Baird stays cautious on Syria
Canada prefers ‘political solution’ as U.S., Britain, consider military strike
The Conservative government is continuing to call for dialogue and a “political solution” in Syria, even as the United States and other allies are ramping up threats of military action following last week’s apparent “cowardly” chemical-weapon attacks.
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird told reporters on Monday that Canada was “incredibly outraged” over reports of chemical-weapon attacks in Syria, adding: “Such an attack demands a firm response from the international community.”
Baird, who spoke with his U.S., British and French counterparts over the weekend, added that Canada is working with its allies “to review a full range of options going forward.”
Yet while Baird said the crisis in Syria has now entered a “dark new chapter,” he reiterated the government “believes the only way to halt the bloodshed in Syria is through a political solution.”
And he repeated past comments about the need to “discover the facts” before deciding on a response.
Baird’s comments contrasted sharply with a forceful statement delivered a few hours later by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Washington, D.C.
Kerry left little doubt the White House holds the Syrian government responsible for the apparent gas attacks that killed more than 350 men, women and children.
And he said the world must respond and send a message that such actions are completely unacceptable.
“Our sense of basic humanity is offended not only by this cowardly crime, but also by the cynical attempt to cover it up,” Kerry said. “All peoples and all nations who believe in the cause of our common humanity must stand up to assure that there is accountability for the use of chemical weapons, so that it never happens again,” he added.
Kerry did not outline any specific response, but both the U.S. and Britain along with France have indicated they are contemplating cruise missile strikes and other longrange attacks as United Nations inspectors gather more information on the ground.
The difference in tone between Baird and Kerry is the latest sign the Conservative government’s once hawkish approach to international conflicts has changed to what Canadian Forces College professor Walter Dorn described as “a pattern of non-intervention.”
Two years ago, Canada was one of the first to respond with military force after Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi threatened to slaughter his own people. Like Kerry on Syria now, the Conservative government at the time said the international community was duty-bound to respond in Libya.
“One either believes in freedom or one just says one believes in freedom,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in March 2011. “The Libyan people have shown by their sacrifice that they believe in it. Assisting them is a moral obligation upon those of us who profess this great ideal.”
The government has cited a number of reasons for its more cautious approach on Syria, including a lack of consensus at the UN, a more difficult opponent and theatre of operations, and an influx of Islamic extremists to the side of the rebels.
There have also been concerns about the absence of a legitimate and unified opposition movement, and the fact Canada’s main allies have expressed a reluctance to become more heavily involved.
At the same time, Canada has contributed $158 million in humanitarian aid to Syria and neighbouring countries since January 2012, and there are some who say the government’s refusal to echo a hard line is simply a reflection that real substantive military action by the West is unlikely.
But Dorn said the government was also reluctant to get involved in Mali earlier this year when Islamist extremists threatened to take over the country — even though Canada has long-standing relations with Mali.
The government did deploy a military transport jet to help move French troops and equipment into the African nation, but otherwise Canada adopted — and continues to maintain — a handsoff approach.
Canada is also preparing to withdraw the last of its troops from Afghanistan in March 2014 as many of its allies are planning an extended military presence. And while Canada was a major player in Gadhafi’s ouster, it has largely disengaged from Libya as violence and instability continues to reign.
NDP Leader Tom Mulcair alluded to one possible reason the government is more cautious now than with Libya when he said Monday that “you can topple one regime but you’re never sure what’s going to come up in its place.”
Some have also questioned whether a lack of major Canadian business interests in Syria has contributed to the government’s reluctance to become more involved.