CAN Says "No, Thanks" to Commanding UN Congo Mission

[The Bread Guy]

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

Canada spurns UN plea on Congo
Rejecting request to lead peacekeepers indicates Ottawa abandoning traditional role, ex-envoy says
Allan Thompson, Toronto Star, 2 Jun 08
Article link

Canada turned down a United Nations request to take command of the peacekeeping mission in Congo and will instead devote its resources to Afghanistan.

"Finding a lieutenant-general at this time can be a challenge, especially with Afghanistan going on," said Maj. Denys Guay, deputy military attaché at Canada's permanent mission to the UN in New York.

Guay confirmed in an interview that Canada was approached by the UN secretariat's department of peacekeeping operations about six weeks ago to submit a candidate to take charge of the massive UN force in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Canada was asked for a two-star general and limited support staff, not a contingent of troops.

The request was forwarded to the department of foreign affairs and defence department for review, Guay said, but Canada opted to contribute to Afghanistan instead of the mission in Congo.

Canada's former ambassador to the UN, Robert Fowler, said the decision signals Ottawa has all but given up on traditional peacekeeping.

"It is such a pity that we have withdrawn from UN peacekeeping to this extent when this used to be a signature for us, a Canadian brand," said Fowler, who was a special adviser on Africa to both Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin and is now a senior fellow at the University of Ottawa.

Canada is now tied with Malawi as the 53rd largest UN peacekeeping contributor, Fowler noted.

The Congo force, known by the acronym MONUC, has nearly 17,000 troops from more than a dozen countries and at a price tag exceeding $1 billion a year is the biggest UN mission ever.

More than 5.4 million people died in Congo's five-year civil war and its aftermath, mainly from disease and starvation. The conflict officially ended with a peace deal in 2002.

One Canadian military insider who asked not to be identified said Canada's decision makes clear that we have all but abandoned traditional peacekeeping in places like Africa in favour of "playing with the big boys" in Afghanistan.

The Congo mission is huge but has been relatively ineffectual, the military insider said, in part because of a fractured leadership structure that pits divisional commanders against the force commander. The UN is finally moving to fix the command structure and had hoped for Canada to take charge.

The current commander, Senegalese Gen. Babacar Gaye, is nearing the end of his term and the UN is keen to replace him. The UN turned to Canada after several other nations declined the invitation.

"What they wanted was a francophone, from a country with no colonial or political baggage," said the military insider. "Canada could have made a real difference here."

This is not the first time Canada has turned down a UN request to take charge of the Congo mission. In February 2003 – at the start of its involvement in the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan – Canada rejected a UN plea to lead the fragile peacekeeping force in Congo.

At the time, retired Canadian Gen. Roméo Dallaire, who commanded the ill-fated peacekeeping force in Rwanda during the 1994 genocide, said Canada should have pounced on the request to go to Congo as an opportunity to save thousands of lives and promote human rights.

Allan Thompson teaches at Carleton University's School of Journalism and heads the Rwanda Initiative, a program to train journalists in Rwanda.

 

[TrexLink]

Another thread was asking if the press was Canada's 'fifth column'.  The Star's loaded language headline was the first thing I noted.  "Spurns," indeed.

As to the Congo, MONUC may just be unfixable. You'll note that several other nations turned it down first.

 

[GAP]

Good, from the sounds of it, it has and will continue to be a cluster&^%*.......

 

[NL_engineer]

The way I read this was that we turned it down because of Afghanistan, but then later on the author says that we have already turned it down in the past.  I think this was just a cheep shot to get us back to a peacekeeping nation with the completely disfunctional UN  :


Just my 2 cents

 

[geo]

You have to ask yourself from the very beginning.... what are you expecting to accomplish during your mandate.... above and beyond the "showing of the UN flag".

If your mandate is weak and you are unable to respond with the application of some necessary force when it is needed, then you have to have to wonder.... What's the point?  I am not suggesting that a UN emergency force should go in there like a bull in a china shop BUT, given what the MONUC mandate...

The United Nations Security Council established MONUC to facilitate the implementation of the Lusaka Accord signed in 1999. With a budget exceeding one billion dollars, it is the largest and most expensive mission in the Department of Peace Keeping Operations (DPKO).

MONUC’s mandate can be broken down into four phases:
Phase 1 involved forcibly implementing the ceasefire agreement.
Phase 2 involved its monitoring, and the reporting of any violations through the proper channels.
Phase 3, still underway, centers on the DDRRR (disarmament, demobilization, repatriation, resettlement and reintegration) process.
Phase 4, also in progress, includes facilitating the transition towards the organization of credible elections.

MONUC is Chapter VII mission of the United Nations Charter. Its mandate authorizes it to use all means deemed necessary, within the limits of its capacities and in the areas of deployment of its armed units, to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence; and to contribute to the improvement of the security conditions.

Given the major players who currently form MONUC: India (4400), Pakistan (3500), Bangladesh (1300) South Africa (1100), Nepal (1100), Uruguay (1300) You would think these guys would be the 1st countries to be approached for a Force commander....

 

[The Bread Guy]

The way I read this was that we turned it down because of Afghanistan, but then later on the author says that we have already turned it down in the past.  I think this was just a cheep shot to get us back to a peacekeeping nation with the completely disfunctional UN  :

Agreed, esp. when you consider the author is NOT a journalist or columnist (any more), but an academic/NGO type with experience/interest in African issues:  "Allan Thompson teaches at Carleton University's School of Journalism and heads the Rwanda Initiative, a program to train journalists in Rwanda."

 

[PO2FinClk]

"Finding a lieutenant-general at this time can be a challenge, especially with Afghanistan going on," said Maj. Denys Guay, deputy military attaché at Canada's permanent mission to the UN in New York.

Canada was asked for a two-star general and limited support staff, not a contingent of troops.

Seeing this discrepency within the first 2 para's makes me question the vailidity of the rest of the article.

 

[Danjanou]

"What they wanted was a francophone, from a country with no colonial or political baggage," said the military insider. "Canada could have made a real difference here."

This is not the first time Canada has turned down a UN request to take charge of the Congo mission. In February 2003 – at the start of its involvement in the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan – Canada rejected a UN plea to lead the fragile peacekeeping force in Congo.

At the time, retired Canadian Gen. Roméo Dallaire, who commanded the ill-fated peacekeeping force in Rwanda during the 1994 genocide, said Canada should have pounced on the request to go to Congo as an opportunity to save thousands of lives and promote human rights.

Well let him put the uniform on again and take the job. He seems qualified.

As for comments by "Teflon Bob" Fowler on how bad it is that we have moved away form "traditional peacekeeping" maybe it's because he isn't running the place anymore, and we actually have the kit and the werewithall to do other things now.

 

[TrexLink]

Given the major players who currently form MONUC: India (4400), Pakistan (3500), Bangladesh (1300) South Africa (1100), Nepal (1100), Uruguay (1300) You would think these guys would be the 1st countries to be approached for a Force commander....

Maybe they were.  The article does say others countries had been asked first.

On the other hand, the UN wanted a francophone, which makes sense as the Congo was a Belgian colony and presumably French is still spoken there.  India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, S Africa, Nepal and Uruguay would likely be rather short of francophones right now.

 

[X-mo-1979]

How many Lgen's do we have in Canada?

 

[Armymedic]

Better question: how many LGen's do we have willing to put thier career on hold to command a group of 2nd world armies in a little know UN mission?

 

[Armymedic]

As for comments by "Teflon Bob" Fowler on how bad it is that we have moved away form "traditional peacekeeping" maybe it's because he isn't running the place anymore, and we actually have the kit and the werewithall to do other things now.

He must be a sex addict. He can't help trying to f@*& the CF around even when he isn't in the country.

 

[geo]

How many Lgen's do we have in Canada?

something like 8 - in uniforms of blue & green colours

 

[PO2FinClk]

How many Lgen's do we have in Canada?

7 LGen's, or 9 "3 Stars" if you include the Navy's Vice-Admiral's.

http://hr.dwan.dnd.ca/dsa/app_bio/engraph/FSeniorOfficerAddressBook_e.asp?mLimit=Gen&SectChoice=1

 

[Blackadder1916]

The position is ranked as a Lieutenant General, but if the story is correct, Canada was asked to provide a MGen.  It's not much of a discrepancy as CF general officers/colonels (as well as from other countries) have previously filled international slots as Acting (WSE) (fill in the rank).

The major force contributors to MONUC may have been asked (and declined) to fill this position and provide what essentially is a corps(-) staff.  However, the possibilty exists that one of the reasons that a new direction is being sought for the force commander is because of the problems of a non-military nature that have plagued MONUC and African peacekeeping (and aid) operations in general.  Some of those major force contributors are also the subjects of the recent sexual abuse and corruption allegations.  The sense that I get from reviewing the MONUC website is that many(most?) of the force commander's day to day problems are not of a strictly military operational nature.

 

[OldSolduer]

I see Mr. Fowler could not resist getting his digs into the Conservative government.

Mr. Fowler was part of the problem at NDHQ during the dark ages.

 

[MarkOttawa]

A post at The Torch:

Just say "No" to Congo
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/06/just-say-no-to-congo.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Greymatters]

Our top stars have been turning down these kind of 'swan' tours like this ever since Rwanda.  There's no glory in being in charge as a country goes pear-shaped when you are supposed to be controlling the situation, or for being put on the hot seat when your bottom of the barrel third-world soldiers commit criminal acts...

 

 

[Kilo_302]

Fowler is probably missing his office that he (ie the taxpayer) spent hundreds of thousands of dollars renovating. All of this at a time when the Forces couldn't afford ammo for training.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Caveat lector: I know Bob Fowler, he's an acquaintance rather than a friend or colleague -

• I first met him when he was DM of DND. I was on the staff of a very senior officer and, now and again, went with him and his boss to meetings with Mr. Fowler;

• I see him still, occasionally, at conferences and symposia on international affairs. We usually find a few minutes to chat;

• Over the course of a long career I also had a chance to meet other very senior civil servants and, as with Mr. Fowler, to sit in their offices;

• I have read Scott Taylor's “Tarnished Brass” (the book that tries to stir up a "scandal" over Fowler's office renovations). I have been in Bob Fowler's office after the renovations. It is a nice office - well furnished, well decorated, comfortable and well equipped for the needs of a very senior executive. When Bob Fowler occupied it, the office was not better or nicer or more lavish than those of other DMs in Ottawa – it wasn't as lavish as those of some, maybe most civilian senior executives;

• Fowler is a smart guy – maybe very smart. He is well educated, experienced at the most senior levels of national and international affairs, thoughtful, observant, widely travelled and even more widely read;

• He is an insider's insider; and

• He is firmly committed to the idea that Africa is a bigger and worse long term problem than is the Islamic Crescent today. His case is convincing.

Bob Fowler is equally committed to the idea that it is strategically wrong to wait for Africa to blow up in our faces – to wait until the only solution is another long, bloody ground war far, far away from home. I agree with him.

I think his statement that we are backing away from traditional, baby-blue beret type UN peacekeeping is both accurate and consistent with what Gen Hillier has said. I do not agree that it is “pity,” per se, but properly conducted peacekeeping missions can be, should be an alternative to full scale combat. The problem, one that Mr. Fowler may be too diplomatic to state in public, is that the UN is inept and corrupt – it cannot conduct a mission “properly.”