TORONTO – Canada closed its embassy doors and evacuated diplomats out of Damascus Monday, citing escalating violence in “deteriorating” Syria as a concern.
The move comes a month after the United Kingdom and the United States moved their ambassadors out of the impoverished nation stuck in a battle for regime change. By Tuesday, France said it would close its embassy while Spain said it plans on shuttering its consulate but will keep a handful of diplomats in the country as part of a European Union delegation.
Canada’s closure was paired with further sanctions against Syria and its President Bashar Assad, the sixth round of sanctions imposed on the struggling country.
“Canada has maintained its diplomatic presence in Syria – despite the risks – to monitor developments on the ground and to deliver tough and frank messages to the Syrian authorities. These messages will continue to be delivered directly through the Syrian embassy here in Ottawa and through our other international forums,” Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said in a statement released Monday.
Canadians still in Syria can rely on the Canadian embassy in Beirut for consular assistance while Ottawa has also made arrangements with the Hungarian embassy in Damascus in case citizens need help on the ground.
While closing embassy doors could leave Canadians stranded, some experts say the measure symbolizes much more on the global stage.
Christian Leuprecht, of Queen’s University and an associate professor of political science at the Royal Military College of Canada, answered Global News’ questions. Leuprecht, who specializes in military and defence matters, is a fellow at Queen’s Centre for International and Defence Policy.
Global News: What is the significance of Canada closing its embassy doors in Syria?
Christian Leuprecht: Closing Canada’s mission is significant in so far as it forecloses any possibility for Canada to mediate the conflict by keeping a formal diplomatic channel with the Assad regime open.
Get daily National news
Now, Canada can’t talk to the Assad regime, and the Assad regime has no way of talking to Canada. From the perspective of conflict de-escalation, that’s problematic because the Assad regime has fewer and fewer countries left to talk to in case it did want to forge an exit strategy.
The move also signals on Canada’s part that there are no Canadian interests left in Syria that need formal representation – at least none that would require formal diplomatic representation. That’s always a bold statement for any country to make.
Closing an embassy is a symbolic way of demonstrating the Assad regime’s loss of legitimacy. However, Canada is hardly setting a precedent here since many of our allies have already closed their missions.
(Foreign Affairs says, however, that while it closed its embassy as a safety measure, diplomatic ties with Syria are still in tact, as do those of many like-minded countries.)
Global News: John Baird said that Canada left its embassy open “despite the risks.” Was it risky for Canada to have its embassy open and diplomats in the nation with its death toll steadily increasing?
Christian Leuprecht: Canada’s diplomatic staff was in Damascus, which has been relatively quiet thus far and, unlike the diplomats from some of our allies, have not made a public point of venturing into disputed areas.
While there was a risk, then, we have diplomatic staff in many countries where they face serious risks, such as Afghanistan. It’s a testament to our diplomatic staff that they will do whatever is asked of them.
Closing the embassy may signal that the Government of Canada expects the security situation in the capital to deteriorate and that the risks for Canadian diplomats there have become incalculable. The tragedy here is what are known as “locally engaged staff” for whom leaving the country is not an option.
Global News: Why did Canada wait to close its embassy compared to the United States, the United Kingdom and other allies?
Christian Leuprecht: Many of Canada’s allies are so-called “great powers.” They have strategic interests around the world in the way Canada does not so Canada did not have a strategic political point to make by closing its embassy the way some of our allies did.
That may have, indeed, been part of the reason why Canada kept its embassy open in the first place: Do what Canada does so often in international affairs – punch above our weight – with ongoing quiet attempts at mediating or at least remaining behind as a potential interlocutor for both the regime and our allies.
Global News: Did Canada help at all in having its embassy doors open?
Christian Leuprecht: Other than facilitate the potential exit of Canadians, it is not known what precise role the Canadian mission and Canada has played in the conflict thus far.
Keeping the embassy open gave the Assad regime a ready point of contact with the US, UK, France and other Western powers. That option is now gone; but Canada has evidently decided that it is no longer needed.
Global News: What would it take for Syria to fall?
Christian Leuprecht: Without a credible, viable opposition, not much is likely to change. Remember that in Libya, too, it took some time for the Transitional National Council to materialize. The Syrian opposition is deeply divided, marred by narcissistic self-interest and irresponsible infighting. But that’s not a surprise.
In the words of one former Syrian president, Syria is so difficult to govern because “half of Syrians think they’re national leaders, a quarter think they’re prophets, and ten percent think they’re god.”
Unless and until the opposition congeals into a coherent, reasonably united force, the alternative to the status quo is civil war. That option looks even worse than the status quo.
For the time being, then, look for more weapons, more bloodshed, and more agony.
Comments