Canada would play political role in Syria strike
No decision yet about possible military contribution, Baird says
Canada’s immediate contribution to an American-led attack on the Syrian government for its alleged use of chemical weapons is expected to be more political than military, particularly if strikes are launched without United Nations approval.
Yet Canada’s role could change if the attacks last longer than anticipated or prompt unforeseen consequences that spill over into the surrounding region.
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird reiterated the need for a “firm response” and “appropriate consequences” for Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime Wednesday following accusations it killed hundreds of civilians with nerve gas last week.
“That someone could use these type of weapons of mass destruction with impunity would not only set a very bad precedent for the ongoing conflict in Syria,” Baird said, “but also frankly would give a green light to any dictator to use these weapons of mass destruction against their own people in future conflicts.”
JOHN BAIRD
Foreign affairs minister
That echoes similar statements from U.S., British and French leaders, who are ramping up their respective militaries for what are expected to be limited, pinpoint cruise missile and drone strikes against Syrian government facilities and suspected chemical weapon depots.
Speaking to reporters in Montreal following a meeting with Syrian opposition leader George Sabra, Baird noted Canada does not have cruise missiles or armed drones, nor does it have much in the way of military assets in the region.
“We haven’t made the decision,” Baird added about a potential military contribution to American-led strikes. “Nor do we know if we have the capacity to be part of any military engagement, which by all accounts will be limited in focus.”
All indications at this juncture are that Canada would be expected to remain on the sidelines cheering the U.S., Britain and France should they go ahead and launch cruise missile or drone attacks against the Syrian government.
This will be particularly important if the three allies decide to launch strikes without UN approval — as appears will be the case after a British-sponsored resolution failed to make it through the UN Security Council on Wednesday.
A great deal of attention is being paid to the legal implications of such an attack that isn’t sanctioned by the Security Council, and support from allies such as Canada and others will be key to making the argument.
Such efforts were also made when NATO and the U.S. launched attacks in Kosovo and then Iraq during the second Gulf War.
“They need more allies just to give a kind of legitimacy to their actions,” said University of Ottawa international law professor Jabeur Fathally. “On a legal basis, these actions (without a UN Security Council resolution) would be illegal, but this is a way to get legitimacy.”
‘We haven’t made the decision. Nor do we know if we have the capacity to be part of any military engagement ... ’
Baird reiterated his frustration with Russia’s ongoing support for the Syrian regime at the UN during his appearance in Montreal, though it wasn’t clear whether the government explicitly supports military action without a UN Security Council resolution.
The U.S., Britain and France have maintained that any military strikes they launch would be solely in response to the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons, and not an entry into the two-year Syrian conflict.
For that reason, the expectation is they would last for only a short time and be aimed at sending a message.
But former Canadian ambassador to the UN Paul Heinbecker noted there have been calls for a more forceful response beyond a “slap on the wrist,” which would require more international support from allies such as Canada.
“If they have anything more in mind than a one-day wonder, they’re going to have to move more assets to achieve that and protect the assets that are already there,” he said.
And even if the U.S., Britain and France do keep their strikes to a limited scope, it’s unclear what impact those attacks will have on both Syria’s civil war and the broader Middle East region.
“If you do see an escalation and the U.S. does look for its partners to enhance their involvement, and Canada is one of the members it reaches out to, how will it react?” asked University of Waterloo defence expert Mark Sedra. “That will be interesting to see.”
One foreign official said the past week’s discussions between the government and allied counterparts have included an effort to assess what Canada would be willing to do or contribute if required, including in a situation where the conflict escalates.
But analysts are divided over exactly what role Canada would take in such a situation, from a token offer of assistance such as the loaning of a military transport plane during the Mali crisis to a full commitment of fighter aircraft as with Libya.
Canadian military chief Gen. Tom Lawson was in neighbouring Jordan this week where he discussed the situation in Syria with the U.S. military’s top soldier and other foreign military leaders, but it’s unclear what he told them.