- Reaction score
- 4,778
- Points
- 1,160
We still send people to UN missions, albeit its rare. Do we have anyone here who's been on a recent UN mission and got FSP, Hardship, Risk, and UN Pay together?
The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
- Thread starter Boogilywoo
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 1,748
- Points
- 1,090
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,298
- Points
- 1,110
PuckChaser said:
I recently spent a year on a UN operation as an unarmed military observer. My pay and normal allowances for deployment were paid by Canada as normal (base pay, Foreign Service Premium, Risk and Hardship). The UN paid me a monthly allowance for living expenses but there was no UN pay. This allowance was for my meals, lodgings etc as neither the UN nor Canada paid for my living expenses. I had to rent an apartment on the economy and buy all my meals. Arrangements for a formed contingent living on a base would be different. I would imagine that the soldiers in a Canadian task force on a UN operation would not notice any difference in their pay and allowances from being deployed on a NATO/US led mission with the same Risk and Hardship.
The higher-level financials for UN peacekeeping can get somewhat complicated, especially when you consider logistics for large contingents in isolated areas. While we touched on this in my training I did not deal with it on my deployment. One thing I do remember from my training and can reinforce from experience is that discussing pay and benefits with peacekeepers from other countries is not a great idea! We all have different systems of compensation back home and it is very hard to make comparisons.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 207
- Points
- 710
Tango2Bravo said:
Remember: This can also emphasis the fact that the majority of times one compares their pay to that of a person from another nation, not just the UN Tours or NATO deployments, their wages and costs of living in their home nations are much different than ours. What it costs us to live here in Canada could allow us to live the life of millionaires in some of these other countries. I have friends who have retired and moved to Columbia and other Pacific nations and have been able to stretch their pensions much further than I can here at home.
We saw the "Shit-storm" that was raised over the South African firefighters who came to Canada for the Fort McMurray fire. Their pay reflected their "cost of living" in South Africa, not here in Canada. People have to get that through their heads, before they start jumping on some sort of bandwagon.
- Reaction score
- 4,358
- Points
- 1,260
True -- hence the whole Ghurka pension fracas, too - although the UK doesn't use the "it's cheaper to live where they're from" arguement when doling out pensions to Brit service members living in different parts of the UK.George Wallace said:
- Reaction score
- 4,778
- Points
- 1,160
Good info, settles that question. Thanks, T2B.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
This "killer peacekeeping" mission seems likely for CAF--what will the government contribute?
Mark
Ottawa
Mark
Ottawa
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,173
- Points
- 1,160
It seems the long weekend has gotten in the way of closing the defence policy consultations at least for a day. If you have strong opinions, you can still offer up on:
What form should the CAF contribution to peace support operations take (or not)?
What form should the CAF contribution to peace support operations take (or not)?
medicineman
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 5,890
- Points
- 1,110
I read some of the comments in there...I can be assured that what I have .to say won't be heard over the climate change tw@ts.
MM
MM
Brian Stewart, a credible journalist on defence matters, addresses the search for a peacekeeping mission in terms that would not be out of place in this thread, in a piece on the CBC site. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.
Trudeau government taking a long look at precarious peacekeeping options: Brian Stewart
By Brian Stewart, for CBC News Posted: Aug 02, 2016 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Aug 02, 2016 5:30 AM ET
One of Justin Trudeau's campaign promises was a new focus on peacekeeping. He's still looking at possible missions.
Brian Stewart
Canada and abroad
One of this country's most experienced journalists and foreign correspondents, Brian Stewart is currently a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Munk School for Global Affairs at the University of Toronto. He also sits on the advisory board of Human Rights Watch Canada. In almost four decades of reporting, he has covered many of the world's conflicts and reported from 10 war zones, from El Salvador to Beirut and Afghanistan.
It's not surprising the Liberal government is having a difficult time deciding where and how best to fulfil its election pledge to lead Canada back into significant peacekeeping — there is simply no shortage of potentially life-or-death factors to consider.
This country has been a minor player in peacekeeping in recent years. But now the government intends to sign on to a major United Nations mission somewhere in this troubled world at a time when the global body is desperate for our help and dangers for peacekeepers have never been more deadly.
It's a good time to ask questions.
This is not to say the likelihood of suffering casualties should deter Canada from undertaking a risky mission for the UN, but we need to be very aware that peacekeeping today is nearing a high-stakes crisis of confidence.
Many of the most crucial missions are battered by soaring casualties, inadequate resources and poor planning, according to UN reports.
The most strained missions, usually 10,000 to 14,000 strong, are guarding relief supplies and refugee camps in some of the most violent spots on earth, including African operations in Congo, Darfur, South Sudan, Mali and Central African Republic.
Peacekeeping vs. peacemaking
While the old term "peacekeeping" is still used in delicate preference to the more robust "peacemaking," many missions have morphed into counter-insurgency operations against Jihadist guerrillas and, in danger zones like Mali, anti-government militias and bandit gangs as well.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has clearly indicated Canada is considering sending a mission to help UN troops stop the advance of Islamist jihadists in Africa. Either Mali or Central African Republic are rumoured as likely destinations.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has said Canada is considering sending forces to help UN efforts in Africa.
"Certain parts of the world ... haven't gotten the right amount of attention, and that's why we're looking at Africa," he told reporters.
UN and U.S. officials have been quietly lobbying the Trudeau government to consider missions in Africa to help prevent peacekeeping disasters like those in Somalia and Rwanda in the 1990s.
UN headquarters in New York receives urgent warnings from the field that peacekeeping casualties are soaring with no end in sight: 51 UN personnel killed in deliberate attacks last year, 230 in just the past four years. Many others die in accidents and from disease.
The UN says 230 of its personnel have been killed in deliberate attacks in the past four years. (Reuters)
UN reports show troops are frequently pinned down in local conflicts they can neither defeat nor control, by rebels using "improvised explosive devices, rocket, artillery and mortar fire, landmines, suicide attacks, targeted assassinations and armed ambushes."
The escalating risk has left many UN humanitarian workers feeling increasingly unprotected because many of the military units are staying hunkered down within sandbag-protected fortresses rather than taking on emergencies in the countryside.
It's a great mistake to view peacekeeping through rosy historical glasses, as Canadians are prone to do. The easy missions where peace agreements have lasted generations are oversubscribed with volunteers; it's the dangerous ones that desperately need help.
Consider that 15 years ago, 40,000 UN troops and police served in missions from the former Yugoslavia to East Timor.
Today, there are 125,000 UN forces deployed in more than a dozen missions around the world who are struggling to protect 125 million people at risk.
This makes combined UN missions the largest overseas troop deployment in the world.
Still, at the world summit on peacekeeping last fall, the urgent need for reinforcement led countries to pledge a combined 40,000 more personnel. Current missions are also short of helicopters, armoured vehicles, field hospitals and proper command centres.
It's not at all clear what form or strength any new Canadian mission would take because the military is still studying the options. But it's possible we'll put more emphasis on supplying headquarters staff, logistics and medical services rather than a great many boots on the ground.
Whatever shape the mission takes, retired colonel George Petrolekas, military analyst and veteran of both peacekeeping and the Afghanistan mission, feels our troops are far better prepared for the demands of peacekeeping than in the past — thanks to the Afghan experience and extensive training.
"Before any deployment, units undergo months of mission-specific training that includes cultural awareness, reinforcement of Geneva conventions, negotiating skills and incident simulations while practising time and again protection measures and controlled escalation," he wrote recently in the Globe and Mail.
'A cancer in our system'
The threat of attacks isn't the only difficulty a Canadian mission would face. UN morale has been badly rocked in recent years by allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation involving peacekeepers in several UN missions, including in Mali and Central African Republic.
The UN secretary general has called it "a cancer in our system" and major reforms are underway.
UN forces are also often limited by poor training and discipline. For years, wealthy countries avoided serving, leaving it to the poorest nations to rent out ill-equipped troops to the UN. Some served brilliantly and heroically; others, from repressive regimes, were human rights disasters.
There's growing agreement among wealthy nations that they need to do more, despite the risks. Britain, the Netherlands, Germany and others have joined Canada in pledging a new emphasis on peacekeeping.
Clearly defined mission
For many years, peacekeeping fell out of fashion in the West, but the obvious need to prevent more failed states from descending into unimaginably destructive internal wars has revived support for a more efficient and muscular UN.
A highly trained Canadian unit would be a useful addition, so long as any mission receives adequate equipment, clear rules of engagement to help protect civilians and, a must these days, a well-considered Plan B should things go horribly wrong.
Canadians don't need to hear that boosterish "can do" optimism so often paraded out at the start of missions.
Instead, they need to know what we're getting into, our objectives, the possibility of casualties and the likely duration of the challenge ahead.
Trudeau government taking a long look at precarious peacekeeping options: Brian Stewart
By Brian Stewart, for CBC News Posted: Aug 02, 2016 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Aug 02, 2016 5:30 AM ET
One of Justin Trudeau's campaign promises was a new focus on peacekeeping. He's still looking at possible missions.
Brian Stewart
Canada and abroad
One of this country's most experienced journalists and foreign correspondents, Brian Stewart is currently a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Munk School for Global Affairs at the University of Toronto. He also sits on the advisory board of Human Rights Watch Canada. In almost four decades of reporting, he has covered many of the world's conflicts and reported from 10 war zones, from El Salvador to Beirut and Afghanistan.
It's not surprising the Liberal government is having a difficult time deciding where and how best to fulfil its election pledge to lead Canada back into significant peacekeeping — there is simply no shortage of potentially life-or-death factors to consider.
This country has been a minor player in peacekeeping in recent years. But now the government intends to sign on to a major United Nations mission somewhere in this troubled world at a time when the global body is desperate for our help and dangers for peacekeepers have never been more deadly.
It's a good time to ask questions.
This is not to say the likelihood of suffering casualties should deter Canada from undertaking a risky mission for the UN, but we need to be very aware that peacekeeping today is nearing a high-stakes crisis of confidence.
Many of the most crucial missions are battered by soaring casualties, inadequate resources and poor planning, according to UN reports.
The most strained missions, usually 10,000 to 14,000 strong, are guarding relief supplies and refugee camps in some of the most violent spots on earth, including African operations in Congo, Darfur, South Sudan, Mali and Central African Republic.
Peacekeeping vs. peacemaking
While the old term "peacekeeping" is still used in delicate preference to the more robust "peacemaking," many missions have morphed into counter-insurgency operations against Jihadist guerrillas and, in danger zones like Mali, anti-government militias and bandit gangs as well.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has clearly indicated Canada is considering sending a mission to help UN troops stop the advance of Islamist jihadists in Africa. Either Mali or Central African Republic are rumoured as likely destinations.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has said Canada is considering sending forces to help UN efforts in Africa.
"Certain parts of the world ... haven't gotten the right amount of attention, and that's why we're looking at Africa," he told reporters.
UN and U.S. officials have been quietly lobbying the Trudeau government to consider missions in Africa to help prevent peacekeeping disasters like those in Somalia and Rwanda in the 1990s.
UN headquarters in New York receives urgent warnings from the field that peacekeeping casualties are soaring with no end in sight: 51 UN personnel killed in deliberate attacks last year, 230 in just the past four years. Many others die in accidents and from disease.
The UN says 230 of its personnel have been killed in deliberate attacks in the past four years. (Reuters)
UN reports show troops are frequently pinned down in local conflicts they can neither defeat nor control, by rebels using "improvised explosive devices, rocket, artillery and mortar fire, landmines, suicide attacks, targeted assassinations and armed ambushes."
The escalating risk has left many UN humanitarian workers feeling increasingly unprotected because many of the military units are staying hunkered down within sandbag-protected fortresses rather than taking on emergencies in the countryside.
It's a great mistake to view peacekeeping through rosy historical glasses, as Canadians are prone to do. The easy missions where peace agreements have lasted generations are oversubscribed with volunteers; it's the dangerous ones that desperately need help.
Consider that 15 years ago, 40,000 UN troops and police served in missions from the former Yugoslavia to East Timor.
Today, there are 125,000 UN forces deployed in more than a dozen missions around the world who are struggling to protect 125 million people at risk.
This makes combined UN missions the largest overseas troop deployment in the world.
Still, at the world summit on peacekeeping last fall, the urgent need for reinforcement led countries to pledge a combined 40,000 more personnel. Current missions are also short of helicopters, armoured vehicles, field hospitals and proper command centres.
It's not at all clear what form or strength any new Canadian mission would take because the military is still studying the options. But it's possible we'll put more emphasis on supplying headquarters staff, logistics and medical services rather than a great many boots on the ground.
Whatever shape the mission takes, retired colonel George Petrolekas, military analyst and veteran of both peacekeeping and the Afghanistan mission, feels our troops are far better prepared for the demands of peacekeeping than in the past — thanks to the Afghan experience and extensive training.
"Before any deployment, units undergo months of mission-specific training that includes cultural awareness, reinforcement of Geneva conventions, negotiating skills and incident simulations while practising time and again protection measures and controlled escalation," he wrote recently in the Globe and Mail.
'A cancer in our system'
The threat of attacks isn't the only difficulty a Canadian mission would face. UN morale has been badly rocked in recent years by allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation involving peacekeepers in several UN missions, including in Mali and Central African Republic.
The UN secretary general has called it "a cancer in our system" and major reforms are underway.
UN forces are also often limited by poor training and discipline. For years, wealthy countries avoided serving, leaving it to the poorest nations to rent out ill-equipped troops to the UN. Some served brilliantly and heroically; others, from repressive regimes, were human rights disasters.
There's growing agreement among wealthy nations that they need to do more, despite the risks. Britain, the Netherlands, Germany and others have joined Canada in pledging a new emphasis on peacekeeping.
Clearly defined mission
For many years, peacekeeping fell out of fashion in the West, but the obvious need to prevent more failed states from descending into unimaginably destructive internal wars has revived support for a more efficient and muscular UN.
A highly trained Canadian unit would be a useful addition, so long as any mission receives adequate equipment, clear rules of engagement to help protect civilians and, a must these days, a well-considered Plan B should things go horribly wrong.
Canadians don't need to hear that boosterish "can do" optimism so often paraded out at the start of missions.
Instead, they need to know what we're getting into, our objectives, the possibility of casualties and the likely duration of the challenge ahead.
- Reaction score
- 4,358
- Points
- 1,260
:nod:MCG said:
This is the risk when folks write off consultation processes as "situated appreciations" -- even if the road ahead has been decided, swamped alternative opinions can't be ignored (even if they're just downloaded & shared as evidence of people being ignored).
medicineman
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 5,890
- Points
- 1,110
MCG said:
I've posted my thoughts - Sean K is my handle.
MM
- Reaction score
- 2,871
- Points
- 940
I provided my thoughts in person at a session organized by my MP and the Centre for International and Defence Policy.
There was no mention of climate change.
There was no mention of climate change.
medicineman
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 5,890
- Points
- 1,110
Journeyman said:I provided my thoughts in person at a session organized by my MP and the Centre for International and Defence Policy.
There was no mention of climate change.
What??!! even from the "Harard of the North" that Queen's claims to be? ;D.
MM
- Reaction score
- 2,871
- Points
- 940
The Rebels Without a Clue were likely too busy playing Pokémon to participate. :dunno:medicineman said:
- Reaction score
- 4,358
- Points
- 1,260
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,625
- Points
- 1,160
milnews.ca said:
We could play a peacekeeping role in the US to keep the various warring presidential campaigns apart, but we'd be hopelessly out gunned .... by the teenagers alone.
- Status
Similar threads
