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

The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)

Status
Not open for further replies.
MCG said:
For curiosities sake, where did this term come from?  Is there a doctrine that defines it? 

I think it is probably as often missused as "peacekeeping."  Both words seem to be something that is often thrown out there to make the nation feel good about a mission.

I think it just appeared without any specific doctrinal underpinning.  Frankly, "peacemaking" has Orwellian undertones to it...lots of things could be labelled "peacemaking" that involve not very peaceful people doing not very peaceful things.

I'd rather that "peacekeeping" just got accepted as another military task.  So, at any given time, we may have forces involved in "peacekeeping", while other forces are "warfighting/attacking/defending/whatever", others are doing "humanitarian assistance", and so on.  The unfortunate thing about "peacekeeping" is that it got conflated into the actual role of the CF in many public minds, rather than just something, among many things, the CF can do.
 
MCG said:
For curiosities sake, where did this term come from?  Is there a doctrine that defines it? 

If I was listening during my classes at the PPC the term "peacemaking came as part of the new package to describe future ops, this was occurring at the same time 3 block war was being discussed. The term was one of the three pillars to the "peace support ops" concept which has Peacemaking, Peacekeeping and Nation building as its three pillars. It is similar to the three block war. If memory serves me correctly.

  As a side note IMHO the three block war and Peace support ops is nothing new. We have been doing them for years it is just now that people are applying a name to what is occurring on the battlefield. It was made very obvious during the Balkan campaigns in the 90s.
 
I thought this term came straight from Chapter VII of the UN Charter, but I couldn't see it having just quickly skimmed it.  I do remember it becoming vogue about the time mentioned, when critics argued we weren't really 'peacekeeping' during missions where the peace had not yet been established.  I imagine the term came out of those debates, as a step further than, but trying to keep in the same line of thinking, rather than labelling it 'war'.
 
Nieghorn said:
I thought this term came straight from Chapter VII of the UN Charter, but I couldn't see it having just quickly skimmed it.  I do remember it becoming vogue about the time mentioned, when critics argued we weren't really 'peacekeeping' during missions where the peace had not yet been established.  I imagine the term came out of those debates, as a step further than, but trying to keep in the same line of thinking, rather than labelling it 'war'.

Maybe this will help:

Straight from the United Nations (Department of Political Affairs):

Their "Peacemaking Section"

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/peace.html

And the United Nations "Peacemaker" Website:

http://peacemaker.unlb.org/index1.php
 
Thank you, The Librarian.  You more than live up to your moniker!  :)
 
Thanks, Librarian.  So it's not just a buzzword.  However, we still don't have any specific doctrine attached to this term--that I'm aware of, anyway.
 
I think the best term to describe what Canada does now is or at least attempts to do is 'Stabilization'.  I think peacemaking is a bit of a misnomer, because there's no way there's going to be lasting peace in that country- you'd have to literally kill everyone.  The most we can hope for is to stablize it enough to allow the local government to take over all operations and deal with their people without need for large-scale international aid.  Just my thoughts though.
 
Bobby Rico said:
I think the best term to describe what Canada does now is or at least attempts to do is 'Stabilization'.  I think peacemaking is a bit of a misnomer, because there's no way there's going to be lasting peace in that country- you'd have to literally kill everyone.  The most we can hope for is to stablize it enough to allow the local government to take over all operations and deal with their people without need for large-scale international aid.  Just my thoughts though.

Thanks for restating the obvious. At the risk of swinging this off topic, please read the following before posting anymore.

Army.ca Conduct Guidelines: MUST READ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html

MSN and ICQ "short hand" -  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33247.0.html

Regarding the use of "MSN speak" versus the employment of prose which is correct in grammar, spelling and punctuation, please see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34015/post-260446.html#msg260446

Tone and Content on Army.ca: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51970.0.html

FRIENDLY ADVICE TO NEW MEMBERS - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937/post-259412.html#msg259412

Recruiting FAQ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21101.0.html

    * Canadian Forces Aptitude Test - http://army.ca/forums/threads/21101/post-103977.html#msg103977
    * Fitness requirements at enrolment, see page 12 of this brochure: http://64.254.158.112/pdf/physical_fitness_en.pdf


Infantry FAQ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21131.0.html

Search page - http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search;advanced

Google search of Army.ca - http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=+site%3Aarmy.ca+%22search+term%22&btnG=Search&meta= (follow the link then replace "search term" with what you are looking for)

Army.ca wiki pages - http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Main_Page


To summarize. Welcome to Army.ca, start reading.
 
Recceguy

As I have already posted those important links for him to aquaint himself with, I think it is time to introduce him to the WARNING SYSTEM.
 
The Librarian said:
Maybe this will help:

Straight from the United Nations (Department of Political Affairs):
When there is no supporting doctrine, I'm not certain this is anything more than making buzzwords official.

More here with: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/peacebuilding.html
 
Canadian forces want more than just to keep the peace
A military at war with peacekeeping
Feb 24, 2007 04:30 AM James Travers National Affairs Columnist
Article Link

OTTAWA–Canadian soldiers are fighting something in Afghanistan beyond the Taliban, opium warlords and entrenched corruption: They are struggling with an image of themselves the military loathes and the country loves.

Led by Rick Hillier, arguably the most aggressive and political chief of the defence staff ever, the armed forces, particularly the army, are tearing down the dated poster of Canada as the world's peacekeeper. The clear signal flashing home from Kandahar is that Canadians in war zones are combat-ready troops who can also keep the peace, not do-gooders who in a pinch can be pressed into action.

No doubt public perception trails international realities. Once able to boast that this country invented peacekeeping and always formed its vanguard, Canada fell from its United Nations pedestal in the '90s after bad experiences in Bosnia, Zaire and, most of all, Somalia.

As former Liberal foreign and defence minister Bill Graham diplomatically puts it: "Our military, to some level, lost faith in the UN to command those missions."

That wasn't all that changed in the decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Many small conflicts and the big threat of Islamic fundamentalism emerged from the Cold War. So did a political and military consensus that it was time for Canada to reassert its international place.

Those factors contributed both to Hillier's swift promotion and to Canada's 2005 decision to dispatch a provincial reconstruction team south to Afghanistan's worst neighbourhood. In trumping rivals for the top job, Hillier sold to then-prime minister Paul Martin the vision of a tough, nimble military and that Afghanistan was the right place at the right time to demonstrate that new capacity to help stabilize failed and failing states.

If anything, the fit was too perfect. While Martin had reservations about Afghanistan and forced a commitment from Hillier to reserve enough strength to intervene elsewhere, the Kandahar mission was an opportunity to define changing priorities while repairing the diplomatic damage done by Canada's refusal to join the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

But that last giant step away from traditional peacemaking and into post-modern conflict resolution and democracy-building was then – and continues to be – accident-prone. Put bluntly, Canada bit off more than it could chew.
More on link
 
Mr Travers disdain for the military in general and PM Harper and Gen Hillier in particular always clouds his ability to be an objective journalist. He should stick to his shilling for the Liberal party, he is a shinning star in that capability.
 
FSTO said:
Mr Travers disdain for the military in general and PM Harper and Gen Hillier in particular always clouds his ability to be an objective journalist. He should stick to his shilling for the Liberal party, he is a shinning star in that capability.

Personally, I find this article quite reasonable.

Bill Graham is quoted as saying, ” "Our military, to some level, lost faith in the UN to command those missions.".  Speaking for myself and, I think I’m on safe ground when I say for those around me (one or two up and one or two down) Mr. Graham should have said, ”Our military, at almost every level, saw its always limited faith in the UN to command our missions shattered by continued administrative and diplomatic ineptitude and institutional corruption.”

The idea that Hillier hoodwinked Martin is a canard spread by a former Liberal ministerial aide (Eugene Lang, Graham’s political chief-of-staff).  Jean Chrétien decided – against military advice – to commit to ISAF in Kabul.  He did so in order to avoid being asked/pressured to join the coalition of the willing in Iraq.  Martin wanted, indeed – for the same pressure resisting reasons – needed to stay in Afghanistan but he dithered, comme d’habitude, when asked to decide on Kabul vs. PRT and then which PRT.  Provincial Reconstruction Team sounded soooo much better to the spin doctors so there we went but, by the time Martin had been briefed and re-briefed and had argued all the implications and ramifications into the ground all the nice, easy PRTs were gone – taken by the French, Germans, Italians, etc.  That left Kandahar.  There is no doubt that suited Hillier’s view that we should be away from the ISAF Eurotrash – heavily armed tourists and that we should be developing a new generation of combat leaders in the early years of the 21st century.  But, and of this I am absolutely certain, there is no way that a CDS – no matter how charismatic – won any argument when the PM and the Clerk of the Privy Council (Alex Himmelfarb, then) were in the room.  If Paul Martin was persuaded it was because he heard what he wanted to hear.  Paul Martin was doing his own foreign policy review and he had his own ideas about a new, much more robust role for Canada.

The drive-by smear of “Canada’s new government” is, in my view spot on.  I have said before and I repeat: I do not believe Prime Minister Harper had any rationale at all for extending the Afghan mission except to embarrass the Liberals in parliament.  I think, he (Harper) does have a vision of Canada as a ‘leading middle power’ – à la Louis St Laurent but I doubt that he has or will give much serious attention to what kind of military we ought to have.  I think he, quite properly, sees our foreign and defence policies as enablers, not ends in themselves; that being the case he probably sees military organizations and operations as very subordinate issues, indeed – best left to bureaucrats and military men.  In short he knows little and cares less about the military; it is a tool which he will use when the problem requires it.

I think Travers is also correct to note that new peacekeeping is still an option for Canada.  When we are out of Afghanistan – and we will be out, someday, maybe in 2009, more likely somewhere around 2019 – there will still be plenty of demands for our military forces.  We are, as Ruxted has pointed out and as Travers repeats, one of the world’s few militarily capable nations.  Above that we are one of the few militarily capable nations which is not viewed around the world as a George Bush lapdog.  There will be situations where we will be the right choice to lead peacekeeping missions, Travers is right about that.  He is also right about the fact that they will not be Cyprus/UNEF II missions where commanders worry more about the new swimming pool than about patrol reports – these new missions will be “gritty” and “risky” and everything else.  It is possible, I hope, that Canada will not tolerate too much UN management – we must have learned something in a half-century of dealing with those clowns.  We will, as we should, demand a UN mandate but, hopefully, we will have enough smart people in the Privy Council Office and in our foreign affairs and defence bureaucracies to organize UN approved and sponsored coalitions in which we can play a leading role – if we cannot lead we should not volunteer.  We do this stuff in pursuit of our national interests – helping black folks, etc is a secondary aim.  If the mission does not promote our vital interests then we should let George do it, as an old saying goes.

I think this, his concluding paragraph, is 100% accurate: ”If the military has its way, Afghanistan will finally shoot dead Canada's peacekeeping image. But killing it will distance a lot of Canadians from how they see themselves and how they want to be seen by the world.”



 
I agree with a lot of what ER says but I don't agree that Harper cares less about the military. I think he is very supportive and realises that we have a very important role to play in the life of this country. that role has been down played and degraded by the Liberals. Peacekeeping was a cheap way to have "military lite."  I think Harper realizes that in order to meet his Foreign policy aims he's got to spend some money to get us up to snuff and make us balanced and flexible enough to meet the new challenges.
 
There is something undoubtedly Machiavellian about this article, it seems to me it is a sniff of Canadians acceptability towards what it is unmistakably a future Liberal policy.

Most telling to me why this article is far off the mark itself is the comment that the conservatives missed an opportunity to gain consecessions from Pakistan and the Karzi government (a rather hollow argument to me), and how history will measure what each government's missteps were.

What has that got to do with it? Mr Travers, and many others, forget too well the shock of what really heralded the significant change that precipitated our involvement in Afghanistan, and marked the true end of any mythological peacekeeping Canadains held so dear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCvOjFbeNzs&mode=related&search=
I think history will look back years from now on those who stood up after that event, went to where the source of such vile hostility existed, and stayed the course to do whatever was needed to until some measure of stability could be found, as being far stronger morally, whose intentions are far more admirable, than those who saw that they underestimated their political opportunities and risks.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
I think this, his concluding paragraph, is 100% accurate: ”If the military has its way, Afghanistan will finally shoot dead Canada's peacekeeping image. But killing it will distance a lot of Canadians from how they see themselves and how they want to be seen by the world.”

I think too many Canadians are in love with the title of the book "Peacekeeping" and don't bother to actually read it. This has been the theme of many of my book reports and essays of late and the point I like to argue is that Canadians love the idea of peacekeeping and eagerly attach it to our national culture, but if you asked Canadians "What is peacekeeping?" the best response you would get is a blank stare.

Had they (Canadian public) known that Pearson's original idea of peacekeeping did not really care about the Egyptians or Israelis, but rather to keep two nuclear powers from going at it, and to save British and French face. Had they known that peacekeeping's 3 guiding principles (Consent, impartiality and returning fire only in self defence) had been Peacekeeping's major downfall under 1990's Chapter VII missions. Had they known the relative unsuccesfulness of UN missions due to poorly organized logistics and nonexistent UN political will they might think twice about Peacekeeping. The UN did not give us the means to achieve the objectives, NATO does.
 
I'm not sure but I think I agree with all of you!

In short, to be a middle power Canada has to exercise some power.

The war on terror and our own sovereignty are both worthy causes.
But the Canadian public still have not come to terms with two things:

1. We now have a real live enemy. Yes we are at war - like or not.
The 9-11 was only a very small symptom of something far more dangerous.
Islamic fundamentalism, Pan-arab nationalism or whatever you want to call it,
is going to cause us some lumps.  I think we would all agree that we would rather
have people on the other side of the world sort out their own problems but.........
The western powers esp. the USA and Israel have been labeled(incorrectly)
the major obstacle to the ambitions of people like Osama. 

The rise of NAZIism and the rise of these movements have some interesting similarities.

2.We MUST have a robust military establishment.

If it were up to some liberals or perhaps NDP'ers I'm sure the military
would be reduced to armed security details for diplomats.
Sadly - diplomacy has failed to bring us out of the cold war into the peaceful
new world order.  We cannot "persuade people with the power of our ideas"
( Lloyd Axeworthy) when they have ideas of their own. 

We (western powers) have to step up and impose some moderation, control,
prosperity, law and order, democracy etc.













 
1+ flip, well said.

The UN IMHO has become an organization that will try to solve your problems as long as they fall between 9-5, mon-fri excluding almost (ALL) any holiday taken by any member country; and will respond within 10 or so years.

I think the author should get off his knees, and take a look at what we (not just the CF) are doing in Afghanistan and in other countries around the world; and have done in the past 100 years, and be a proud Canadian not make our wonderful country sound like a bunch of American want-to-bees (no offence of any kind meant towards out southern nabours). 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top