The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)

[Retired AF Guy]

So we deploy our troops to some hell hole in Africa, spend millions of dollars, and heaven forbid sustain casualties, and still don't get a seat on the UNSC!

What then??

 

[PuckChaser]

Blame Harper, it's worked for the first year in office.

 

[Kirkhill]

Blame Harper, it's worked for the first year in office.

Bonokoski

 

[Kirkhill]

Foreign Aid and Defence

Britain is one of the few/only countries to commit to 0.7% of GDP as Foreign Aid while also committing over 2% of GDP to defence

Thus this is interesting:

Foreign aid budget cash ‘to go on defence'

BRITAIN’S foreign aid budget could be diverted to promoting national security, it is claimed.

PUBLISHED: 21:36, Sun, Aug 28, 2016 | UPDATED: 21:48, Sun, Aug 28, 2016

New International Development Secretary Priti Patel is reportedly ready to redirect the spiralling billions.

An MP said yesterday: “From now on, the watchwords are national security and the national interest.

"If those bells don’t ring, the projects will be scrapped.”

The Government is looking at how the Dutch use foreign aid cash for peacekeeping and monitoring migration.

Amid speculation that Ms Patel would take on responsibility for funding and directing troops, a defence source has made clear the Ministry of Defence would not give up any budget to her.

Ms Patel is said to be reluctant to challenge ex-Prime Minister David Cameron’s commitment, which the Daily Express has criticised yet is now UK law, to spend 0.7 per cent of national income on aid, taking the budget from £12billion to £16billion by 2020.

Labour MP Kate Osamor said: “International aid should not be used to bail out defence.”

This comes after International Development Secretary has vowed to use Britain’s aid budget to help push for trade deals.

A rather broad definition of Foreign Aid.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Earlier on the peacekeeping myth:

Not Remembering Canada’s Real Post-WW II Military History
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/mark-collins-not-remembering-canadas-real-post-ww-ii-military-history/

The Great Canadian Traditional Peacekeeping Myth vs Nuclear Weapons
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/10/06/mark-collins-the-great-canadian-traditional-peacekeeping-myth-vs-nuclear-weapons/

But nobody knows no history no more, including the Crvena Zvezda:

Canada finally dusts off its blue helmet: Editorial
Canada is ready to assume its rightful role as a nation dedicated to UN peacekeeping following a welcome new commitment of troops and money.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2016/08/28/canada-finally-dusts-off-its-blue-helmet-editorial.html

The Globe and Mail however now gets it:

The end of peacekeeping, and what comes next for Canada’s soldiers
...
“Canada is back,” the government boasted on Friday [Aug. 26]. But peacekeeping isn’t. We are about to embark on an undertaking that may routinely put Canadian soldiers’ lives at risk in the most dangerous places in the world, and where Canada’s national interests may not even be at stake...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/the-end-of-peacekeeping-and-what-comes-next-for-canadas-soldiers/article31583016/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Teager]

Just a question. Was reading an article about the different possible missions to Africa and they mentioned the Zika virus. I checked the CDC website and only Cape Verde in Africa has active Zika currently.  But for a mission to Columbia for example would members be tested once returning?

 

[mariomike]

But for a mission to Columbia for example would members be tested once returning?

Por favor, it's Colombia.

 

[ueo]

Take the maps etc on the CDC website with a smallish(!) grain of salt. Seems as tho' Haiti is rife with malaria and the DR has none. Other anomalies can be found.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-den-tandt-peacekeepers

Michael den Tandt on the Star Editorial praising Canada's return.

Curious numbers

New commitment 600 soldiers/sailors/aviators, 150 police and $150,000,000 a year for three years.
Previous commitment $240,000,000 per year (#9 internationally) plus 80 to 100 "peacekeepers" of all types.

This wiki table is interesting

Needless to say - although den Tandt references it - these numbers do not include the UN sanctioned interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

First Western Country - at number 26 - Italy with 1114 personnel

Second Western Country - at 33 - France with 880

Third - 38 - South Korea - 627
Fourth - 39 - Spain - 614
Fifth - 45 - Germany - 434
Sixth - 46 - Netherlands - 415
Seventh - 48 - Ireland - 383
Eighth - 51 - Finland - 341
Ninth - 52 - United Kingdom - 336
Tenth - 54 - Sweden - 289

Australia is number 82 with 39
The Kiwis are at 99 with 10.

750 bodies should move us up to 37 on the list, just behind the Democratic Republic of the Congo and ahead of Fiji. And number three amongst westerners, just behind France.

 

[medicineman]

Take the maps etc on the CDC website with a smallish(!) grain of salt. Seems as tho' Haiti is rife with malaria and the DR has none. Other anomalies can be found.

Not too surprising actually...Haiti has little to no infrastructure to clean up mosquito habitat on a good day, whereas the DR, though still ramshackle and still has malaria, has fewer cases than you'd expect because of high tourist revenues ensuring some areas get the bugs dealt with.  It doesn't mean it isn't there, just not as prevalent.  And from what I've heard, Haiti hasn't improved that much since I left there in 2004, so I'm willing to bet the malaria and dengue cases have gone up an awful lot.

MM

 

[McG]

I generally enjoy reading David Bercuson's work.  His recent letter in the Globe and Mail offers a nice transition for this thread.  Instead of a focused prediction of failure based on strawmen and clairvoyance,  he offers a prescription for what must happen to achieve some sort of success.

Mostly, I agree with his six points.  However, on point #4, I expect there may be no "NATO trained and equipped partners" to "provide the medical evacuation, logistics, communications and engineering" and so Canada must be capable of providing all of these essentials to our own troops and probably to some of the third world members of the mission as well.

Not your father’s peacekeeping
The government needs to be clear: Canadian troops will be joining wars in progress that are likely to produce casualties
By DAVID BERCUSON
The Globe and Mail , Letters to the Editor
30 Aug 2016

Last Friday, the Liberal government finally announced that Canada’s return to United Nations operations was imminent. Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau had promised in last year’s general election that the Liberals, if elected, would bring Canada back to its glory days as a UN “peacekeeping” contributor, in obvious contrast to the “war making” of Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.

Earlier this month, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan toured Africa to judge for himself the conflict situations in several countries in an effort to decide where a Canadian mission might be most valuable. The actual country where Canadian soldiers (some 600), aid workers and police will go has not yet been decided, although Mali is said to be favoured.

What was notable in the government’s official press release is that the word “peacekeeping” did not appear. The operative word is now “peace operations” because as both Mr. Sajjan and Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion have pointed out on several occasions, any mission to Africa isn’t the “peacekeeping” of old, but far more dangerous and even likely to produce Canadian casualties.

At heart, then, the government may claim that Canadian soldiers sent to, for example, Mali, are going under the rubric of “peace operations,” but in a country where a civil war is still raging (despite an ostensive ceasefire) and several groups of Islamic jihadis are operating, Canadians are joining a war in progress. In fact, at least 44 UN troops have been killed by rebels, jihadis or others in ambushes, bombings and IED strikes there over the past several years. With some 13,000 UN troops trying to keep a lid on the multifaceted war in Mali, it’s hard to see how Canada’s contribution of 600 will affect the conflict, although it will give the government here the ability to claim that another election promise has been fulfilled.

The Canadian government and military learned hard lessons from its deployment in the Balkan civil war of the 1990s and Afghanistan from 2002 to 2011.

Since the government insists on sending troops to join a war in progress, it should study those lessons, not repeat them.

First: Make sure Canadians don’t mistake this mission for the Lester Pearson style of “peacekeeping” that Canada practised during the Cold War, and start by telling its ministers – such as Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale – not to call this mission “peacekeeping” otherwise, Canadians will be greatly shocked when soldiers suffer casualties on this mission. In fact, many more Canadian soldiers have been killed on various UN operations since 1957 than in the Afghan war, but Canadian governments shamefully did their best to play down those casualties.

Second: Do not rely on the mercenaries in blue helmets of Third World countries – who participate in UN missions to earn hard cash for their governments – for Canadian force protection. They have proved in UN mission after UN mission to be essentially unreliable. There have been exceptions, but there is a world of difference between a British battalion and one from, say, Bangladesh.

Third: Ensure that heavy fire power is available when Canadian soldiers need back up. When recently asked what he needs most in Africa, a high official from the UN Peacekeeping Office in New York said “attack helicopters.” Point taken.

Fourth: Ensure that NATO trained and equipped partners provide the medical evacuation, logistics, communications and engineering if Canada cannot provide some or all of these essentials.

Fifth: Ensure that Canadians are equipped with the weapons they can use to defend themselves and are given rules of engagement that will allow them to use those weapons when necessary to fulfill their mandate.

Finally: Decide what Canada is supposed to accomplish and what metrics will be used to measure that accomplishment. Mali and places such the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria and South Sudan are going to be fighting insurgencies and civil wars for decades to come. Do Canadians really want to keep a handful of troops in these dens of hell for a prolonged period of time? 

Director of the Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary and a fellow of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute

 

[medicineman]

Rings similar to what a number of us wrote to the MoD on his open forum about how we thought our troops could be utilized in these peace support, making or whatever buzzword operations we plan on calling these things.  The only real thing I see missing is to ensure there is a national interest in us being there - Colombia makes sense, since it is relatively in our backyard/sphere of influence, and we've been on the receiving end of many of it's illegal exports.  I've also personally helped train some of their soldiers on UNMO courses and enjoyed working with them.  As for Mali/West Africa in general, if we're there to help the French deal with the spread AQ or their descendants, then I'm OK with that...if we're there to take sides in a civil war that has been mistaken for a fight between religious lines, we should probably be running for the hills and looking for something different. 

:2c:

MM

 

[Loachman]

The comments following David Bercuson's column are of much better quality than usual as well, and not very many are cheerleading for the Liberals.

 

[Kirkhill]

From the Globe and Mail - without comment

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/how-ottawa-can-ensure-canada-is-back-on-peacekeeping/article31695494/

TERRY LISTON
How Ottawa can ensure ‘Canada is back’ on peacekeeping
TERRY LISTON
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Sep. 05, 2016 8:00AM EDT
Last updated Monday, Sep. 05, 2016 8:00AM EDT

Major-General Terry Liston (ret.) is the former chief of operations, plans and development of the Canadian Armed Forces. He is currently a Fellow of the Raoul-Dandurand Chair of Strategic and Diplomatic Studies at the University of Quebec in Montreal.

A generation of retired Canadian soldiers, burned by failed, mismanaged United Nations missions in the 1990s, remain outspoken critics of the UN and its peacekeeping. At the same time, nostalgic memories of Nobel Peace Prize-winning Lester B. Pearson drive others to promote a romantic, non-violent return to an era that has long disappeared. A dose of reality tells us that there is no multilateral option, other than the UN, to ensure a peaceful future, but it must adapt to the threats of the modern world.

At this year’s world peacekeeping summit, in London on Sept. 7-8, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan will announce that “Canada is back,” with a force of up to 600 soldiers and 150 police. However, in advising Canadians of this plan last week, the location and composition of that force was not revealed. The UN itself is split on the type of force it requires.


The latest high-level UN panel on peacekeeping, called HIPPO, repeated the long-standing need for the UN to build “robust, fast-deploying first-responder capabilities for the future, drawing upon national and regionally based standing capabilities.” Such forces would be deployed under a Security Council mandate, but they could be either UN or non-UN forces. They must be highly trained soldiers who have the equipment, courage and skill to face the terrorists and armed gangs that decapitate, blow up, assault and kill innocent civilians.

Precedents for robust, third-party intervention include salvaging the mission of the UN force in Sierra Leone in 2000 by a rapidly deployed, non-UN, British battalion of 800 men. In Mali, France stations a non-UN battle group of 1,000 to deal with terrorist activity that the UN force cannot handle. In the Congo, the new, robust 3,000-man, African Intervention brigade took the lead in destroying the M23 militia that had overrun the Eastern Congo in the face of a paralyzed UN force.

As recently as Aug. 12, the Security Council approved the addition of a robust “Regional Protection Force” of 4,000 soldiers for the South Sudanese capital of Juba with a mandate to use lethal force if necessary to protect civilians and other UN personnel. For the Security Council, UN headquarters staff and force commanders, these intervention brigades are the type of reserve required for complex UN missions.

However, “robust” operations are shunned by many countries within the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), including the major troop contributing countries (TCC) such as Bangladesh and India. They remain fixated on the pre-1990s non-combatant “principles of peacekeeping.” Many TCCs do not want such robust units to even be part of the UN force for fear that their own “Blue Helmet” troops will also be seen as combatants and targets for rebel militias. As well, they fear that the UN could lose its image of impartiality, making their job more difficult. Their view is that forceful operations, if required to impose peace, should be conducted outside the UN peacekeeping framework by third-party forces. Thus the UN is establishing liaison procedures for working with third-party forces, while also demanding that “Blue Helmets” conduct robust operations, at the risk of being sent home if they refuse.

In London, Mr. Sajjan should offer to station in Africa a robust, immediately available Canadian battle group, designated as UN First Responders. It would be ready to deploy as a “bridging force” to stabilize a new mission area or intervene rapidly, as a reserve, in a crisis such as the current violence in the South Sudan. A force of 600 soldiers is obviously inadequate and should be increased to more than 1,000 by planning an immediate “flyover” of reinforcements in a crisis. This sort of solution would cause the world’s defence ministers to agree that “Canada is back.”

Anything less will draw a derisive smile.

 

[Old Sweat]

Terry Liston's proposal probably is just what the Liberal brain trust does not want to hear, and it certainly flies in the face of what many or most Canadians imagine peacekeeping to be. Does it have a chance of being pursued? No, if we parse the various statements by ministers and others, but I suppose nothing is out of the question.

For those that don't recognize the name, Terry is a Vandoo who was awarded the MBE in the early sixties for rescuing a casualty from a minefield in the Congo when he was deployed on our UN mission there. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

Terry Liston's proposal probably is just what the Liberal brain trust does not want to hear, and it certainly flies in the face of what many or most Canadians imagine peacekeeping to be. Does it have a chance of being pursued? No, if we parse the various statements by ministers and others, but I suppose nothing is out of the question.

Agreed - although there's lots of help needed, and such a plan would get a lot of "seat on the Security Council" brownie points, that's a whoooooooooooooooooole lot of commitment into a part of the world where results are far from guaranteed.

Also, as you said, in spite of the warnings, this isn't what Canadians imagine peacekeeping to be.

 

[Old Sweat]

Also, as you said, in spite of the warnings, this isn't what Canadians imagine peacekeeping to be.

I would change "imagine peacekeeping to be" to "want peacekeeping to be."

 

[a_majoor]

BZ for David Bercuson. He is laying out the case for ISAF rather than UNPROFOR in a manner that is well thought out and easy to understand by the voting public. It would be nice if there was a strong case to make for how deploying a force into an ongoing war will support our National Interest as well (cough *Columbia* cough), but I suppose half a loaf is better than none.

Wether this sways Gerald Butts and the rest of the Liberal backroom is another issue altogether.

 

[mariomike]

(cough *Columbia* cough),

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

BZ for David Bercuson. He is laying out the case for ISAF rather than UNPROFOR in a manner that is well thought out and easy to understand by the voting public. It would be nice if there was a strong case to make for how deploying a force into an ongoing war will support our National Interest as well (cough *Columbia* cough), but I suppose half a loaf is better than none.

Wether this sways Gerald Butts and the rest of the Liberal backroom is another issue altogether.

Seriously, did Gerald Butts touch you as a child or something? Time to let this go