# What is "Peacekeeping?"



## 3rd Horseman (29 Oct 2006)

CdnArtyWife said:
			
		

> C'mon people...Peacekeeping is dead. Peacemaking is the deal now.



It is not dead just being applied correctly in A Stan which is a UN mission. It is the above perception of Peace Ops that aids the media in distorting what true peacekeeping is all about. Peacekeeping does not mean not shooting at an enemy, it just means we are fighting a war on a world mandate for a greater good. 

edit split from other thread non relevant edited out.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (29 Oct 2006)

3rd Horseman

At the risk of entering a definitional debate, I think that your arcs for "peacekeeping" are a bit broad.  Would you consider the Allies part of WWII "peacekeeping?"  

I feel that if you define something loosely enough it can begin to lose meaning.  I see "peacekeeping" as interposing neutral forces between two former belligerents who have both agreed to end the fighting before the peacekeeping troops arrive.  Anything else is war.  If one side has not agreed to the deal then the international forces are imposing their will and that is war.

For me, the distinction is important because it helps determines the kinds of forces, tasks and means that you apply.  

Cheers


----------



## 3rd Horseman (30 Oct 2006)

Red_Five said:
			
		

> I feel that if you define something loosely enough it can begin to lose meaning.  I see "peacekeeping" as interposing neutral forces between two former belligerents who have both agreed to end the fighting before the peacekeeping troops arrive.  Anything else is war.  If one side has not agreed to the deal then the international forces are imposing their will and that is war.



Then I guess Somalia, Rwanda, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosavo, East Timore, were wars. 

edit new non relevant split from other thread.


----------



## McG (30 Oct 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Then I guess Somalia, Rwanda, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosavo, East Timore, were wars.


Is everything black & white to you?


----------



## Strike (30 Oct 2006)

peace‧keep‧ing  /ˈpisˌkipɪŋ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pees-kee-ping] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation 

–noun 1. the maintenance of international peace and security by the deployment of military forces in a particular area: the United Nations' efforts toward peacekeeping.  
2. an instance of this.  
–adjective 3. for or pertaining to peacekeeping: peacekeeping forces.  

Therefore, to keep the peace, it must already be present in some form, infering that both parties are "at peace," no matter how tenuous it may be.

One could easily argue that all of those instances you bring forth had either one or both (in some case multiple) sides not willing to live in a peaceful manner.  Therefore those military personnel who served in such situations were sent in to make peace, with the goal of then keeping the peace.

I would consider these as grey -- neither peacekeeping nor all out war.



> It is not dead just being applied correctly in A Stan which is a UN mission.



BTW, did I miss something here?


----------



## dglad (30 Oct 2006)

Peacekeeping, in the "Pearsonian" sense, is an activity generally involved in interposing forces in a primarily observatory role between former belligerents.  The model that usually comes to mind is Cyprus, although Pearson won his Nobel Peace Prize, as I recall, primarily on the basis of the UN mission involving the Sinai in about 1956.  This definition, unfortunately, has taken on a life of its own (see below).

A more useful definition, I think, is that "peacekeeping" is one task, in the spectrum of all tasks, that can be assigned to military forces.  Because of their organizational, operational and logistical skills and flexibility, military forces can be assigned a whole range of tasks, from assisting with natural disasters, to delivering humanitarian aid, to search and rescue, to peacekeeping, to peace-enforcement (a somewhat more proactive task than peacekeeping, that involves more than just observation and reporting), to war-fighting (of various types), etc.  There are few, if any, organizations around that can be expected to fulfill such a disparate set of tasks.

So soldiers can be peacekeepers, warriors, firemen, policemen, rescuers, jail guards, traffic cops, child-care workers...the list goes on and on.  However, thanks to Mr. Pearson and a couple of generations of media inculcation (which itself was just mirroring back the prevailing culture of the 1960s and after), the Canadian public has had his misplaced notion (which seems to be fading, thankfully) that we don't have soldiers at all...we have this fuzzy thing called "peacekeepers".


----------



## 3rd Horseman (30 Oct 2006)

MCG,  to me most of the time it is black and white as being a soldier it is simpler that way, to get into the grey would make life too difficult...guess that is my weakness.

Pearson won the prize for Suez and if I am correct that was to be a fighting force to meet two fighting nations in the middle with force if required. They were not at peace. 

I like the wording of Peace Support Ops which has Peacekeeping, Peace Making and Nation building as its subcomponents. I think Pearson would be very proud of what we and other nations are doing in A Stan today.


----------



## DELTA108 (6 Nov 2006)

Hello, I'm doing a video production Project/ contest     TITLED " What does peacekeeping mean to you?" our group really doesn't know much about peacekeeping and we're looking for some help. Some of the questions/topics, we're supposed to mention are...

- Canada's role in  peace keeping and conflict resolution.
- what does peacekeeping mean to you as a Canadian 
- what contribution can Canadians make to support UN peacekeeping?

PURPOSE:
To gain an understanding  of the importance of the united nations peacekeeping, Canada's contribution and how it relates to our Canadian indentity.

For those that have served in a peacekeeping operation from Congo to Cyprus to Cambodia and, more recently, east Timor, and Sudan. please tell me your experience and how it effected you and how it has effected Canada.

Also if you want to just say what you want and what you think about the UN, My group is just trying to get a understanding of the UN and trying to get some answers.

Thank you.


----------



## muskrat89 (6 Nov 2006)

Could you clarify who "your group" is?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Nov 2006)

DELTA108 said:
			
		

> My group is just trying to get a understanding of the UN and trying to get some answers.
> 
> Thank you.



There's the rub. Nobody, including the people that work there, understands the UN.....................and they've never been very good with straight answers to well defined questions. It only puts them on the spot and makes them feel uncomfortable.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (6 Nov 2006)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Could you clarify who "your group" is?



I suspect it's connected with this:

http://www.unac.org/peacekeeping/index.asp

Contest for high schools...

Oddly, this group lauds Michael Douglas, well known actor and left-wing loony, for his support.


----------



## McG (6 Nov 2006)

DELTA108:

*Army.ca Conduct Guidelines*: MUST READ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html

FRIENDLY ADVICE TO NEW MEMBERS - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937/post-259412.html#msg259412

Recruiting FAQ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21101.0.html

Infantry FAQ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21131.0.html

Search page - http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search;advanced

Google search of Army.ca - http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=+site%3Aarmy.ca+%22search+term%22&btnG=Search&meta= (follow the link then replace "search term" with what you are looking for)

Army.ca wiki pages  - http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Main_Page


To summarize. Welcome to Army.ca, start reading.

********************************************************


----------



## McG (6 Nov 2006)

The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics) - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/29913.5

Dallaire: Peacekeeping has failed  - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51104/post-453826

Has the UN proven itself to be impotent? Who Cares? Road Ahead? - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23879.0.html

How is the Canadian Army in terms of Combat operations?  - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/18507.0.html

"Shake hands With the Devil" - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27798.0.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Nov 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Pearson won the prize for Suez and *if I am correct that was to be a fighting force to meet two fighting nations in the middle with force if required.* They were not at peace.
> 
> ...



You'll be pleased to know that you are not correct.

Pearson proposed a _tripwire_ of sorts which would be introduced *only* after a ceasefire and separation of forces was in place.  It's primary strength was to be its _weakness_  The change to _established_ (in 1948) UN Peacekeeping was that the force would be large enough to actually occupy areas rather than just deploy unarmed observer teams.

The UNEF was to be _lightly_ armed – to give it a bit, and only a bit, of _self *defence*_ capability.  It was, quite specifically, not designed, organized, equipped or mandated to fight, except _in extremis_, in local self defence.

Pearson and Urquhart posited that there is such a thing as international public opinion and that it would be outraged if either Egypt or Israel violated the cease fire.  It worked for a decade, until Nasser thought he might unite the Arabs and so on and so forth.

The UNEF’s _power_ of public opinion was backed up by an explicit guarantee from President Eisenhower – which was where the real power lay.


----------



## APOLLOVet (6 Nov 2006)

Gentlemen,

At the risk of being attacked by persons more articulate than I am, I am going to jump in here simply because the word "peackeeping" in all its variations (noun, verb, adjective etc) drives me insane.

There is no such thing as a "peacekeeper", and selling this idea of of kinder, gentler military force is the primary reason that we in the CF are in the position that we are in in terms of rust-out.

If you are going to use your military for "peacekeeping", then you do not have to equip it, train it, or maintain it at high states of readiness for medium-to-high intensity operations. If the only combat that you face is an accidental byproduct of the inherent friction of separating two warring factions (who by definition have already agreed to a tactical pause to rearm in order for you to enter the theater), you certainly can allow your overall forces to decrease. Thus, you no longer have to buy modern heavy MBTs, you no longer need to have massed indirect fire capabilities, and you can now "re-role" everyone but the front gate commissionaire in order to put them on the mission. In my opinion, this has led to the decline of the CF as a credible warfighting entity (thankfully this is changing back, but at a high price).

This is all bad enough, but the ridiculousness of our position on the moral plane is even greater. We (Canada) have made the fact that we can no longer prosecute an independent war a virtue and put ourselves on a higher plane than those nations who actually can impose their will upon other countries (last time I checked, the ultimate end-product of any military operation). This is much like being the one kid at the party who does not have a car, has to either walk everywhere or borrow rides, and then turns around and says that he is better than everyone else because he is staying fit and caring for the environment. I, for one, would feel a whole lot better about this whole idea that we are a "peacekeeping" nation if we were spouting that rhetoric while backed up with a military force that could beat all comers.

Finally, as far as "peacekeeping" being a Canadian value, go ask either the Boers, the Germans (WW 1 and 2), the Japanese (WW2), the North Koreans etc exactly how many times we used to hold up our hands and say "Stop or I'll say "Stop" again!" Last time I checked we used to stomp the crap out of them on a per capita basis.

Rant done. Sorry about that . I will await the inevitable roasting.


----------



## paracowboy (6 Nov 2006)

APOLLOVet,
preach it, brother man! Sing it out!


----------



## cplcaldwell (6 Nov 2006)

Roast??

Buddy, I'll vote for you for PM.

+1 Mega


----------



## cplcaldwell (6 Nov 2006)

From the Toronto Star... although there are portions of the article I disagree with, I believe the writer captures an essence or Mr Pearson, and thus a Foreign Affairs legacy for Canada, to wit, true peacekeeping in Canada's enlightened self interest and without apologies... without all the white pickup and blue beret crap....

From the Toronto Star, shared under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, RSC

_My emphasis added. My ellipses interposed as abridgement.. full article on link_



> *Central myth of Canadian diplomacy*
> 
> On a small non-descript pillar in the lobby of Foreign Affairs Canada hangs Lester B. Pearson's Nobel Peace Prize — a reminder of Canada's high-water mark on the international stage.
> 
> ...


----------



## dglad (7 Nov 2006)

Apollovet...no roasting from me, and probably very little from anyone on this site.  I think you're absolutely right...so, +1 to your post.

As I've said before, "peacekeeping" is just one of many tasks that a military force can conduct, along with "warfighting", "aid to civil authorities", etc.  If you organize, train and equip your forces for the most intense and demanding of these--fighting a high intensity war--then they'll be prepared, with some additional, mission-specific training, to carry out any of them


----------



## DELTA108 (7 Nov 2006)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Could you clarify who "your group" is?



 Its grade 11/12 video production class *high school..*... 
I'm actually currently in the process of joining the the CF (infantry) *The Royal Westminster Regiment....


----------



## DELTA108 (7 Nov 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There's the rub. Nobody, including the people that work there, understands the UN.....................and they've never been very good with straight answers to well defined questions. It only puts them on the spot and makes them feel uncomfortable.



HAHA... true true..,haha.. nice  
i personally think this topic for the project is stupid...


----------



## 3rd Horseman (7 Nov 2006)

Apolo vet,

  Well said!


----------

