The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)

[Fishbone Jones]

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

His opinion. If you don't like it, don't read it.

Staff

 

[The Bread Guy]

See what happens when you don't do what you wanted others to do, Team Red?

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

His opinion. If you don't like it, don't read it.

Staff

Fair, but throwing out Gerald Butts as a strawman is both lazy and lacks any sort of validity since I'm sure he doesn't personally know Mr. Butts nor has any real way to confirm what Mr. Butts intends or believes.

If people want to debate peacekeeping, politics, etc they should be able to form articulated arguments that are more than blog posts and name dropping. People who support the Liberals get criticized all the time for less.

My opinion.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

See what happens when you don't do what you wanted others to do, Team Red?

It's insanely hypocritical that the Liberals wont put their mission to a vote, especially since they have a majority and it's guaranteed to pass. It at least appears that they are looking to avoid debate on the matter or criticism.

No matter what stripe of the party, putting troops into conflict should always at least have a house vote and debate. Our soldiers deserve no less.

 

[Good2Golf]

No matter what stripe of the party, putting troops into conflict should always at least have a house vote and debate. Our soldiers deserve no less.

:goodpost:

It is not only an appropriate moral move, but a tactically useful move because it allows the Government of the day to take note of the non-supporters for the next election...

Regards
G2G

 

[OldSolduer]

No matter what stripe of the party, putting troops into conflict should always at least have a house vote and debate. Our soldiers deserve no less.

I quite agree. Its the foundation of democracy.
If I recall, in 1939 Parliament did debate entering WWII and held a vote.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

For those worried about the potential dangers faced in some of these places, it's not only the insurgents/criminals or violence you will need to worry about.

I have a friend who deployed to Haiti a few years ago.  He has had stomach issues ever since which the military medical system chalked up to "malabsorption".  Well he was married this summer and two days after his wedding (which was held in Mexico) he was rushed to the hospital seriously ill. 

The doctors ran a battery of tests on him and found a parasite in his stomach, one they didn't have in that region of Mexico but is found in Haiti.  He had been walking around with a Parasite from his deployment for nearly three years that the military medical system had never found. 

He was given a concoction of drugs by the Mexican Doctors and is now doing much better.  He told me others he deployed with have also suffered with reoccurring stomach issues.  Probably best they all get checked.

 

[The Bread Guy]

It's insanely hypocritical that the Liberals wont put their mission to a vote, especially since they have a majority and it's guaranteed to pass. It at least appears that they are looking to avoid debate on the matter or criticism.

:nod:

No matter what stripe of the party, putting troops into conflict should always at least have a house vote and debate. Our soldiers deserve no less.

It is not only an appropriate moral move, but a tactically useful move because it allows the Government of the day to take note of the non-supporters for the next election...

Even if they don't have to, for transparency's sake, they should - no matter what party colour.

People who support the Liberals get criticized all the time for less.

Sometimes, it's all about the attached 

 

[jmt18325]

His opinion. If you don't like it, don't read it.

As long as we're all on the same page that all opinions are pretty much meaningless.

 

[Journeyman]

As long as we're all on the same page that all opinions are pretty much meaningless.

Not remotely.  :facepalm:

Some opinions are informed by experience and/or credible research (ie - competent sources that may agree or disagree, which are then weighed).  Other opinions, but certainly not all, are  pretty much meaningless.

The key takeaway, (since some people refuse to buy into the rationale of posting informed  opinions), is that all opinions are free to be ignored, if any reader so chooses.  That does not mean that they are all meaningless.



I honestly never thought this concept was so difficult to grasp.  :not-again:

 

[jmt18325]

Not remotely.  :facepalm:

I should have qualified that - all opinions without factual basis or merit, such as those that pretend to be able to see behind closed doors and into people's heads.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It's insanely hypocritical that the Liberals wont put their mission to a vote, especially since they have a majority and it's guaranteed to pass. It at least appears that they are looking to avoid debate on the matter or criticism.

No matter what stripe of the party, putting troops into conflict should always at least have a house vote and debate. Our soldiers deserve no less.

But is constitutionally problematical to put it to a vote. We, Anglo Saxons, have only had a bit more than a thousand years of constraining and containing the sovereign by limiting his or her financial capacity, as opposed to bashing one another with clubs and burning the peasants' crops as was the norm in France, Germany, Italy and Spain and so on and so forth.

The English Constitution, which applies to us just as much as our quite useless and redundant Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982, says that it is the Queen in Council, in other words, the executive, the PM and cabinet, who must decide why, when and where to send ships and troops, but it is the sole and exclusive right of parliament (the Queen in Parliament) to vote or withhold the funds necessary to get them there, keep them there and buy bullets and beans.

It is a finely tuned system, that has worked since the time of the Saxon Witan and, more to the point, since Simon de Montfort, 750 years ago, and it is in every way superior to the clumsy, written "checks and balances" stuff our American friends use.

The proper thing to do is to "inform" Parliament, as Churchill did, regularly in World War II, by using a "take note" debate which allows everyone, the government and the opposition, to get their views "on the record" while not interfering with the legitimate policy prerogatives of the executive. The other proper thing to do is to bring defence estimates to parliament separately when troops are deployed overseas so that each mission may be approved, on an annual basis, or even more often if necessary.

Constitutionally, soldiers "deserve'" their pay, adequate equipment and supplies, and decent political leadership .. what they get is (constitutionally) unimportant. In the "fusion of powers" system we have the distinct roles and responsibilities and rights of the PM and cabinet, on one hand, and parliament, on the other, are vital and we must not mix them up because some of us have some misguided desire to import bits and pieces of the American system into Canada; that's just silly.

 

[Altair]

But is constitutionally problematical to put it to a vote. We, Anglo Saxons, have only had a bit more than a thousand years of constraining and containing the sovereign by limiting his or her financial capacity, as opposed to bashing one another with clubs and burning the peasants' crops as was the norm in France, Germany, Italy and Spain and so on and so forth.

The English Constitution, which applies to us just as much as our quite useless and redundant Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982, says that it is the Queen in Council, in other words, the executive, the PM and cabinet, who must decide why, when and where to send ships and troops, but it is the sole and exclusive right of parliament (the Queen in Parliament) to vote or withhold the funds necessary to get them there, keep them there and buy bullets and beans.

It is a finely tuned system, that has worked since the time of the Saxon Witan and, more to the point, since Simon de Montfort, 750 years ago, and it is in every way superior to the clumsy, written "checks and balances" stuff our American friends use.

The proper thing to do is to "inform" Parliament, as Churchill did, regularly in World War II, by using a "take note" debate which allows everyone, the government and the opposition, to get their views "on the record" while not interfering with the legitimate policy prerogatives of the executive. The other proper thing to do is to bring defence estimates to parliament separately when troops are deployed overseas so that each mission may be approved, on an annual basis, or even more often if necessary.

Constitutionally, soldiers "deserve'" their pay, adequate equipment and supplies, and decent political leadership .. what they get is (constitutionally) unimportant. In the "fusion of powers" system we have the distinct roles and responsibilities and rights of the PM and cabinet, on one hand, and parliament, on the other, are vital and we must not mix them up because some of us have some misguided desire to import bits and pieces of the American system into Canada; that's just silly.

This is what they should do, and I believe they will come to this conclusion sooner or later.

The MOD backpedaling on the no vote stance already shows that they aren't liking the way this is being framed. Again, this has happened before on at least two separate occasions so I believe it will happen here too. No point burning political capital refusing to hold a vote on a vote you would easily pass.

 

[a_majoor]

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

Why is it wrong to reference the person in charge of things? If we don't know or understand the reasoning behind these decisions then we are going into this blind.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Why is it wrong to reference the person in charge of things? If we don't know or understand the reasoning behind these decisions then we are going into this blind.

Mostly since I don't genuinely believe that you A) Know he's the person in charge and B) know he's making decisions.

For context, I also dont believe that Karl Rove called all the shots for Bush.

 

[jmt18325]

Why is it wrong to reference the person in charge of things? If we don't know or understand the reasoning behind these decisions then we are going into this blind.

This is where you need to provide evidence.  The normal assumption would be that the person making decisions is one Mr. Justin PJ Trudeau.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

But is constitutionally problematical to put it to a vote. We, Anglo Saxons, have only had a bit more than a thousand years of constraining and containing the sovereign by limiting his or her financial capacity, as opposed to bashing one another with clubs and burning the peasants' crops as was the norm in France, Germany, Italy and Spain and so on and so forth.

The English Constitution, which applies to us just as much as our quite useless and redundant Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982, says that it is the Queen in Council, in other words, the executive, the PM and cabinet, who must decide why, when and where to send ships and troops, but it is the sole and exclusive right of parliament (the Queen in Parliament) to vote or withhold the funds necessary to get them there, keep them there and buy bullets and beans.

It is a finely tuned system, that has worked since the time of the Saxon Witan and, more to the point, since Simon de Montfort, 750 years ago, and it is in every way superior to the clumsy, written "checks and balances" stuff our American friends use.

The proper thing to do is to "inform" Parliament, as Churchill did, regularly in World War II, by using a "take note" debate which allows everyone, the government and the opposition, to get their views "on the record" while not interfering with the legitimate policy prerogatives of the executive. The other proper thing to do is to bring defence estimates to parliament separately when troops are deployed overseas so that each mission may be approved, on an annual basis, or even more often if necessary.

Constitutionally, soldiers "deserve'" their pay, adequate equipment and supplies, and decent political leadership .. what they get is (constitutionally) unimportant. In the "fusion of powers" system we have the distinct roles and responsibilities and rights of the PM and cabinet, on one hand, and parliament, on the other, are vital and we must not mix them up because some of us have some misguided desire to import bits and pieces of the American system into Canada; that's just silly.

I would argue that, in spite of the system, political "leadership" would involve extensive debate and rational reasons for sending soldiers into harms way when there is no existential threat to the nation. There is no rush to deploy soldiers to a UN mission so the proper "leadership" from our political masters would be to debate and explain the 'why'. I would do this for any soldier under my command in such a case, and I think the CAF deserves the same.

As this is a peacekeeping thread and not a political systems one I wont get into my feelings on our lack of checks and balances. Great discussion for a different thread.

 

[Altair]

This is where you need to provide evidence.  The normal assumption would be that the person making decisions is one Mr. Justin PJ Trudeau.

truthiness requires no evidence.

Or feels over facts.

 

[Altair]

https://www.google.ca/amp/news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadas-peacekeeping-mission-in-africa-will-use-force-if-necessary-to-protect-civilians-defence-minister/amp?client=ms-android-rogers-ca

OTTAWA — Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says protecting civilians — by force if needed — will be central to any Canadian peacekeeping mission in Africa, and that Canada will expect troops from partner countries to operate on the same principle.

In an interview with The Canadian Press, Sajjan said he is concerned that despite having “robust” mandates and rules of engagement to act, peacekeepers from some countries have failed to intervene in cases where civilians have been attacked.

The willingness of prospective partners to act when required is one factor being considered as the Liberal government determines where to send upwards of 600 Canadian soldiers, he added.
“When Canada goes in, yes, we will be fulfilling that mandate of protection of civilians and proactively acting in that manner. And we expect other nations to do the same thing,” he said. “That’s one concern I do have and I will be looking at that all the way through.”

The comments follow several incidents in South Sudan, including one in July in which peacekeepers failed to respond for hours as local soldiers attacked and raped foreign aid workers at a nearby hotel.

Peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Mali have also been accused of not doing enough to protect civilians from attacks by local militias and insurgents. The mandate and rules of engagement for all three peacekeeping missions allow the use of deadly force to protect civilians if needed.

Complaints about peacekeepers standing aside while civilians are attacked are not new. The UN’s failure to stop mass atrocities in Bosnia and Rwanda in the 1990s largely prompted western countries such as Canada to move away from peacekeeping.

The problems of 20 years ago related to weak mandates and limited rules of engagement from the UN Security Council, says Richard Gowan, a peacekeeping expert at the Center on International Cooperation in New York.

But the UN learned from those mistakes, he said. The protection of civilians is front and centre in both mission mandates and the rules of engagement allowing peacekeepers to use force. The problem now is with individual member states.

“Countries not only have formal caveats on their troop use,” he said, “they in some cases have secret caveats such as instructions to their troops to avoid taking action or phone back to the capital.”

Blame for not responding to the July attack in South Sudan has been largely directed at Chinese, Ethiopian and Nepali troops. The Ethiopian contingent had already been criticized along with those from India and Rwanda for not intervening when violence broke out at a UN camp in February, killing at least 30 people.

An investigation by the UN blamed “confusion with respect to command and control and the rules of engagement,” as well as a lack of co-ordination between various peacekeeping units at the time.

There have been some suggestions that Canadian troops should answer to Ottawa first and foremost as well, rather than the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations in New York.

Speaking against the Liberals’ peacekeeping plan on Thursday, Conservative defence critic James Bezan asked a series of questions, including: “Will UN bureaucracy interfere with our chain of command?”

But Sajjan pushed back against the idea. Rather, he said, the government has been talking with other countries about making sure the UN force commanders on the ground have the flexibility to be able to make quick decisions and protect civilians without having to check with national capitals.

“I want to limit caveats, because by putting more caveats and decision-making processes, that doesn’t allow for the troops on the ground to be able to respond,” he said. “And having experienced that in many different cases, I can assure you how important that actually is to the commander on the ground.”

Sajjan’s comments are part of a push by western countries to eliminate caveats and make sure all peacekeeping countries are willing and able to do what’s necessary to protect civilians, said Gowan.

But no matter what, Canada will need some type of contingency plan to make sure the troops are supported in a dangerous situation, he said.

“Ottawa is going to have to not merely put troops on the ground, but actually do quite a lot of diplomatic work to calculate which countries it feels it is safe to operate alongside,” he said. “And do you want to have contingency planning and have capacity to get your guys out in a worst-case scenario? Yes.”

Seems like the ROEs will different from peacekeeping missions past.

And this is from the MOD, not some party fundraiser.

People happy yet?

 

[Edward Campbell]

I would argue that, in spite of the system, political "leadership" would involve extensive debate and rational reasons for sending soldiers into harms way when there is no existential threat to the nation. There is no rush to deploy soldiers to a UN mission so the proper "leadership" from our political masters would be to debate and explain the 'why'. I would do this for any soldier under my command in such a case, and I think the CAF deserves the same.

As this is a peacekeeping thread and not a political systems one I wont get into my feelings on our lack of checks and balances. Great discussion for a different thread.

Which is precisely why a "take note" debate is the proper answer. Churchill was right, the House of Commons has to be informed and it must be allowed to speak its mind, but the prerogative to deploy armed forces belongs to the Queen in Council, the executive, the PM and cabinet. Parliament constrains and contains the executive by controlling, absolutely, the public purse. That's the check and that's the balance ... or it would be if Pierre Trudeau had not changed Canada into a European style illiberal parliamentary democracy back circa 1969-71.