The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)

[Altair]

The CDS has again taken personal ownership of the commitment to ensure the right ROE, resources and C2 are provided to the pending UN mission.

All god news.

Of course we all need to see it in writing.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Op-Ed from the DefMin, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42) ...

Just over a year ago, I was given the mandate to work with the Minister of Global Affairs to re-engage Canada in peace operations. Supporting and building peace has long been a tradition of our great country. Canadian values include our desire and our ability to bring people together, to find common ground, and to build relationships based on trust and friendship. We have also always believed in doing the right thing; in standing up for our friends and helping them back up when they fall.

At this year’s Halifax International Security Forum, I look forward to meeting with allies and partners to discuss how we can work together to make our world a more peaceful place for everyone. Together, we can make a difference, and our allies and partners appreciate Canada’s help.

Our world has changed dramatically. The security environment is more complex. Terrorism knows no borders. Violent extremists don’t belong to one group, nationality, or region. As a result of all this, traditional solutions are no longer the only solutions. We need to adapt, we need to be agile, and we need to act.

We know that ignoring the problem won’t solve it. We have already experienced terrorism on our territory with the tragic fatal shooting of Cpl. Nathan Cirillo at the National War Memorial in Ottawa, and the attack on two CAF members in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Que., which resulted in the loss of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, just over two years ago.

Earlier this year, we committed to deploy up to 600 Canadian Armed Forces personnel and up to 150 police officers on potential UN peace operations. This pledge was based not only on direction to me from the prime minister, on our Canadian values, and on our longstanding reputation as peace builders, but also based on the discussions we had and the ideas we heard from our allies, from defence experts, and from Canadians from coast-to-coast-to-coast throughout our defence policy review.

I know that the journey won’t be easy and I know it will be full of risks and challenges. But that is exactly why Canada is taking action — and why we’re asking our women and men to continue the long-held tradition of peace building.

We also know that we can’t go into a future peace support operation blindly. That is why our government has been gathering the facts and the ground truth in Africa. I have personally undertaken two visits across the continent while my colleagues, International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau and Global Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion, have also visited a number of countries across the region.

These visits have helped me see and understand the situation for myself. To seek the innovative solutions we need, I had to speak directly with the people on the ground who are living and breathing the conflict day in and day out. Before sending our women and men anywhere, I needed to get the full picture.

The information we gathered from meetings with African government officials, respected academics, representatives from the African Union, the United Nations, and other non-government organizations is helping inform the government of Canada’s decision on how to best contribute to future UN peace support operations.

We know that the old approach and old solutions won’t work anymore. Our government believes military responses are not always the right solution, nor are they the only solution. To build sustainable peace, we must take a comprehensive approach that includes military, political, humanitarian, and development efforts.

That is why Canada is taking a whole-of-government approach to all future peace operations. We need to treat the root causes of conflict—not only within a country, but within the region. We need to look at how conflicts affect women, youth, and children. And we also need to understand the diplomatic, defence, and security challenges that could impact conflict prevention and the chance of sustainable peace.

As a former soldier and police officer, I understand the commitment we are asking of our women and men and of their families. But I am also confident that they have what it takes to rise to the upcoming challenges they will face. The decision to commit our CAF members to a future peace operation deployment was not taken lightly. There is always inherent risk in these situations. But we will do everything we can to ensure their security and safety.

The Canadian Armed Forces has always protected Canada and its interests, whether at home or abroad. Canada has contributed to numerous multinational operations and we’ve always stood by our allies and partners, because that’s what a good global citizen does.

I am proud of the contributions of our women and men and of their commitment to acting as a force for good in this world.

In re-engaging in peace support operations, Canada is living up to its values. The presence of so many defence leaders in Halifax this weekend is a clear indicator that we understand the need to work together to prevent conflicts and to build sustainable peace.

The time has come for Canada to lead and to stand together with our allies and partners to secure a better future for Canadians, and for the world.

 

[a_majoor]

Someone pointed out Mali was mentioned again to "highly connected" journalists at yesterday's briefing, with the implication that this was a deliberate leak by senior Liberals. They obviously still have not gotten the understanding that peacekeeping (however named) is simply not an option in that part of the world.

I'm going to title the book of my tour: "Afghanistan without the Mountains"

 

[Good2Golf]

I'm going to title the book of my tour: "Mali: Afghanistan without half the Mountains, but twice the diseases."

:nod:

I'll come to your book signing!  ;D

 

[The Bread Guy]

Someone pointed out Mali was mentioned again to "highly connected" journalists at yesterday's briefing, with the implication that this was a deliberate leak by senior Liberals. They obviously still have not gotten the understanding that peacekeeping (however named) is simply not an option in that part of the world.

Then you'll be happy about this news, then ... 

The Trump administration has given the green light to Canada to dispatch up to 600 soldiers on a United Nations peacekeeping mission to Mali, but Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is holding back approval as he assesses the volatile risks of fighting Islamist rebels who use child soldiers.

A new Canadian Armed Forces directive, published last week, warns troops that child soldiers are likely to be encountered “on an increasing basis” in future UN or NATO-led missions and cautions them if they are not sufficiently armed they could be vulnerable to “human wave attacks” employed by child soldiers – frontal assaults where the target is overrun.

Canada does not require U.S. approval to deploy troops, but in late 2016, the Trudeau government paused a decision, originally expected by December, on where it would deploy peacekeeping troops. The Liberals wanted to obtain a better sense of what the Trump administration expects of allies and ensure it wasn’t offside with the new President who has repeatedly accused Western countries of falling short on basic defence commitments and has said he wants the NATO military alliance to focus more on counterterrorism.

A senior Canadian official, however, told the The Globe and Mail that U.S. Defence Secretary James Mattis raised no objections to a Mali peace mission during recent talks with Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.

But the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Trudeau cabinet is still mulling the pros and cons of committing Canadian troops to a dangerous UN peace-support operation, which defies the traditional label of peacekeeping.

While Mali might appear remote to Canadians, this West African country is on the front lines of the fight against terrorism, including al-Qaeda in the Maghreb. It’s a safe haven for terror groups despite French military intervention and a UN stabilization mission. Mali has, at times, served as a base for Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a terrorist leader who is the target of an RCMP arrest warrant for holding two Canadian diplomats hostage in Mali in 2008 and 2009; his extremist group also claimed responsibility for the deadly assault on the Radisson Blu hotel in Bamako in November, 2015. In 2013, he spearheaded an attack on an Algerian gas plant that killed at least 39 foreign hostages ...

 

[Halifax Tar]

I don't know the politics behind deploying troops, but why does Canada need POTUS approval to deploy ?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

We don't- with a caveat. Since this government (well, any Canadian Govt) tries to spend as little on Defence as is possible, the Liberals wanted to make sure that the US was not suddenly going to insist that we deploy a Battalion someplace else.

The price you pay for letting another country that you share a continent with, pay part of your share of defence spending, is that you lose some autonomy in Foreign Affairs.

So, the US can't exactly order us to do anything. But they can sure make our lives miserable if we get on their bad side.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Deploying to Mali may become more in vogue soon, especially when it's apparent the enemy is getting more organized

Three Mali Islamic extremist groups unite under al-Qaida: SITE

DAKAR – Three Islamic extremist factions in Mali announced that they have merged into one group and pledged allegiance to al-Qaida’s leader, according to a group that monitors jihadist websites.

Leaders from Ansar Dine, al-Mourabitoun and al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb made the official declaration in a video distributed Thursday, according to SITE Intelligence Group. The merged group is now called “Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal Muslimeen,” which in English translates to “Support of Islam and Muslims,” the monitoring group said.

Iyad Ag Ghaly, the former leader of Ansar Dine who is a native of the Kidal region, is leading the combined group, SITE Intelligence Group said. Ag Ghaly said in the video that the three factions were inspired by the unification of factions in Syria.

Islamic extremists linked to al-Qaida took over northern Mali in 2012, exploiting a power vacuum after mutinous soldiers overthrew the president. French-backed forces pushed the extremists from strongholds the following year, but attacks have continued and progressed south.

Ansar Dine emerged in 2012 as a religious alternative to the largely secular Tuareg separatists operating in northern Mali. Ansar Dine had allied itself with al-Qaida before the groups took over northern Mali, though no official declaration was made.

Al-Mourabitoun had claimed responsibility along with AQIM, al-Qaida’s North Africa branch, for the November attack at the Radisson Blu hotel in Mali’s capital, Bamako. At least 20 people were killed along with two gunmen during a more than 7-hour siege.

Former Tuareg separatist rebels signed a 2015 peace deal with the government. Last week, they began joint patrols in northern Mali as part of that accord to fight continued attacks by extremists and other sources of insecurity in the region.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/03/03/world/three-mali-islamic-extremist-groups-unite-al-qaida-site/#.WL10qU0zWUk

The biggest issue with any deployment to Mali is there is no actual peace to keep, thus, calling it peacekeeping is a bit of a misnomer.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I think that saying the "Trump administration gave the green light" is a bit of an interpretation on the part of the reporting journalist.

We know that the African mission has been on the Liberal's radar since they became the government in Canada as a a "re-join the UN so we can have a seat on the Security Council" plan. When it looked like Clinton would win, they knew that there would be little change in US policies, so they could plan accordingly. When Trump won, and considering the noise he made about not pulling our weight and about having a plan to defeat ISIL (even if we now know that his plan - the details of which he wouldn't reveal to keep the enemy guessing - consists only in now asking his appointees to come up with a new plan), it was normal to try and figure out what the US wanted to do.

Of course, you can't just go to the Americans and ask squarely "what are your plans". So you do it in reverse: You say "I was thinking of doing A-B-C, would that constitute a problem for you?" If they say "I don't see any problem." you are fine. On the other hand, if they say "Hummm! I, myself, was thinking of doing X-Y-Z and was hoping to ask you to take part" then you know where you stand.

Personally (and it is a personal opinion here) I believe that another aspect of the Liberals "asking" the US if it was OK is just another Liberal move driven by their cowardice in facing the nation with the truth now that they know that there is no "safe little mission" of happy blue helmets out there and there would be casualties. They were hoping to be able to renege on the basis of "We wanted to go, but the Americans won't let us".

 

[Rifleman62]

Personally (and it is a personal opinion here) I believe that another aspect of the Liberals "asking" the US if it was OK is just another Liberal move driven by their cowardice in facing the nation with the truth now that they know that there is no "safe little mission" of happy blue helmets out there and there would be casualties. They were hoping to be able to renege on the basis of "We wanted to go, but the Americans won't let us".

And maybe the US called our bluff.

Just think of all the wounded within casualties we would have fighting child soldiers.Then dealing with VAC denying claims as the client was peacekeeping.

 

[The Bread Guy]

And maybe the US called our bluff.

Never impossible ...

Just think of all the wounded within casualties we would have fighting child soldiers.  Then dealing with VAC denying claims as the client was peacekeeping.

And your evidence of this potentially happening?  I've heard of vets in general having to fight tooth & nail for every last benefit, but I missed a swath of vets being denied benefits because they were injured on peacekeeping missions (as opposed to other missions).  As usual, I stand to be corrected, though.

 

[Rifleman62]

And your evidence of this potentially happening?

Speculation based on VAC track record on everything as evidenced by:

I've heard of vets in general having to fight tooth & nail for every last benefit....

 

[The Bread Guy]

Speculation based on VAC track record ...

Under all colours of team jersey, sadly ... 

 

[Blair Gilmore]

If Canada plans on sending troops to a quagmire such as Mali, we had better be prepared for the mental casualties as well as the physical ones:

https://rusi-ns.ca/vtecs/

 

[OldSolduer]

Stay. Out. Of. Africa.

This will come to NO good.

 

[Kirkhill]

Actually, there may be an African opportunity:

Tribal chiefs in Sahara pledge to stop flow of migrants heading for Europe

Nick Squires, Rome
4 APRIL 2017 • 5:02PM

Tribal leaders in the Sahara have pledged to stop the flood of migrants trying to reach the Mediterranean coast of Libya, in return for aid and development from Europe.

Italy was the unwilling recipient of 181,000 migrants last year and has spearheaded efforts to halt the exodus of dinghies and boats leaving the Libyan coast.

In the latest initiative, around 60 chieftains from the southern deserts of Libya were brought together in Rome to thrash out a peace deal between warring tribes and find a way to staunch the human trafficking.

Leaders from the Tuareg, Tebu and Awlad Suleiman tribes say that for the right reward they can lock down Libya’s southern border with Niger – the main transit route for migrants from West Africa and elsewhere – despite the fact that it is more than 3,000 miles long.

They also candidly admitted that they have until now profited from the trafficking business, arguing that since the toppling of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 there have been few other economic opportunities in the region.

“Since the fall of the Gaddafi regime, no one has controlled the border,” said Mohamed Haay Sandu, a Tebu leader who attended the talks in Rome, which were mediated by Marco Minniti, the interior minister.

“For many of us, facilitating the passage of migrants has become a way of earning money. The economy is on the brink of collapse. Around 15 per cent of our people work in migrant trafficking. It is the main source of income.”

The cooperation of the tribes will not come cheap.

Tribal chieftains say they want a whole range of aid and development – from infrastructure and employment programmes to scholarship schemes which would allow young people to study in Italy.

“Many of our young people are without hope and end up facilitating clandestine migration,” Mr Haay Sandu told Corriere della Sera newspaper.

“But if you give them proper work, they will stop. “If we are given aid and development, we’re prepared to stop the business altogether. No one would be able to cross the border.”

Experts on Libya said the deal could work, in theory – as long as there was enough incentive for the desert tribes. “The tribes do have the capability to monitor the border and interdict migrant flows from the south.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/04/tribal-chiefs-sahara-pledge-stop-flow-migrants-heading-europe/

I appreciate that this is getting perilously close to "root causes" and "ineffectual aid"  but it also can be framed in "safe haven" terms.  And I don't know how you stop the movement, and reduce the animosity, without working with the other side.

Besides, Berbers, Tuaregs and Rifs have millenia of history of doing what they are doing that predates Mohammed.  If we can separate them from the Turks, Persians and Arabs so much the better.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Actually, there may be an African opportunity ...

Interesting proposition there.  My only worry:  if tribes x, y and z are appeased, what to tribes a, b & c have to say?  Like picking sides with the Kurds o' Choice:  who are we pissing off in the meantime?

 

[Kirkhill]

Interesting proposition there.  My only worry:  if tribes x, y and z are appeased, what to tribes a, b & c have to say?  Like picking sides with the Kurds o' Choice:  who are we pissing off in the meantime?

Doesn't matter.  Sometimes you just have to pick a side and make it work.  I haven't seen many appeased Liberals or Tories recently.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thinking more about this - It occurs to me that these guys

want their job back from this bunch of Cultural Appropriators

The original border watch

All they need is the infrastructure renewed

 

[The Bread Guy]

And it's officially been said out loud with a date ...

Canada seeks seat on UN Security Council in 2021, Trudeau says
By Levon Sevunts, english@rcinet.ca, Tuesday 19 September, 2017

Canada continues its diplomatic campaign to secure one of the ten non-permanent seats at the United Nations Security Council that are elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Tuesday.

“Canada knows that we have an important role to play on the world stage and being part of the UN Security Council in 2021 will ensure that an important voice gets heard and resonates around the world,” Trudeau said.

However, speaking to reporters at a press conference in Ottawa prior to his departure to New York City, where he will lead Canada’s delegation at the opening of the 72nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), Trudeau hinted once again that his Liberal government is no rush to fulfill its pledge to deploy a large peacekeeping force to one of existing UN peacekeeping operations ...

More @ link