• 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.
Does that same majority of Canadians know exactly what peacekeeping means in 2016, or are they stuck in the Pearsonian utopia of Cyprus and Golan Heights? There's opinion, and educated opinion.

Something being an election promise hasn't stopped 19 of 220 documented promises broken thus far, a year into office. Sometimes reality has a nasty habit of making those flowery election promises unobtainable. An actual leader stands up and outlines why things can no longer be done that way, and eats the media storm on the broken promise.
 
PuckChaser said:
Does that same majority of Canadians know exactly what peacekeeping means in 2016, or are they stuck in the Pearsonian utopia of Cyprus and Golan Heights? There's opinion, and educated opinion.

Something being an election promise hasn't stopped 19 of 220 documented promises broken thus far, a year into office. Sometimes reality has a nasty habit of making those flowery election promises unobtainable. An actual leader stands up and outlines why things can no longer be done that way, and eats the media storm on the broken promise.
Canadians don't know squat about what we do and how we do it.

Their opinions still matter so politicians will listen to them. In this case the government is trying to make this promise a reality.

So far the ministers of defense has spoken frankly to the media about how things have changed on the ground since the last time Canadians were involved in UN peacekeeping and how we as a country need to approach it differently.

So far every indication points towards far better ROEs than the last time canada was involved.

Let's face facts, there is nothing the government can do to please you ( and many others here) who are so soured from the last time other than to back down and scrap the idea of peacekeeping altogether.
 
Jarnhamar said:
Iraq and Afghanistan don't scream to me as success stories when it comes to training locals over the 10 years the west was working with them.

20'000 UN troops already in Africa Peace keeping, a UN soldier being killed in Mali about every week and a half since 2013, it's hard to see this mission being anything other than quid pro quo for a seat with the UN in order to support our "We're Peacekeepers!" image.

You're right about Afghanistan and Iraq... but Afghanistan was NATO and Iraq was the coalition of the willing (with some UN involvement... that's how we got to Afghanistan... as a UN mission).

I'm more willing that most on here to AT LEAST wait until we know the "who, what, where, when, how" of a UN mission before I make a judgment on it. Having a press conference that doesn't say when, where, who, or how doesn't exactly give me a warm fuzzy, but we shall see.

As for returning to peacekeeping being an election promise and the Canadian electorate being uneducated about peacekeeping... most are right- the majority are stuck in the early 1990's TV ads showing us as being great peacekeepers (from when Canada was rated the best country in the world 2 or 3 straight years). However, we must remember that those taxpayers are the same ones that elect our government and therein determine the place of the military in the overall hierarchy of needs vs wants which determines our budget. I also believe that Trudeau does, legitimately, believe that the UN holds the best chance of establishing a peaceful world order in the LONG TERM. As such, I think they take the long term view and want to put some of their cards into the UN basket (though we just deployed a similar number to Latvia for a continual 6 month long Ex MAPLE RESOLVE).

While most of us would prefer to be doing other tasks, however the political elements and people seem to want different tasks. I think Clausewitz would be happy to see that the 2/3 of his Holy Trinity (Passion, reason, chance or Government, people, and army) is holding up. The people want something, the government wants it- the military will do it.
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
You're right about Afghanistan and Iraq... but Afghanistan was NATO and Iraq was the coalition of the willing (with some UN involvement... that's how we got to Afghanistan... as a UN mission).

I'm more willing that most on here to AT LEAST wait until we know the "who, what, where, when, how" of a UN mission before I make a judgment on it. Having a press conference that doesn't say when, where, who, or how doesn't exactly give me a warm fuzzy, but we shall see.

As for returning to peacekeeping being an election promise and the Canadian electorate being uneducated about peacekeeping... most are right- the majority are stuck in the early 1990's TV ads showing us as being great peacekeepers (from when Canada was rated the best country in the world 2 or 3 straight years). However, we must remember that those taxpayers are the same ones that elect our government and therein determine the place of the military in the overall hierarchy of needs vs wants which determines our budget. I also believe that Trudeau does, legitimately, believe that the UN holds the best chance of establishing a peaceful world order in the LONG TERM. As such, I think they take the long term view and want to put some of their cards into the UN basket (though we just deployed a similar number to Latvia for a continual 6 month long Ex MAPLE RESOLVE).

While most of us would prefer to be doing other tasks, however the political elements and people seem to want different tasks. I think Clausewitz would be happy to see that the 2/3 of his Holy Trinity (Passion, reason, chance or Government, people, and army) is holding up. The people want something, the government wants it- the military will do it.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/un-ambassador-peacekeeping-africa-1.3736907

According to the UN ambassador, this will be a peace making operation, wonder how the government will spin this into sunny ways
 
Altair said:
So far every indication points towards far better ROEs than the last time canada was involved.

I haven't seen these indicators myself.  Can you elaborate?
 
MilEME09 said:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/un-ambassador-peacekeeping-africa-1.3736907

According to the UN ambassador, this will be a peace making operation, wonder how the government will spin this into sunny ways
The MOD of the sunny ways party has said as much already.
 
MilEME09 said:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/un-ambassador-peacekeeping-africa-1.3736907

According to the UN ambassador, this will be a peace making operation, wonder how the government will spin this into sunny ways

I would suggest it's the public's opinion of the UN vs NATO that will be the determining factor. the public see the UN as a dispassionate moderator for the world who tries to seek out the best overall good in the long term. The public see's NATO as a largely outdated organization formed to stop the Soviet's from conquering Europe. As such, while the UN is for the collective good (stand up for the little guy sort of thing) NATO represents individual (read- US) interests and anyone who goes along with it is simple an American sheep. The Liberals dont need to do anything than say it's a UN mission. If (and lots hope its an if and not a when) Canadian soldiers start coming home in body bags than the Liberals will need to spin something.

Perhaps even sunny ways will have a few days of rain.
 
Altair said:
So we ignore that it was a election promise and that a large amount of Canadians support peacekeeping? ( as uninformed as they may be)
We both know election promises aren't worth the paper they're printed on. If they can fulfill one then great, if not HEY look over there a photo-op.  Or they kick the can down the road for a few years.

You're very transparent why you want to deploy and that's great, it would be greater still for the government to share that transparency and not some bullshit "Canada's back" line.  Worst still is telling us we're deploying but playing games with where exactly in the continent we're going. It reminds me of clickbait ads.
 
[quote author=Bird_Gunner45]
I'm more willing that most on here to AT LEAST wait until we know the "who, what, where, when, how" of a UN mission before I make a judgment on it. Having a press conference that doesn't say when, where, who, or how doesn't exactly give me a warm fuzzy, but we shall see.[/quote]

Agree 100%.  Really wasn't impressed (or surprised) by that press conference. Screamed UN peacekeeping check in the box.

As for returning to peacekeeping being an election promise and the Canadian electorate being uneducated about peacekeeping... most are right- the majority are stuck in the early 1990's TV ads showing us as being great peacekeepers

Agree again. The public perception of peacekeeping isn't accurate, especially so for the shit going on in Africa.
 
Jarnhamar said:
We both know election promises aren't worth the paper they're printed on. If they can fulfill one then great, if not HEY look over there a photo-op.  Or they kick the can down the road for a few years.

You're very transparent why you want to deploy and that's great, it would be greater still for the government to share that transparency and not some bullshit "Canada's back" line.  Worst still is telling us we're deploying but playing games with where exactly in the continent we're going. It reminds me of clickbait ads.


I think Prime Minister Trudeau is being advised, by a wily old pro, that a full "promises made/promises kept" page in the 2019 Liberal red book will both look good to voters and lull the media back into its normal, uncurious stupor. And I suspect that same cunning old political fox tells Justin Trudeau that promises about defence and the military ~ like "return to Pearsonian peacekeeping, à la the 1950s" and "we will not buy the F-35s" ~ are easy to make and keep. I think that matters because this government remains in full campaign mode and I believe that almost every decision is made with the 2019 campaign top of mind.

                       
7a11e176a14d7f69ed2e7fee17014993.jpg
seakhas6.jpg


Prime Minister Trudeau will have to break promises between now and 2019 ... big ones, I think. He wants (and some strategists say he needs) to keep some easy ones now. Sending soldiers to Africa is an easy one.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Prime Minister Trudeau will have to break promises between now and 2019 ... big ones, I think. He wants (and some strategists say he needs) to keep some easy ones now. Sending soldiers to Africa is an easy one.
And there's a case to be made that if something goes south, better to get 'er done while there's still a lot of political capital in the bank.

Then again, there's also a case to be made that you do what you consider the right, but tough things during the honeymoon period - and this government seems to be enjoying a longer honeymoon than many.
 
I am not convinced the Sunny Ways Party would run into trouble even if Canadian soldiers came back in body bags, unless the frequency  or numbers became too large or frequent to ignore. But one at a time, from time to time, won't do it.

We have lost soldiers on UN "peacekeeping" operations before and it has never been a big deal - or worth much of a mention in the Canadian main stream medias.

This changed with Afghanistan. But we have to remember that  Afgh. was an American response to 9/11 in which we participated - not a UN peace ops of any kind. Similarly, the fight against ISIS is an American/World operation. This means that the American medias are talking about it all the time, so the Canadian medias take notice and also report on it all the time.

The Americans are neither involved, nor care, about the places in Africa that are mentioned as potential places of employment for Canadian troops. Do you think Canadian MSM will care? No. They will dutifully report on the first few days that "Canada is back: We have Blue helmets in Africa to help the planet be a better place". Then they will go home, secure in the knowledge that we are "peacekeeping" and not leave journalist there to cover day by day. They won't go back unless something dramatic occurs - and the CAF members over there will fall into the same obscurity as all the other UN ops we have been involved in.
 
One of the things the Chretien government used as a selling point about Afghanistan was that we were there under a United Nations Security Council Resolution...number escapes me at this time.  That UNSCR sold the Afghan mission and gave the government the ability to drop the Iraq hot potato, as there wasn't one in place for that.  A lot of journalists and many politicians at the time (like my then NDP MP in Victoria) thought that this was like a blue hat mission, and indeed, sort of was when things were in Kabul...that all went to rat snot in Khandahar.

MM
 
The UNSCR for Afghanistan never created a peacekeeping blue helmet force, and none of the other participants helping the US deployed under any UN mandate.

The resolution gave legal cover for the US to go in and get our bearded friend and his Al-Qaeda accomplices once the ruling Taliban denied them access to the country to do it with their authorization, and it secondly imposed on the US - in order to provide said legal cover - the obligation of "fixing" anything they broke, or in other words "You break the government in place (the Talibans), you fix it before you leave".

The UN did try to get involved in the "fixing" phase after the Americans (and its willing partners such as Canada) removed the Taliban, but quickly realized it was way over its head and turned the matter over to NATO.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
I am not convinced the Sunny Ways Party would run into trouble even if Canadian soldiers came back in body bags, unless the frequency  or numbers became too large or frequent to ignore.

Do they take into consideration the potential number who may be affected by PTSD?



 
No, wounded within.

Again the government is deploying the CF, while continuing a court action re its obligations to members, and not fixing VAC. You can open all the new VAC offices you want and get the sunny publicity but the inertia and culture of NO remains.
 
Might just be my "Western" bias - but I am waiting to see when/if the bullet is bitten on the pipelines.  In my view that is a far more critical national issue than window dressing like the UN, Climate Change and marijuana.

As has been pointed out - the announcement was of an intention to support for the next three years (2016 +3 = 2019).  You don't see many news stories of CANSOF types coming and going, nor of people being posted to New York or even to the Golan and Cyprus.  Nice quiet deployments except for the CANSOF types - and we don't talk about them. 

 
From Friday's Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/new-peacekeeping-plan-a-missed-opportunity-for-canada/article31571998/

THOMAS JUNEAU
New peacekeeping plan a missed opportunity for Canada

The Liberal government released on Friday its much anticipated policy on peace-support operations. On paper, this is good news. In practice, it is disappointing: Remove the hype, and the new policy mostly amounts to tinkering with what was already in place.

The policy is built on three pillars. Foreign Minister Stéphane Dion, first, announced the creation of a Peace and Stabilization Operations Program, with a budget of $150-million a year. It will co-ordinate whole-of-government responses to conflicts and crises around the world and will support targeted stabilization projects in fragile and conflict-affected countries. It will, in addition, include an early warning system to better detect conflicts, presumably a critical tool for Canada to more constructively engage in conflict prevention activities. Over all, the program has the very laudable goal of reinforcing Canada’s capacity to participate in peace operations.

Second, the Minister of National Defence, Harjit Sajjan, confirmed that the Canadian Armed Forces will, on top of existing commitments in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere, deploy up to 600 troops to an additional UN peace support operation. This new mission, to be announced in the fall, will likely be in Mali, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, or Democratic Republic of the Congo.

And third, Ralph Goodale, the Minister of Public Safety, announced the renewal of Canada’s existing program supporting the deployment of up to 150 police officers to various peace operations.

This is, on the surface, good news. Canada should commit to these three sets of activities, and there is a need to boost existing capabilities. If implemented in a coherent manner and in the pursuit of specific Canadian interests, there is much for Canada to gain. There is, moreover, a glaring need, in parts of Africa and other conflict areas, for countries like Canada to step in with such niche capabilities.

The problem, however, is that when one scratches beneath the surface, it becomes apparent that there is little new in this package of initiatives.

Most disappointingly, the new Peace and Stabilization Operations Program merely replaces Global Affairs Canada’s existing – and quite successful – Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force (START), while only slightly modifying its mandate. It does not even significantly increase its baseline funding. Canada, in other words, will unfortunately not be able to do much more in post-conflict reconstruction and stabilization.

Even the early warning system to detect conflicts, a favourite of Mr. Sajjan, is mostly smoke: various units in the intelligence community and in Global Affairs Canada already do this. It is also not clear how much impact this unit could have: most conflicts in recent decades have been a surprise to most observers, while a better informed Canada, as a mid-sized country, can still only follow the lead of its more powerful allies.

What is also disappointing is that the government did not clearly explain how all of this is in Canada’s interest. It seems to assume that “doing” UN peace operations is intrinsically good, which is at best simplistic. Peace operations are a means, not an end. Canada should definitely be more involved, but on a case-by-case basis and provided that individual commitments are in its interests. Friday’s announcement said little, in particular, on how the forthcoming decision regarding a mission in Africa will be made.

In sum, this is mostly old wine in a new bottle. The government’s intentions are good, but this new peace operations policy is a missed opportunity driven by a lack of imagination and ambition.

But we have new spokespeople...... all the difference in the world.
 
medicineman said:
One of the things the Chretien government used as a selling point about Afghanistan was that we were there under a United Nations Security Council Resolution...number escapes me at this time.

UNSCR 1386. It was adopted unanimously by all 15 members of the Security Council. People were talking like ISAF was authorized by the UN because... it was.

http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/RES/1386%20(2001)&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC

Some highlights (shamelessly cherrypicked by me, you can read the whole text at the above link): 

Welcoming the letter from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Secretary-General of 19 December 2001 (S/2001/1217), and taking note of the United Kingdom offer contained therein to take the lead in organizing and commanding an International Security Assistance Force,

Authorizes, as envisaged in Annex 1 to the Bonn Agreement, the
establishment for 6 months of an International Security Assistance Force to assist the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding areas, so that the Afghan Interim Authority as well as the personnel of the United Nations can operate in a secure environment;

Calls upon Member States to contribute personnel, equipment and other
resources to the International Security Assistance Force, and invites those Member States to inform the leadership of the Force and the Secretary-General;

Authorizes the Member States participating in the International Security
Assistance Force to take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate;
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top