• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Old Peacekeeping Warhorses - Are they right?

FSTO

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
7,566
Points
1,210
As an Officer in the RCN, I've always considered classical Peacekeeping a role for the Army so I've been agnostic to its usefulness to Canada. If I was honest, it was a way for the GoC to cut real defence capabilities and say "Hey! Look at all the good we are doing in the world."

Anyway, when Bob Rae and Llyod Axworthy both lament the end of Canada's "traditional" role, then something is going right!


 
It served its purpose in the Cold War. After the breakup of my old favorite “enemy” the USSR the old traditional peacekeeping was not effective.
The two sides have to be willing to abide by the agreement but after 1990 or so that went to shit in the FRY. No one was willing to abide by anything
 
It served its purpose in the Cold War. After the breakup of my old favorite “enemy” the USSR the old traditional peacekeeping was not effective.
The two sides have to be willing to abide by the agreement but after 1990 or so that went to shit in the FRY. No one was willing to abide by anything

I don’t think many people, even in the foreign policy sausage factory, realize how it was the superpowers, not the UN, that enforced the peace in those Cold War conflicts.
 
It served its purpose in the Cold War. After the breakup of my old favorite “enemy” the USSR the old traditional peacekeeping was not effective.
The two sides have to be willing to abide by the agreement but after 1990 or so that went to shit in the FRY. No one was willing to abide by anything

If the UN is going to close the office every weekday from 16:00 until 09:00 the next day or 16:00 Friday until 09:00 Monday, they are useless and so are their missions.
Trying to get hold of them, while you're being mortared or having a rocket attack and getting no response because they are at the beach for the weekend, just shows how useless they are. That and risk adverse 12 page ROE's taped to your rifle butt.🙄
 
It served its purpose in the Cold War. After the breakup of my old favorite “enemy” the USSR the old traditional peacekeeping was not effective.
The two sides have to be willing to abide by the agreement but after 1990 or so that went to shit in the FRY. No one was willing to abide by anything

And I seem to remember seeing somewhere that UNIFIL is shutting down this fall.
 
Canada was effective at peacekeeping, because it had a well educated army and junior NCO's could make intelligent decisions that had implication on the geopolitical level. The reason the army was good at this, was because we trained hard to defeat the Soviets and even at the peak of peacekeeping the majority of the army's effort was to defeat the Soviets.
 
Canada was effective at peacekeeping, because it had a well educated army and junior NCO's could make intelligent decisions that had implication on the geopolitical level. The reason the army was good at this, was because we trained hard to defeat the Soviets and even at the peak of peacekeeping the majority of the army's effort was to defeat the Soviets.
Something, Lloyd and Bob never seem to acknowledge.
 
It can be argued that Peacekeeping is also a liberal elite (e.g., Lester B. Pearson) sponsored, largely Euro-centric, rebrand of colonialism that helped the 'colonizers' continue to exert control over former colonies undergoing the pains of independence ...


UN Peacekeeping or the Reinvention of Colonialism? An Interview with Margot Tudor.​

Traditional historiography has regarded the UN Peacekeeping missions as the liberal international order’s initiative to mediate the conflicts of the postcolonial world and avoid escalation towards another great war. It was a chronicle about enlightened UN officials and Western idealists thriving to maintain peace amid the turbulences of decolonisation and civil wars within the emerging nations of the Third World.

"Most of the logic for peacekeeping or militarised forms of peace is enrooted in the Great Powers’ policy of imperial control. As a historian of humanitarianism, I am very interested in those lineages that date back to the 19th century. Peacekeeping missions are connected to the narrative of the civilising mission. Development as a concept was coined afterwards, during the postwar years. Still, we can argue that, already in the age of empire, colonial officials perceived the “white man's burden” as a moral obligation to foster development. So peacekeeping, development, and humanitarianism are new ideas based on old Eurocentric notions. They have been recoded into a new language that held much of the empire's ideas and racialised hierarchies."

 
It served its purpose in the Cold War. After the breakup of my old favorite “enemy” the USSR the old traditional peacekeeping was not effective.
The two sides have to be willing to abide by the agreement but after 1990 or so that went to shit in the FRY. No one was willing to abide by anything
Traditional peacekeeping only works IF the opposing forces are compliant.
Lloyd A is so far removed from the coal face he has zero clues about the role or the cost.
 
I don’t think many people, even in the foreign policy sausage factory, realize how it was the superpowers, not the UN, that enforced the peace in those Cold War conflicts.
When Lew McKenzie was going to open up the Sarajevo Airport, the US president went on TV to remind the warring factions that Canada has "strong friends". In other words, interfere with the CAF mission and suffer the consequences.
 
Back
Top