It’s a familiar scene in classrooms and lecture halls across Canada. A teacher or professor keen to introduce a topic about Canada and its role in the world leads with the ever popular discussion question, “what values does the rest of the world associate with Canada?” Hands begin to go up, and classically Canadian ideals such as, “multiculturalism,” “acceptance,” and “igloos,” are suggested. More often than not, “peacekeeping” is also added in the mix. When this is suggested it elicits a patriotic response. Our heart swells imagining people around the world thinking fondly of Canada as the harbinger of peace, and lover of all things non-violent. They think of Canada, a country whose own Foreign Affairs Minister fathered the concept of peacekeeping. Canada, they imagine, a country who valiantly defends human rights in places of conflict worldwide. Canada, who specializes in apologies and just wants everyone to have a good time. In short, Canada the peacekeeper. Unfortunately this is no longer the case. Canada is no longer the peacekeeping force it once was, and for this we should be ashamed. Furthermore I argue that in face of these failures, Canada should revamp its efforts in peacekeeping and live up to our supposed reputation.
I’ll begin with a question. What do Rwanda, the DRC, and Congo have in common? Several things actually. All three are central African nations that have been ravaged by civil war. All three have GDPs that rank below $60 billion per year. All three have, at some point or other, hosted Canadian peacekeeping troops. And all three currently provide more troops to the UN peacekeeping force than Canada. Of the top ten contributors, six are African nations, with Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Nepal completing the group. In fact, Canada the peacekeeper doesn’t even break the top 50 contributors to UN peacekeeping forces. We rank 65th, amongst other such military and economic forces as Zambia, Tunisia, and Sierra Leone. Our contribution? 84 police officers, 13 military experts, and 21 soldiers as of September 2014. Still feeling proud of our peacekeeping reputation now?
There are several reasons for the decline of Canadian peacekeeping participation. The first is the incidences of failures the UN experienced in peacekeeping missions during the mid-90s. Between the Rwandan genocide in the presence of Canadian-lead UNAMIR forces in 1994, or the torture of a Somali teenager by Canadian troops in 1993, the ‘90s provided strong disincentive for future Canadian participation in UN endeavours.
While this was happening, NATO began to rise to prominence as an instrument of humanitarian intervention, providing a second distracting factor. Since the 1990s Canada has chosen to participate more with NATO, fighting alongside the US and its allies in wars based on humanitarian intervention, a concept which it is important to note is fundamentally different than peacekeeping. Peacekeeping is dependent on the conflicted country’s consent, and uses lightly armed troops to enforce peace agreements, a practice which has been shown through statistics to decrease the likelihood of a return to violence. Humanitarian intervention, on the other hand, is based off of military supremacy and the enforcement of peace using things like no fly zones, precision airstrikes, and offensive counterinsurgency operations.
The effects of these NATO led interventions have been felt greatly in Canada. Earlier this year Canada finally finished returning her troops home from a decade-long war that one would be hard pressed to call a success. Thus the Afghanistan war is the third cause of the decline of Canadian participation in peacekeeping operations, as it consumed the majority of the Armed Forces’ resources and capacities. Due to the war Canada drastically scaled back its training and education for peacekeeping operations, and in 2013 closed the doors of the Pearson Center, a military training base intended to train foreign and Canadian military personnel in peacekeeping operations.
More recently decreases in peace support operation (PSO) training and contributions to UN Peacekeeping missions overall, can also be seen as a reflection of the Harper administration’s prioritization of missions that the US deems valuable, over those which the UN deems valuable. This can be seen recently in Libya, in which Canada assisted NATO in bombing runs meant to depose the Gaddafi regime, a mission which arguably destabilized the state and lead to the ongoing war today. If my predictions hold true, we should have the example of Syria and Iraq to point to in a few years as another botched humanitarian intervention for Canada to be ashamed of.
So what should Canada do? I have two possible solutions to this question. The first is that we make a concerted effort to revamp our peacekeeping traditions. At one time, 1 in 3 Canadian Armed Forces members wore a blue beret (UN peacekeeping outfit), a goal which I believe we should attempt to return to. We should reopen the Pearson Center, and expand its budget to better train our forces in peacekeeping and nation-building. We should realign our military interests with those which aim to preserve peace, as opposed to those which aim to make war. In doing this, Canada can return to its former role of being a leader in peacekeeping efforts, a role in which we can use institutions such as the Pearson Center and UN missions to spread our knowledge and peacekeeping ideals to other military forces worldwide.
It is interesting to note that in discussion, guest speaker Capt. Lisa Haveman noted that in Afghanistan, Canadian forces were more adept at nation-building endeavours than their American counterparts, a trend which bodes well for a Canadian return to peacekeeping practices. I don’t think it’s an unattainable goal for Canada, and her forces, to realign ourselves with more multilaterally supported peacekeeping missions, which are more likely to garner long term peace. Doing so would gain Canada greater prominence in the global security arena, and provide greater nation-building efforts to conflict-ridden states than bombs from a CF-18 ever could.
And the second option? The second option is one in which we maintain the status quo. We continue to train our military forces solely to make war, continue to bomb in the name of peace, and continue to follow Western interests into conflicts that are ill-advised. While I won’t judge anyone who prefers this option, I must insist that if we continue to go this route, we should stop patting ourselves on the back for peace we do not keep.
In my eyes, this is what Canadian peacekeeping in the 21st century comes down to. We can return to the values that Pearson instilled in us, values that we pride ourselves on and enjoy presenting to the world. Or we can carry on with the realist attitude that all wars can be solved with bombs, and that all soldiers should be warriors, and in doing so forget our past peaceful ideals. Personally, I prefer the former.
Despite the Politically Correct spin that has continuously been put on the subject, Canada does not maintain her armed forces for “peacekeeping operations” . The mission of the Canadian Forces is to engage in war fighting. Combat, full stop. Hopefully, always overseas. Canada needs her military to maintain it’s offensive abilities in order to protect Canadians from war. In all likelihood, (and I fervently hope) not another World War, but it’s certainly probable that conflicts in other countries will require Canada’s military to respond yet again. Canada, with her deeply-held convictions about morality and it’s obligations, will always want to do her part. And rightfully so. It’s what makes me proud to be a Canadian, and to wear her uniform.
However, “Peacekeeping” ? as originally envisioned by Lester Pearson, was the last casualty of the Cold War. It was cremated in the ashes of Srebrenica. It was left to rot alongside the bodies of thousands of innocents in Rwanda. It was buried in the ruins of the World Trade Centre. Try as they may, those who wish otherwise cannot exhume and reanimate its corpse.
It has since been replaced by security operations, such as those in Afghanistan, and counter- (or, better yet, pre-emptive) strikes against terrorists, brigands, and rogue states. These are not peacekeeping missions. They are “stability campaigns” ? (or whatever the phrase du jour may be) and they require aggressive military operations (and aggressive military personnel), whether it be to remove tyrannical regimes or to disarm lawless and powerful warlords. Too, it must be mentioned that Canada has recently engaged in conventional combat operations – in Kosovo in 1999 and in Afghanistan in 2002 – operating under NATO in the former, and with a U.S.-led coalition in the latter. Neither of which, let me remind you, gentle reader, was a “U.N. sanctioned ? Peacekeeping mission.
Peacekeeping was born of the Cold War: Joint task-forces replacing out-and-out combat forces, on the belief that belligerents could be separated, thereby allowing diplomats and lawyers to step in and resolve the conflict. That worked fine on paper. In practice, however, resolutions remained hard to pin down and peace was kept only so long as all parties accepted the continuing presence of a neutralizing authority. Witness the decades-long Peacekeeping presence in Cypress, and the continued presence of Peacekeepers in the Golan Heights.
This is not to say that “Peacekeeping” (or whatever term the High and Mighty wish to impose on such actions) are no longer necessary today. Quite the opposite. The cost of not imposing the Rule of Law in places like Rwanda, the Sudan, Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia, Ethiopia, etc, cannot be underestimated. Complete cultures have been destroyed, young boys are shanghaied into child-armies, and women (both ancient and pre-pubescent) are being gang-raped by animals in human form forcibly spreading their ethnic seed in order to “breed out” other tribes. Entire nations today are living in a Post-Traumatic Stress induced nightmare. Add to this the ever-present shadow cast by Islamic terrorism, (whether sponsored by private individuals, organizations, or states,) and the world becomes a scary, scary place.
Peacekeeping now, though, has become a catchall, touchy-feely phrase whose definition (or lack thereof, rather) means it can be applied to anything from peacekeeping, to peacemaking, to policing to war zones, and whatever other dirty little task is required. The bottom line remains the same, however. Peacekeeping today means imposing order on people. It means troops on the ground saying: “Love thy neighbour, or I’ll kill you.” And, all the time, they have to keep an eye out for those on both (or more) sides who intend to shoot them first. Or blow them up with a homemade belt of explosives.
I defy anyone to explain the difference between a modern “peacekeeping” mission and a D-Day style liberation invasion, to the man with his belly in the dirt dodging incoming rounds. To him, a bullet is a bullet, and whether it’s fired by the child-soldier of an African army of brigands, or the highly trained commando of a “civilized” enemy nation, makes no difference. To him, dead is dead. The only way he will survive is to aggressively close with and destroy his enemy, by any means available to him.
“Peacekeepers” did not defeat the dictatorship in Iraq, did not overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan, and will not defeat the racist, genocidal regime in Sudan.“Peacekeepers” will not defeat the narco-terrorists in Colombia, the LRA in Uganda, or the Janjaweed in Sudan.“Peacekeepers” ? did not free the British servicemen held in Sierra Leone. The threat of “Peacekeepers” will not persuade Iran, Syria or North Korea to abandon their weapon programs, and did not convince Libya to abandon theirs. “Peacekeepers” are not hunting Al Qaeda, the Abu Sayyaf Group, or the dozens of other terrorist groups spreading chaos and their perversions of Islam.
Yet, Canadians still have a pie-in-the-sky, ivory-tower notion about peacekeeping. When Canadians say they want Canada to have an “army”, what they really mean is an army of peacekeepers. Our political leaders (and here I use the term in it’s loosest possible definition) and the media need to disabuse the Canadian public of this balderdash and poppycock (stuff and nonsense?). We need to replace the lily-white myth of peacekeeping with the mud slogging, grinding truth. A peacekeeper in Kabul today is the same thing a war-fighting soldier was in Nazi-occupied France 60 years ago: an infantryman. A tired soldier on the ground, with a pair of dirty boots, a clean rifle, and the will to use it. A man who is willing to fight for peace, and who doesn’t worry about the philosophical conundrum such a statement makes. A man who does what he does, so that others will not have to.
Fostering the myth of peacekeeping is not in the best interests of our nation as a whole, or the Canadian Forces in particular. Peacekeeping (by any name) is important, true, but Canada must be capable of waging war, in order to protect (or impose) peace. We could once
As a Canadian Veteran, I would like to dispel a few myths, and elevate the debate in regards to Canada’s role in this fight against ISIS. I am angered that all the political parties in this country seem to be trying to “score points” in regards to this issue on the backs of the brave men and women whose task it is to carry out this mission.
Myth #1 – “This is/is not a ‘Combat Mission'” : There is no such thing as a “Combat” mission, there are only missions. Sometimes your mission is dangerous, sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes you are armed, sometimes you are not. Sometimes it is an overseas mission, sometimes domestic. Sometimes you wear a blue beret, sometimes a green helmet. The made up title of “Combat Mission” has no bearing on your task, it’s difficulty, or it’s danger. It does not exist. I have served on operations in Canada where I was armed, but not in danger, and I know unarmed military observers who were in extreme danger on their operations.
Myth #2 – “We need to have an ‘Exit Strategy'” : Another beast that does not exist. No nation, alliance, empire, city state, clan or tribe has ever, in the history of armed conflict, going back to the stone age, gone into a fight with an “Exit strategy” or, if you prefer, a plan to leave immediately if, “Things don’t work out the way we plan”. There are two sayings that military commanders use when making a battle plan, “No plan survives contact with the enemy” and, “The enemy always gets to have their say in your plan”. The “Fog of war” permeates every armed conflict. If someone tells you, with any kind of certainty, “This is what will happen on this mission” , he is lying to you. There are simply too many possible outcomes in armed conflict. The variables are endless. Having an “Exit strategy” going into war is like planning your wedding for noon, and having a date lined up for nine o’clock in case it doesn’t work out. It is what it is, war will be what it will be.
Myth #3 – “This is/is not a ‘Real War'” : War is always evolving. We do not line up in three ranks, in an open field, at a prescribed time, to trade salvos of musket fire anymore. Cavalry units don’t ride horses in combat anymore. Nations, very rarely, if ever, formally declare war upon each other anymore. Even so called “Peacekeeping” missions have changed. Peacekeeping, as it was envisioned, is an armed force deployed between two warring nation state’s professional military. The two nations have agreed to stop fighting, and the neutral peacekeeping force is there to enforce the negotiated and agreed upon settlement. This does not happen anymore (if it ever even did). Which bring me to the last myth…
Myth #4 – “Canadians are the World’s ‘Peacekeepers'” : This one really irks me. Canada IS NOT, and never has been, a neutral country. We have interests abroad, and alliances to maintain. We desire peace and stability in the world, but the world is a dangerous place. We must be prepared to defend our country and our way of life. These alliances, which have kept us safe for many years, come with obligations. The defense of Canada is our armed forces’ primary mission and reason for existing. Period. Full stop. Peace support operations are only a sideline. The reason that Canadian service members have a reputation as good peacekeepers is that they are well trained and professional soldiers (and sailors, and airmen, and airwomen) first. The vast majority of their training is for full out war. That is the only way. I can tell you, having worn the blue beret under the UN in Croatia, a green beret under NATO in Bosnia, and a green kevlar helmet under an alliance in Afghanistan, I have witnessed, and been extremely grateful for, Canadian soldiers’ war fighting abilities.
It is not my intention to offer my personal opinion, nor influence the reader’s, about weather we should or should not deploy Canada’s military, or what their mission should or should not be, but I feel very strongly that we, as Canadian citizens, should be having this conversation. Too many of us have forgotten that we owe, and should be thankful for, the freedom and luxury of being able to give our opinion in the public sphere, to those who have sacrificed on our behalf. The stakes are too high, and too much Canadian blood has been spilled, to stick our heads in the sand now.
Peacekeeping in Canada is a myth. The two above are letters to the editors from two Canadian soldiers, the letters were never published because they do not conform to the myth that Canada is a country of Neutral Peacekeepers. Perhaps truly educate yourself on the matter of the military and its operations through history before simply following the narrative which has been since elementary school drilled into us. Canada’s military is there to wage wars, plain and simple. They are not there to act as peacekeepers to the world, they are there as Gen. Rick Hillier said during Afghanistan “we’re not the public service of Canada. We’re not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people.” Peacekeeping was never the primary role of the military, the military’s role is to defend the National interest of Canada at home and abroad. Not play police officer.