As the
international rhetoric ratchets up over the use of chemical weapons, Portugal may be drawn into possible foreign
military intervention in the civil war in Syria , but only on the fringe.
The US Secretary of State John Kerry issued the
strongest signal yet that the United States
intends to take military action against the Assad regime by describing the
“undeniable” use of “the world's most heinous weapon” as a “moral obscenity”
against Syria ’s
own people.
It is conceivable
that the strategically important Lajes Air Base in the Azores
could play a support role for aircraft involved in any military action that goes beyond a short, sharp, punitive strike with cruise missiles. In reality,
though, Portugal
can do little more than offer moral support and watch from the sidelines,
hoping that some sort of solution can ultimately be found within the United
Nations Security Council.
The then president of the council, Ambassador
José Filipe Moraes Cabral, made a statement in New York in which he said, “This human
tragedy could have been averted had the Syrian Government not responded to the
legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people with sheer brutal force, resorting
to the use of tanks, helicopter gunships and fighter jets against civilians.
Let us be clear: such actions are illegal under international law and totally
unacceptable, no matter the circumstances.” He went on to appeal for a
political solution saying that “further militarization of the conflict can only
lead to additional human suffering and will aggravate the humanitarian crisis
even more.”
Following a
massacre in Houla in central Syria
last year, Portugal ordered
the expulsion of Syria ’s
ambassador to Lisbon ,
declaring Lamia Chakkour “persona non grata.” It cited the lack of respect
shown by Damascus
over the UN peace plan led by Secretary General Kofi Annan.
Whatever happens
next, Portugal is sure to
stick with America .
When President Obama and President Cavaco Silva last met they spoke of the “deep
friendship and long standing alliance” between the two countries and emphasised
the importance both attach to the role of the UN in the promotion of “peace, democracy, good governance and human rights.”
Such rhetoric is sounding
a bit hollow at the moment. Yet again the talk seems to be more about war than
peace.