Jones: Does the escalation of tensions between Syria and Turkey change the decision-making calculus on international intervention?

By: /
9 October, 2012
By: Bruce Jones
Director and Senior Fellow of the NYU Center on International Cooperation

Let’s hope so. Some months ago I argued (here) that the least bad option available for Syria was the deployment of an internationally mandated stabilization force – a force mandated not to overthrow Assad, but to freeze hostilities. That’s neither easy nor risk free; but nor is it impossible. The essential condition, though, is a Turkish willingness to act. The Syrian army has long looked over its shoulder at its larger, better equipped, better trained, better supported regional neighbour; it has no appetite to fight the Turkish army. Were the Turkish army to mobilize, and allies exhibit a willingness to join in, it’s within the realm of the feasible that the Syrian army would consent to their deployment without substantial resistance. If this sounds unlikely, remember that it’s exactly what happened in East Timor, when regional and international pressure, and the imminent arrival of Australian troops operating under a UN mandate, caused Indonesia to pull back its large army presence in Timor to avoid a costly clash. The differences between the cases are obvious: Timor was a peripheral part of Indonesia, whereas here we’re talking about the core of Syrian territory. No way Assad will agree to this. But there’s a difference between Assad and his army. If they see the chips stacking up against his survival, and if other measures are taken to pressure them – but also to give them an exit clause – it’s conceivable that they’ll break from Assad. All this is a long shot – but it’s a better option than watching Syria descend further into sectarian civil war. And as a result of Syria’s shelling incident, it just got a bit more likely.

Before you click away, we’d like to ask you for a favour … 


Journalism in Canada has suffered a devastating decline over the last two decades. Dozens of newspapers and outlets have shuttered. Remaining newsrooms are smaller. Nowhere is this erosion more acute than in the coverage of foreign policy and international news. It’s expensive, and Canadians, oceans away from most international upheavals, pay the outside world comparatively little attention.

At Open Canada, we believe this must change. If anything, the pandemic has taught us we can’t afford to ignore the changing world. What’s more, we believe, most Canadians don’t want to. Many of us, after all, come from somewhere else and have connections that reach around the world.

Our mission is to build a conversation that involves everyone — not just politicians, academics and policy makers. We need your help to do so. Your support helps us find stories and pay writers to tell them. It helps us grow that conversation. It helps us encourage more Canadians to play an active role in shaping our country’s place in the world.

Become a Supporter