The Congo (merged)

[Infanteer]

What do you consider to be our vital national interests?

The million dollar question.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

For an interesting view on the topic of interests and values, see Michael Ignatieff's 2004 Skelton Lecture here:

http://www.international.gc.ca/odskelton/ignatieff.aspx?lang=eng

The rest of the lectures are available here:

http://www.international.gc.ca/odskelton/lectures-conferences.aspx?lang=eng&menu_id=8&menu=R

 

[Edward Campbell]

For an interesting view on the topic of interests and values, see Michael Ignatieff's 2004 Skelton Lecture here:

http://www.international.gc.ca/odskelton/ignatieff.aspx?lang=eng

The rest of the lectures are available here:

http://www.international.gc.ca/odskelton/lectures-conferences.aspx?lang=eng&menu_id=8&menu=R

...
Ignatieff came to the (Canadian political) fore after a barn-burner of a speech at the 2005 Liberal convention. He can be engaged and passionate, as he (evidently) was in Toronto in 2005. Perhaps his problem, in the intervening five years, is that he really doesn’t believe in what he’s selling. The Liberal brain trust is looking for another Trudeau. I do not think Iggy Iffy Icarus is that – not in his heart and mind, anyway. He is, I guess, a classical liberal pragmatist, in the mould of St Laurent and Pearson, not an ideologue like Trudeau or Harper, nor a retail politician like Mulroney or Chrétien. But I doubt the core of the Liberal Party of Canada Toronto has room for any classical liberal pragmatists.

Big L Liberal and liberal have been at odds since 1967.

And see here.

It is interesting to try to tie the current Michael Ignatieff, Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, with the Ignatieff of 2004/05 who could say …

”Our … task as Canadians is to preserve our national independence. We face a geopolitical reality unlike any other country: The greatest challenge to our sovereignty comes not from our enemies, but from our best friend. Canadian-American relations are the central issue of Canadian politics in the next generation. Liberals have always said no to anti-Americanism … We are reliable neighbours, good friends, but firm defenders of our sovereignty … But we cannot defend our sovereignty with sermons. We must have our own military, intelligence-gathering capacity, immigration and border controls, control of our air space. Our independence depends on our being a credible partner in the struggle to keep North America safe from terrorist attack. Like it or not, we are next door to the primary target of global terrorism. We must invest to ensure we are never a terrorist transit point or a terrorist haven … In the world's failed and failing states, the most urgent human need is security. People at the mercy of tyrants and gunmen need protection first of all. To protect them, we have to have the capacity to fire back. We do not want to repeat Rwanda … We owe this to our men and women in uniform. And to the world.” (Speech to the March 2005 Liberal national convention)

and

”Defence of our independence should dictate the terms of our co-operation with the Americans on immigration, border security and continental defence. Our independence cannot be defended by anyone else: so we have to pay for it, with a national defence capability that can secure our borders and protect our people, in alliance with others, but in fundamental independence of their capabilities and capacities. We should not sell our co-operation cheaply, but we can only strike the right bargain if we have adequate capabilities. I line up squarely with those -- like Jack Granatstein-- who have been saying for years that we do not spend enough on intelligence, border security and national defence, and we do not know what to spend it on. We need to spend with a vital interest in mind: maintaining, securing and defending the territorial integrity of Canada and the safety of Canadians at home and overseas. Peacekeeping in Haiti and Afghanistan is worthwhile, but peacekeeping alone cannot provide the sole content of our defence posture. We need to keep our own borders secure; we need special forces capability for rescue and counter-terrorist activity. We need to substantially bolster our intelligence-gathering and evaluation capabilities. However we reconfigure our armed forces, and I am no defender of the separate identities or procurement budgets of our forces, we need to maintain combat-capable land forces and we still need to have boats to secure our coast lines and planes to patrols our skies. Independence has to guide our defence decisions. We do not want to arrive at a situation where Canadian lives are in danger, at home or abroad, and we have to be dependent on someone else's capabilities, whether diplomatic, intelligence or military, to get us out of trouble. A helping hand from a friend is one thing, dependency is another. A helping hand to a friend is one thing -- and so we should provide security co-operation, border monitoring in a close and co-operative manner -- but subservience is another. Negatively, we must not be dependent, and we must not be subservient. Positively, we must stand on our own two feet.” (2004 Skelton lecture)

 

[PPCLI Guy]

And see here.

It is interesting to try to tie the current Michael Ignatieff, Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, with the Ignatieff of 2004/05 who could say …

And that guy is the one that I believe the country needs right now - just wish I could find him!

 

[Edward Campbell]

And that guy is the one that I believe the country needs right now - just wish I could find him!

Too true ... because we aren't allowed to say +1 any more.

 

[GAP]

Too true ... because we aren't allowed to say +1 any more.

Uhhh.....ERC....it was you who complained about the (unmentionable number with the plus sign).... ;D

 

[MarkOttawa]

Post  at Unambiguously Ambidextrous:

The Globe and Mail’s stinking agenda, Congo section
http://unambig.com/the-globe-and-mails-stinking-agenda-congo-section/

In a story he clearly worked hard to create, ace agenda-ist Geoffrey York in Johannesburg singles out Canada for not helping the UN peacekeeping force with helicopters.  What about the US, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden etc., etc., etc.? Then there’s Portugal, eh?  None of them seems to want to anwer the call either...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[goalie_66@hotmail.com]

Over the last 15 years with the problems in the Democratic Republic of Congo going out of control and the UN mission moving from only a couple thousand to over 20,000 soldiers(from 50 + countries) Why is it the CF only sees fit to put in four officers. Considering that one of the goals in Afghanistan is equality of women. Anybody who spends five min looking at any credible sources coming out of the DRC knows that it is the world focal point for committing violence against women. On top of that it is geographically located in the middle of Africa which allows for the region as a whole to be destabilized. Don’t get me wrong I understand there is a large commitment in materials and men in Afghanistan and I am not suggesting we send a battle group but perhaps with the recent loss of the security council seat Canada may want to step it up to show a committee for world security beyond the middle east if it ever hopes of getting back on the security council. 

 

[medicineman]

Why is it the CF only sees fit to put in four officers?

That's what the government told us to send.

MM

 

[Journeyman]

Two for two.  :

You've joined this site and immediately started two threads, where the topic is already being discussed.

The thread on The Congo even discusses things like "national interest."

 

[a_majoor]

Looking a bit up post, I am somewhat surprised that Edward did not bring out St. Laurent's 1947 Grey Lectures as a starting point to define our "national interests".

To date I haven't seen anything to compare, and thinking about this I can see the influence in some of the measures we have taken since (memberships in various multilateral organizations like the OAS, WTO etc., the FTA and NAFTA in the economic sphere and our increasing engagement in military missions since the 1990's).

Maybe if Mr Ignatieff could find a phone booth and emerge as the 2005 version, or some deep thinker out there could start the debate for real, then we would be able to choose which missions to participate in in the knowledge that they are important to Canada, and that we have the will and resources to see things through.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Why the Globe and Mail is not a newspaper, Part 2 (Congo section)
http://unambig.com/why-the-globe-and-mail-is-not-a-newspaper-part-2-congo-section/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[OldSolduer]

What will be the cost in human terms? OSIs, physical wounds, broken relationships, suicide, susbtance abuse...

 

[GAP]

This seem to be the appropriate thread to put this in without starting a new thread.

The Blog is about treating the rape victims in the Congo on a first person basis..........very powerful story.

the king effect
an account of living and working around Butembo, North Kivu, in the Democratic Republic of Congo

Article Link

Notes From a Young American in Congo: Treating Rape Victims, for Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Deja vu all over again - Globe & Mail again picks on Canada doing nothing about Congo:

It has become a grim Christmas ritual: hundreds of innocent civilians massacred in remote corners of Africa by the Lord’s Resistance Army, one of the world’s cruellest and bloodiest guerrilla forces.

Now, fearing a Christmas attack for the third consecutive year, the United Nations is mobilizing 900 peacekeepers to protect villages in Congo, and the United States has promised its own action against the LRA.

It has become a grim Christmas ritual: hundreds of innocent civilians massacred in remote corners of Africa by the Lord’s Resistance Army, one of the world’s cruellest and bloodiest guerrilla forces.

Now, fearing a Christmas attack for the third consecutive year, the United Nations is mobilizing 900 peacekeepers to protect villages in Congo, and the United States has promised its own action against the LRA.

(....)

“It is unbelievable that world leaders continue to tolerate brutal violence against some of the most isolated villages in central Africa, and that this has been allowed to continue for more than 20 years,” said Marcel Stoessel, head of the Congo office of Oxfam, one of 19 humanitarian and human-rights groups that issued a report this month calling for tougher action against the LRA.

“This Christmas, families in northeastern Congo will live in fear of yet another massacre, despite the presence of the world’s largest peacekeeping mission,” he said.

The LRA has emerged as a classic test of the “right to protect” doctrine, championed by former Canadian foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy and others. The concept of “right to protect” suggests that the international community has the right to intervene in sovereign states to prevent atrocities and protect civilians. Canada took a leading role in pushing the concept and getting it adopted at a world summit in 2005 after the furor over the UN’s failure to act during massacres in Rwanda and Kosovo in the 1990s. But the concept was dropped when Stephen Harper became prime minister in 2006 ....

 

[MarkOttawa]

Some very wise words from Louis Delvoie in the current issue (p. 28) of On Track, the magazine of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute:

What Next for the Canadian Forces? Not the Congo
http://cda-cdai.ca/cdai/uploads/cdai/ontrack15n4.pdf

With the end of Canada’s involvement in combat operations in Afghanistan now in sight, the media have begun to publish articles speculating on where the Canadian Forces might next be deployed. Without saying so explicitly, these articles seem to suggest that because Canada now has a well-trained, well equipped and battle hardened army, that army should be sent abroad somewhere once it has finished its Afghan mission. This is rather curious reasoning. It tends to ignore the fact that the Canadian Forces exist to protect and promote the security and interests of Canada and Canadians. In the absence of any threat to that security or those interests, the Canadian Forces should remain in their barracks against the day when such a threat may emerge. To deploy them abroad simply because of their capabilities is sheer nonsense.

This line of argument is, of course, totally lost on proponents of the so-called human security agenda who advocate using the Canadian Forces to defend civilian populations at risk in civil war situations around the world, even in the absence of any discernible Canadian interest. The main focus of these proponents at the moment seems to be the Democratic Republic of the Congo [with the Globe and Mail in the lead],
http://unambig.com/why-the-globe-and-mail-is-not-a-newspaper-part-2-congo-section/
where fifteen years of civil wars have produced some five million dead and hundreds of thousands of rape victims. It is undeniable that the situation in the Congo represents a humanitarian tragedy of epic proportions. This is not, however, sufficient reason to dispatch a Canadian contingent to join the United Nations (UN) force now thrashing around more or less hopelessly in the eastern regions of the Congo.

Any decision by the Canadian government on whether or not to deploy forces to the Congo should be informed by a cool and reasoned analysis of some historical facts and contemporary realities…

What the Canadian government should not do is consider sending a contingent of the Canadian Forces to join MONUC [actually now MONUSCO].
http://monusco.unmissions.org/
What advocates of this course of action seem to believe is that the addition of some well-trained Canadian troops, equipped with armoured vehicle and helicopters, will be sufficient to transform MONUC into a force capable of protecting all civilians and restoring peace, law and order in the Congo. This belief is at best naïve, at worst hubristic. It totally ignores the dimensions and complexities of the conflicts in the Congo.

By sending a contingent to the Congo, the Canadian government would be exposing its troops to an endlessly frustrating and thankless mission with no end in sight, and this in a country replete with dangers, corruption and disease. Coming on top of a ten-year involvement in an Afghan mission whose outcome is anything but certain, new commitments could sap the morale of the Canadian Forces involved. This would not be in the best interests of the Forces or of the country.

Louis Delvoie is Senior Fellow at the Centre for International Relations, Queen’s University.
http://www.queensu.ca/cir/?q=node/14
He is a former Canadian high commissioner to Pakistan.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

To have any impact on the situation, we would need to send a full division to the Congo. In order to do that, we would need a minimum of three divisions of troops and equipment in the Army, and air and naval elements to support such a force (in addition to doing their own jobs of surveillance and protection of Canadian air and sea space).

I wonder if the writers at the Globe thought of that, calculated the costs or are in any way advocating for tripling or quadrupling the size of the CF and providing the attendant equipment, infrastructure and training funds to match?