DFAIT logo partnership The logo for the by design elab, an independent research development and production think tank specializing in online forums for policy development, incubated in 1997 at the McLuhan Program at the University of Toronto
DFAIT Home Site Map Help Policies Partners Feedback Netcast Français
 
Welcome
Message from the Minister
Dialogue Paper
Answer Questions
View Answers
Discussion Forum
 

Security

Thank you for participating in the Dialogue on Foreign Policy. The interactive web site is now closed. The Minister's report will appear on this web site once it is released.

This Forum is bilingual, and participants post messages in their language of choice.

Peacekeeping

Contributor: nickie

Date: 2003-02-02 21:21:45



On the issue of the means by which our military can best serve Canada’s foreign policy objectives, this forum has offered a variety of options for the future roles of the Canadian Forces. There are many within the discussion group (on security) who have strongly advocated that Canada be true to it's peacekeeping past and focus exclusively on shaping a peacekeeping expertise, convinced that this is the "Canadian way." As a junior military officer who has served on UN peacekeeping missions, I will give you my candid assessment of a peacekeeping military. In short, they don't really exist.

The peacekeeping doctrine developed by Pearson in the 1960's is admired throughout the world. In the past, Canadians were respected because they proved that benign foreign policy objectives (conflict resolution) could be achieved with supporting military resources. It is, however, very unwise to consider shaping military policy exclusively around the notion of peacekeeping. Why? Well, the ugly truth (something politicians will not admit to) is that the concept of peacekeeping is based on deterrence. Basically, for peacekeeping to work, the two sides (respecting a peace resolution) must understand that the peacekeeper will kill them if they do not respect the peace (for failure of this concept see Srebrenica). The reason that Canadians soldiers are successful peacekeepers has always been that they are excellent, professional warriors who are prepared to use lethal force to uphold the peace. To attempt to develop something different from this model is like creating a playbook for the wrong game.

For those who think our peacekeeping missions are a clean way for Canada to play international peace-broker....well, they have a point. But remember that peacekeeping can be a damn ugly business; Canadians get killed on these missions, Canadians kill people on these missions.

Now, you can dispute this and argue that Canada must develop a "peace-oriented" military... but I would respectfully submit that you've never been on a peacekeeping tour and you don't fully understand how the business works.


Reply to this message

Peacekeeping

Contributor: FedUpCanadian

Date: 2003-02-11 02:10:50


Outstanding post, sir, well said. Careful though, sir, you may shine the light of reality and common sense into the dark corners of the peacenik's utopia where the Red Chinese and Stalinists run the world.

Reply to this message