Foreign Affairs Committee on March 5th, 2014

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Right, it will take further actions.

[Nigel Fisher]

—should its recommendations not be followed.

So if it has teeth, I would say it's milk teeth rather than wisdom teeth. I think it's something where we need to follow up aggressively with them.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

My question then is, how can we expect this resolution to be effective? It's obviously better than no resolution at all, but we're dealing with a very hardened government that, as I understand it from your testimony, will only let humanitarian aid into areas that it controls. Obviously it wants to keep the loyalty of people in those areas and so on.

What can a resolution like this do? Obviously it's important that the Security Council be seized and so on, but can we really say that the Syrian government, when it agrees to let humanitarian aid into non-government controlled areas, is really doing so because of the attention of the Security Council?

As a follow-up to that question, what kind of response are we getting from Russia and Iran to entreaties to prevail upon the Syrian government to allow humanitarian aid into the country into non-government controlled areas? Are Russia and Iran helping? Are they stonewalling?

What is your sense of what's going on through those diplomatic channels?

[Nigel Fisher]

No member of the United Nations likes to have a Security Council resolution written up on it, because they see this as impinging on their sovereignty. If you look in past conflicts, Sri Lanka, for example, they always tried to avoid a Security Council resolution at all means because it starts to erode their claim that they have absolute sovereign right over their territory and they broke no interference, etc.

If you look at why Russia and China, for example, have consistently vetoed resolutions in the past...less about Syria than their own sovereignty and what might happen to them in the future. I think there's leverage when there's a Security Council resolution because it opens the door to impinging on the sovereign rights that they like to protect.

If I can give a personal opinion, too, and it requires more analysis than perhaps I'm capable of, but I think if you look at both Russia and Iran, they are not absolutely wedded to Assad or the regime per se. They are wedded to having influence in Syria for religious or regional power reasons. So I could see, perhaps, and some analysts have said that if the Assad top layer becomes too embarrassing for Russia or Iran, for example, they may be willing to see them go.

Certainly, I don't think in Syria we should expect to see the entire governing structure disappear. I think that would be a disaster, because there is nothing else. But I think the top layer of these people who are clinging on to power by any means, one could see that eventually they may be too much of an embarrassment to Russia or to Iran.

What influence does Russia have? Russia, when we had the Security Council presidential statement, actually performed a very useful role in trying to get the Syrian regime to collaborate. There was some progress we saw in easing some of the bureaucratic restrictions we faced. For example, one of my roles is to facilitate cross-border activities into Syria. I say “facilitate” because right now UN agencies have not been active across the border because of this sovereignty issue.

Syrians have warned the UN that we should not be too active. But I think there is.... Sorry, I've lost my thread here.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

My question is, are the Russians and Iranians working with—

[Nigel Fisher]

Oh, sorry, yes.

The Russians were extremely helpful until they pushed to the point that the Syrians said, “We know the Russians have told you they're trying to help us, but in the end it's our country.” So it's a limited effect, and of course, Russia has its own objectives in the area.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

In terms of the refugee situation, we have 2.5 million refugees in camps. I'm just seeking clarification for my own purposes.

Canada has agreed to take 1,300 refugees. Are these refugees from camps, or are they more private sponsorships of any Syrian, either...? Well, I guess it would be very hard for a Syrian inside the country to get out at this point and be accepted as a refugee by another country. But it could be a Syrian who is not in a camp, who is in another surrounding country.

When we talk about the 1,300 refugees, we're not talking about 1,300 coming from camps per se, or can it be?

[Nigel Fisher]

The fact is the majority of refugees in neighbouring countries are not in camps. A hundred per cent of those who go to Lebanon are not in camps. They're in communities. For 80% to 90% of those in Jordan, it's the same thing. They have to be registered refugees.

The two and a half million are those already registered by the UN High Commission for Refugees. We actually estimate there are even more informally.

That 1,300 would have to have been from among the registered refugees. I don't honestly know whether they would come from.... I don't think there's any distinction for Canada whether they come from camps or they're currently in communities.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

As long as they're registered.

[Nigel Fisher]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

That's all the time we have.

Mr. Fisher, I'm glad we could work with your time in Ottawa to be a part of the committee. It was great having you today.

We wish you all the best. Thank you.

We're going to suspend the meeting just for one second to set up our next witness.

[Proceedings continue in camera]