turkey, one of Syria’s biggest trading partners, have steadily increased pressure.
“There is an acceleration toward the end of the regime. The signals are there. It’s good, not just for Israel but the entire Middle East.”
Origin
Source: Globe&Mail
No comments:
Post a Comment