Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has won his fourth time in office following the elections, in which 75% of the country’s eligible population has participated. Ahead of the elections in May, contrastingly, Canada’s Press Secretary at Foreign Affairs Canada, Syrine Khoury, declared that Canada “condemned” running the elections without constitutional amendment that “guaranteed their freedom and reliability.”
In parallel, the US and some European countries doubted the legitimacy of Syria’s elections, asking that they be cancelled. China, Iran, as well as Russia and the remaining “BRICS” states supported the elections, showing how split the world has been as regards the Syrian leadership.
Things in the past were even worse. As the unrest began in Syria, the Canadian government ended its diplomatic relations with Damascus, closing Ottawa’s Syrian embassy despite the presence of a notable, veteran Syrian community in Canada.
Lately, Ottawa has denied social-media rumours suggesting that Ontario had readied elections polls for the Syrian community so that they participate in the elections. Ottawa as well denied that Syria had officially asked for that, adding it wouldn’t have allowed it even if Syria had actually done so…
These declarations imply the governing Liberals have no intentions to reconsider their severed diplomatic relations with Syria, although some Gulf and Arab countries, who funded the war on Syria, have shown desire to reopen their embassies in Damascus.
European countries have shown a similar desire, though in the past, they supported the Syrian opposition and tried to topple the Syrian regime and replace it with a submissive, normalising-with-Israel regime. The countries’ new appeals show they are recognisant of the new reality and of the failure of the terrorist war on Syria.
So what’s preventing Foreign Affairs Canada from showing a kind of realistic, pragmatic policy when it comes to Syria, just like Canadian foreign diplomacy has been, especially in regions of conflict and turmoil??
Why is the Liberal Party copying the approach of the Conservatives in opposition? After all, during their period in office, they turned foreign policy into selective work, at times showing concern for moral and humanitarian issues in certain countries, while overlooking them in other places, even violating those moral and humanitarian grounds in countries like Yemen, Ghaza and Bahrain.
So are policies tailored for the sake of profits, or are they real commitments to national and international principles, conventions and charters??
The Editors