• 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.
The raw data would be intersting to see, just beacuse of the comments at the end of the article where it's stated that many participates would accept staying the course because of the ramifications it may have on the people of Afghanistan after a pull out.  Also important, and I know it has been noted on many different forums here is that fact that the general public still seems confused as to why we are in Afghanistan at all.  The mission has never been broken down and fed to the public in a way that they can understand the information.
 
The ALL the raw data would be interesting to see......

Here is an interesting clip from the old show Yes, Prime Minister


Opinion Polls: Getting the results you want

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo
 
Ah, yes, the myth of the Great Canadian Peacekeeper.  What a wonderful ploy.  Let us digest this, for only a few moments.
Let's look back to the first "great" Peacekeeping mission: UNEF.  It's mission was as follows:
enter Egyptian territory with the consent of the Egyptian Government, in order to help maintain quiet during and after the withdrawal of non-Egyptian forces and to secure compliance with the other terms established in the resolution ... to cover an area extending roughly from the Suez Canal to the Armistice Demarcation Lines established in the Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel.
(Italics added by me.  In 1967, Egypt withdrew its consent, and UNEF withdrew.)
The background?  The UK, France and Israel "took offence" to Egypt nationalising the Suez Canal.  The US "took offence" to the action by the UK, France and Israel.  (Remember, Egypt was a "Soviet Friendly" state at the time).  So, the force offered the belligerents a way out.

Meanwhile, in Europe, the bulk of Canada's overseas forces stood waiting on the North German Plain, for the "invasion that never came".

Now let's look at Cyprus.  Two NATO allies almost going to full war over that island.  What way out?  The UN of course!  And all throughout that mission, the bulk of Canada's overseas forces remained in Germany, awaiting the Soviet Army.  (Except for the last two or three rotations).

Now let's look at the Balkans.  OK, let's not.  That UN mission was, in spite of Herculean efforts of the troops involved from many nations, a paper tiger.  NATO had to step in and actually kill people to make it work.


So, when were we an exclusively peacekeeping nation?  ???

 
Peacekeeping is changing.

Nearly three years ago The Ruxted Group quoted the UN’s own Director of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) as saying “...several of the world's most capable militaries and strong economies are either heavily committed—mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan—or for other reasons, such as reduced defense spending, are choosing not to contribute troops to UN peacekeeping. Meanwhile, the UN's top 10 troop contributors to peacekeeping operations are developing countries and have limited resources.”

That is still the reality.

Where demand for peacekeepers is still high, which is where the supply of humanitarian crises with security issues attached is also high, that demand is, too often, met by those who are least able to do so – least able financially, logistically and professionally. It is to these missions that many, many Canadians wish to return. In wishing for that shift in focus they are, simply, asking their government to do more to meet our much vaunted Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

As I have said, many times, before, if R2P is to have any meaning, at all, anywhere, then it must apply to Afghanistan. If anyone ever needed protection and if we ever had a responsibility to anyone, then surely anyone = the poor, war ravaged, ill governed, insecure Afghans.

Our GDP (according to the World Bank) was $1.4 Trillion in 2008. That was about equal to the combined GDPs (same source) of the 112 poorest countries in the world. Some of the countries of that list of the “poor” contribute many soldiers to UN peacekeeping missions and a few contribute to the NATO/ISAF mission in Afghanistan. We are one of the richest, most sophisticated and, despite small numbers of people, most “militarily capable” nations in the world – in the whole history of the world – but, our government tells us, we “cannot” do more to help the least fortunate. Canadians, with some reason, say: “BS!” One of the reasons, I think, that we see 50% of Canadians wanting a return to traditional peacekeeping is that Canadians understand that we are rich, and sophisticated and capable and they also understand, intuitively, that more traditional peacekeeping – the kind being done in Africa, for example – can be done (with the same resources) than is being done in Afghanistan.

The government has promised, and promised, and promised again to recruit tens of thousands of “new” (additional) soldiers.

A smart defence staff – one that wanted to ease the pressure of public opinion on the government-of-the-day – might decide to propose that a few hundred of those tens of thousands, say 500, might be technical specialists recruited (as are some medical personnel today) as civilians who, after a brief period of training, are deployed to UN missions, perhaps with a local, temporary military status. Imagine the differences that a few hundred Canadian logisticians – several thousand of those tens of thousands of “new” people had better be assigned to the ranks of the overstretched, overstressed service support groups – and a few dozen (less than 100 at any given time) Canadian technical support experts might make to the capabilities of all those African Union soldiers.

 
I don't feel we are exclusively a peacekeeping nation but apparently the general public do. They would rather see the lives lost stop and feel the money spent on Afghanistan could be better spent in Canada on various welfare projects.

It seems the CF needs a major PR campaign to change their minds. But no one in Government or the CF is willing to head up this campaign.

It also seems that being a peacekeeping nation gives the general public a warm fuzzy feeling of accomplishment rather than a feeling of "not another fatal casualty!....Bring our boys home!"  My own feeling is that the public believes what it wants to believe regardless of what is actually happening on the ground in Afghanistan.

tango22a
 
More on UNEF: How many Canadians know that the great example of "Pearsonian peacekeeping" ended up a complete failure? Why is that not taught at school?

The peacekeeping force for which Pearson won the Nobel Prize, the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF),
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unefi.htmwas kicked out of Egypt in 1967
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/f45643a78fcba719852560f6005987ad/44c971ced20b476705256559005be4a5?OpenDocument
by Egyptian President Nasser (Egyptian reporting here):
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/848/sc2.htm
one of the key events precipitating the pre-emptive Israeli attack that began the Six Day War of 1967.

Mark
Ottawa
 
The days of blue helmets are long past.
I would even suggest that the UN will absolve itself of being an organization for mounting "peacekeeping" missions.
 
http://www.histori.ca/minutes/minute.do?id=14745

Maybe the public will also have us wearing blue ascots too....

dileas

tesss
 
I know I’m repeating myself, but ...

Lester B (Mike) Pearson did not invent peacekeeping – that, even the word, has been on the books for over 2,000 years. Nor did he invent United Nations peacekeeping – that was done in 1948 by two fellows: Ralph Bunche from the USA and Brian Urquart from the UK.

Leopoldville.jpg

Ralph Bunche (right) and Brian Urquart (left) in Leopoldville (now Kinshasa) Congo in 1960

What Mike Pearson did, and the very good reason he earned a Nobel prize, was to stick handle a very tricky resolution through the UN General Assembly to authorize a major UN peacekeeping mission – bigger than anything ever tried before – with the primary aim (for Pearson and Urquart) of pulling British Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden’s irons out of the fire. The Suez fiasco was approved if not engineered by Eden - but without consulting Eisenhower. Ike was furious because the Suez imbroglio upset his plans for the region. Urquart and Pearson devised the plan and Pearson, using Dean Acheson’s famous Uniting for Peace resolution, steered the plan through the UNGA, despite Russian opposition but with very strong American support.
 
Traditional Peacekeeping is dead. If we ever deploy in a humanitarian context again, we need rules of engagement that allow us to make peace. That way, situations like Rwanda and Somali don't happen again. Sometimes you need a little teeth to convince both sides that they can get along. Look at what NATO did in Bosnia. UNPROFOR was largely ineffective, then SFOR came in with robust rules of engagement that forced peace, and now the country is on its way to recovery. Models like that could be tailored to current humanitarian hotspots.

What these "peacekeeping only" people don't understand is that we can't just send peacekeepers into a country. That's called invading a sovereign nation, and would probably ruffle some feathers. The Sudanese government does not want non-African peacekeepers, so until they want to let more than just Western money in, they'll continue the awful conditions there.
 
See here, please, for another issue (W2I) that is loosely related to "peacekeeping" and to some force structure issues.
 
PuckChaser said:
Traditional Peacekeeping is dead. If we ever deploy in a humanitarian context again, we need rules of engagement that allow us to make peace. That way, situations like Rwanda and Somali don't happen again. Sometimes you need a little teeth to convince both sides that they can get along. Look at what NATO did in Bosnia. UNPROFOR was largely ineffective, then SFOR came in with robust rules of engagement that forced peace, and now the country is on its way to recovery. Models like that could be tailored to current humanitarian hotspots.

What these "peacekeeping only" people don't understand is that we can't just send peacekeepers into a country. That's called invading a sovereign nation, and would probably ruffle some feathers. The Sudanese government does not want non-African peacekeepers, so until they want to let more than just Western money in, they'll continue the awful conditions there.

The thing that I find interesting thing about peacekeepers is that they have to be invited into a situation by both sides to help police the settlement process. This assumes, of course, that you have two sides who have basically beaten themselves near to death and are on the ropes.

To do more peacekeeping, therefore, what we need to do is make sure that we equally arm all those fractious 3rd world countries and give them a chance to have a good war first (with thousands of dead on both sides) before we safely deploy our 'Blue Troopers'.

Heaven forbid that we would intervene to prevent something like that in the first place. ::)
 
Canada is a country of peace keepers!
Not war fighters!

As your grand parents and they will tell you.
 
A retired colonel argues that our military history is being presented inaccurately.

Ask the average Canadian to identify the most successful endeavour of the Canadian military, and chances are he or she will answer: "peacekeeping." Popular symbols and institutions reinforce this perception every day: our $10 bill commemorates past military conflicts solely by peacekeeping, while the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa incorrectly classifies all Canadian military operations since the end of the Cold War as peacekeeping.


http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Exploding%2Bmyth%2Bpeacekeeping/5062050/story.html
 
Sourced from The Globe and Mail, 8 Jun 2012, Link <a href="http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/blue-helmets-cast-aside-canada-keeps-the-peace-no-more/article4240950/?service=mobile">Here</a>

Blue helmets cast aside, Canada keeps the peace no more
PAUL KORING
WASHINGTON — THE GLOBE AND MAIL
Last updated Friday, Jun. 08 2012, 10:04 AM EDT

Once pre-eminent among peacekeeping nations with thousands of “blue berets” deployed around the world, Canada now ranks 53 – between Paraguay and Slovakia – on the United Nations contributors’ list with less than a schoolbus-load of Canadian soldiers serving on UN missions overseas.

Since then 1990s, successive Canadian governments, both Conservative and Liberal, have shunned traditional UN-mandated peacekeeping for U.S.-led war-fighting missions in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya. Those campaigns have eclipsed the UN as Ottawa’s favoured military expeditionary effort. From being the top contributor in the early 1990s, the Canadian commitment dropped precipitously from thousands, to hundreds a decade ago to only a few dozen in recent years.

By Ottawa’s count, there are only 42 Canadian military personnel currently serving in seven UN peacekeeping missions. The UN says the count is even lower. Its most recent monthly report, issued at the end of the April, registered only 33 Canadian military personnel in UN missions. Another 130 Canadian police – some from the RCMP, others from provincial and municipal forces – are also serving with the UN.

“The need is greater than ever but Canada’s contribution has never been lower,” said Steven Staples, president of the Rideau Institute, an Ottawa research and advocacy group. “The Harper government doesn’t regard peacekeeping as a route to enhancing Canada’s international stature.”

That attitude, according to Mr. Staples, was exemplified by the reaction to the death of a Canadian military observer, one of four UN peacekeepers bombed by Israeli warplanes in July, 2006.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper questioned why the UN post in southern Lebanon “remained manned during what is now, more or less, a war” – a statement that, to peacekeeping advocates, betrayed a failure to recognize the deterrent value of putting blue-helmeted troops in harm’s way.

Ottawa ducked again this spring when the call went out for UN military observers to help prevent the unrest in Syria from spiralling into a full-blown civil war. In previous eras, Canada rarely missed that sort of mission. In fact, prior to 1995 it had been a national boast for decades that Canada had never failed to contribute to a UN peacekeeping mission.

Some, both in and out of the military, defend the shift away from UN missions, claiming they are ill-suited to cope with the messy, mainly internal wars of the 21st century. But others regard turning away from the UN as short-sighted.

“I wasn’t surprised by the decision not to send observers to Syria,” said Carolyn McAskie, a Canadian and former UN assistant secretary-general for peacebuilding. “The Harper government has made it clear that it has little use for the UN.”

The dramatic decline in Canada’s commitment to UN peacekeeping predates the current Conservative government. After the debacle of Rwanda, the killing and torture of a defenceless Somali teenage prisoner by Canadian troops on a UN mission and the repeated peacekeeping failures in the Balkans, all in the 1990s, Canada cut back first under the Liberals.

The decline accelerated under the Tories and continues.

According to the Defence Department, Canada’s military personnel are spread over seven UN peacekeeping missions: five in Haiti, six in Darfur, 14 in South Sudan, nine in the Congo, one in Cyprus, three in the Golan Heights, and eight others with the UN’s Middle East truce supervision group.

Most are officers, serving on individual deployments, often filling staff jobs in UN mission headquarters. There isn’t a single unit of Canadian troops serving as peacekeepers in any of the UN’s current 16 missions.

Twenty years ago, more than one-third of Canada’s army was wearing the UN’s blue helmets (or blue berets, if the missions were less dangerous) with thousands of peacekeepers deployed in the Balkans, Somalia, the Golan Heights and Cyprus, as well as smaller missions.

Peacekeeping with the UN had become deeply ingrained in Canada’s post-war identity. Former prime minister Lester Pearson, widely regarded as the father of modern UN peacekeeping, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957 for organizing the United Nations Emergency Force after the Suez Crisis.

Recruiting for the Canadian Forces often stressed peacekeeping, including one poster featuring a terrified child clutching a teddy bear being rescued by a Canadian soldier. Ottawa created an international training centre for peacekeepers – named after Mr. Pearson – at a former Canadian Forces base in Nova Scotia in 1994. Since then, it has trained more than 18,000 peacekeepers from more than 150 countries, even as Canadian participation in UN peacekeeping has dropped to negligible levels.

Meanwhile, even as Canada opted out, UN peacekeeping has soared, with nearly 100,000 peacekeepers deployed worldwide on missions in Africa, Asia and the Americas. Canada’s handful of military and police personnel are dwarfed not only by top contributors like India, with more than 8,000 peacekeepers, but also Britain, France and Germany, which have also sent large contingents to war in Afghanistan.

Some regard Canada’s shift away from UN peacekeeping as a reflection of changing geopolitical realities, not just policy.

Retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie, who famously commanded the Canadian contingent of UN peacekeepers that secured Sarajevo airport, opening a lifeline to the Europe’s largest besieged city since the Second World War, says Canadians are living a bygone dream.

“There is no conventional peacekeeping out there; it’s a myth,” he said in an interview. The era of Cold War peacekeeping, with UN forces interpositioned along ceasefire lines is over, he added, and the UN has shown it isn’t good at coping with messy sectarian wars.

As a result, he said, “Not just Canada, but a whole hockey sock of regular contributors, Scandinavian countries, Senegal, Fiji – a lot of them fell by the wayside because the [UN] can’t run these.”

After a decade of bloody, inconclusive war in Afghanistan, Canadians tell pollsters they want their military to return to UN peacekeeping as a priority.

In a 2010 Nanos poll for The Globe and Mail, barely one in five Canadians wanted more war-fighting missions like Afghanistan. Poll respondents ranked UN peacekeeping as the top priority for Canada’s military, ahead even of North American security and defending the Arctic.

Walter Dorn, a professor at the Canadian Forces Staff College, hopes for resurgence. “UN peace operations provide unparalleled legitimacy to international efforts,” he said in a statement issued by the Canadian chapter of the World Federalist Movement. “That’s why Canadians, as shown in many polls, continue to support peacekeeping, even when Canada is at an all-time low in contributions of personnel.”

Link to the mentioned 2010 Nanos poll <a href="http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-W10-T443E.pdf">Here</a>
 
Retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie:
“There is no conventional peacekeeping out there; it’s a myth,” he said in an interview.

Shame it's buried near the end of the article, where the people who need to hear it are unlikely to ever see it.



 
The Nanos poll is also quite interesting.. looking through the variables - it seems at first glance that there is a generational effect were those respondants under 29 years of age, and over 60, responded more negatively to views on the war and if they would support another mission like Afghanistan.

Thoughts?
 
I think its been realized in past failures that in order to keep peace it has to be made first.
 
Journeyman said:
Shame it's buried near the end of the article, where the people who need to hear it are unlikely to ever see it.

That never happens when there is an agenda...I say if this person is so hot and bothered, he should go serve on one of these missions to really feel what it's like between a veritable rock and a hard place.  His perscpective might change somewhat when he's got to stand around between a bunch of crazy people, with ROE given to him by crazier/stupider people, hoping he can effectively employ said ROE in a timely manner before becoming road pizza in the mad rush for one side to get at the other.  Conspicuous by its abscence is lack of mention of the UN's decidely low amounts of testicular fortitude in allowing it's contingents to actually enforce their mandates without micromanagement from some yahoo in NYC who'll never lay eyes or feet on the situation in person.

Rant off.

MM
 
Hmm...

  Is a nation's score as a "peacekeeper" determined by anything other than the number of troops offered?  How does one capture the relative competencies/utility of the various offerings to the UN peacekeeping operations?  I picture a scenario where all sorts of badly trained, badly equiped and badly paid conscripts are offered.  At first glance their nation would be seen as a strong supporter of UN peacekeeping, far better than most western nations...

Sheer numbers is a pretty dodgy measure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top