• 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.
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?
 
PuckChaser said:
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?

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. 
 
Tango2Bravo said:
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.

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. 
 
George Wallace 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.
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.
 
This "killer peacekeeping" mission seems likely for CAF--what will the government contribute?

Canadian UN Peacekeeping in Mali? RCAF Helicopters?

Further to these posts,

"Netherlands and UN Peacekeeping (sort of) in Mali–Canada?"
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/04/18/mark-collins-netherlands-and-un-peacekeeping-sort-of-in-mali-canada/

"Canadian Government’s Peacekeeping Heart: With France in Africa it Seems"
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/15/mark-collins-canadian-governments-peacekeeping-heart-with-france-in-africa-it-seems/

there’s a gap coming with which our air force might be suited to help:

"Dutch helicopter withdrawal threatens to undermine UN Mali mission"
...
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/26/mark-collins-canadian-un-peacekeeping-in-mali-rcaf-helicopters/

Mark
Ottawa
 
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
 
medicineman said:
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
The nonsense in that particular question's discussion is all the more reason it needs a few common sense replies to balance things.
 
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.
 
MCG said:
The nonsense in that particular question's discussion is all the more reason it needs a few common sense replies to balance things.
:nod:
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).
 
MCG said:
The nonsense in that particular question's discussion is all the more reason it needs a few common sense replies to balance things.

I've posted my thoughts - Sean K is my handle.

MM
 
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.  ;)
 
I trotted out my hoary, old line about the RCMP being raised as a peacekeeping force of 300, 143 years ago and now there are some 18,000 in uniform - still taking casualties.
 
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
 
medicineman said:
What??!! even from the "Harvard of the North" that Queen's claims to be?  ;D.
The Rebels Without a Clue were likely too busy playing Pokémon to participate.  :dunno:
 
A bit more reality for Team Red to consider ...
Harjit Sajjan is heading to West Africa this month on a fact-finding mission impossible.

The defence minister will search for an elusive United Nations peacekeeping mission that will maximize Canada’s chances of winning a seat on the UN Security Council but minimize the potential cost in Canadian lives and resources.

“That’s hard to find in Africa,” warned a senior military source.

Justin Trudeau’s belief in the United Nations as an effective institution runs from the top of his perfectly coiffed head to the tips of his stripey socks, and he is apparently prepared to send Canadian Forces into action to test it.

At a time when people like former UN assistant secretary general Anthony Banbury are lamenting an organization he called a “black hole into which disappear countless tax dollars and human aspirations, never to be seen again,” the Liberals are exploring a role in an African trouble-spot like Mali or the Central African Republic.

Trudeau and his team feel obliged to do something in the world. There was the small deployment to Latvia, as part of NATO’s mini-surge in eastern Europe, but these Liberals have a Chrétien-like aversion to being aligned too closely with U.S. foreign policy and they see the UN as much more sound ideologically than NATO.

A mission in Africa would bring about the happy coincidence of winning acclaim from the developing nations who will decide which country gets the “Western Europe and Others” seat on the UN Security Council in 2020 (Canada is in the running against Ireland and Norway).

Winning this prize would be all the sweeter given the Conservative government’s abject failure to do so in 2010.

“The UN thing looms much larger (for Trudeau’s team) than people credit,” said one senior source.

The military is gung-ho, not least because there are no other major deployments on the horizon — dangerous for morale (there has been a mass exodus of experienced soldiers since Afghanistan) and budgets (the view in National Defence Headquarters is that it would be a good idea to get the army out the door before the completion of the current defence review; “More missions mean more visibility,” said one NDHQ source).

None of this need necessarily be a bad thing. Dr. Walter Dorn, professor of defence studies at the Royal Military College of Canada, has long argued that Canada should beef up the number of military personnel on UN deployment from its current level of less than 30.

Canada, he contends, has special capabilities that could be used in French-speaking West Africa, not least of which are language skills, and there is a “new generation” of peacekeeping missions that differ from those Canada experienced in Rwanda and Somalia because the UN has since adopted a “protection of civilians” mandate.

In the government’s defence, it can be argued that a mission to bolster local African forces would be useful in denying haven to Islamist terror groups. But even if the cause is noble, the Canadian public deserves a thorough explanation on where we might be going and what the mission might entail.

Will we have an end-date or a plan to hand off responsibility to another country? Is there even a peace to keep?

Nobody in Sajjan’s office was prepared to answer these questions, presumably on the basis that the minister hasn’t yet found his facts.

Yet Jon Vance, chief of the defence staff, told a change-of-command ceremony on Parliament Hill last month that the army would be deploying to Africa “very soon.”

If we are going, and it seems we are, let’s hope it’s not to Mali (apparently Sajjan’s trip will not take him to Bamako, though this doesn’t necessarily mean Canadians won’t end up there) ...
More @ link
 
milnews.ca said:
A bit more reality for Team Red to consider ...More @ link

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
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top