Can Canada's army return to peacekeeping?
For the first time since 9/11 and with the world still aflame, the U.S. is urging allies to revive the concept of United Nations peacekeeping. But is it too late for Canada's combat-focused army, once the best in the blue helmet business, to be part of the new program?
Toronto Star
Mitch Potter
Mar 30 2015
When the most senior military brass from more than 100 countries gather for a historic summit you might expect Canada’s top soldier to join them.
Especially when the entire point of the gathering is to modernize and reinvigorate a Canadian idea for the age of threats like the Islamic State militant group, being there moves beyond expectation into the realm of mandatory.
Yet examine the images from UN headquarters in New York on Friday, where the planet’s military leaders gathered in unprecedented numbers in a major drive to rewire peacekeeping for the 21st century, and Canada’s Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Tom Lawson, is not in the picture. He wasn’t there.
As everyone knows, the Canadian Forces are not in the blue helmet business anymore. From a peak of 3,300 Canadians deployed to honour Lester B. Pearson’s Nobel Prize-winning concept of UN peacekeeping, only a token 90 serve today — 30 soldiers and 60 police officers.
Our army, once a leader in protecting civilians trapped by conflict, now is wired pretty much exclusively for war.
But what you probably don’t know is that a UN peacekeeping renaissance is in the works. And the effort is depending on technologically advanced allies like Canada to step up big.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon laid down the opening marker Friday in his address to the Chiefs of Defence Conference, calling for the “unity and backing” of developed countries to smart-wire, train, equip and staff a bigger, faster, fleeter international army of blue helmets to meet evermore complex challenges.
UN peacekeeping has never been busier, despite Canada’s exit from the realm. A record 130,000 international, military, police and civilian staff today serve in 16 operations around the world. These are unprecedented numbers.
But those missions are more complex, difficult and dangerous than ever. And the UN chief, with the full backing of the United States, is calling for not only additional “boots on the ground” from developing nations, but also new tools and technology, including surveillance drones, strategic airlift, medical evacuation and modern intelligence capabilities to better protect civilians and blue helmets alike.
The world must oppose “this terrorizing campaign by ISIL/Da’esh,” said Ban, using other terms in use for the Islamic State. But military actions, he said, are far from “the only options or only ways” to defeat extremism. Part of the answer is a stronger international partnership aimed at root causes, including a new global consensus to rebuild the “unparalleled legitimacy” of UN peacekeeping.
Canada is hardly alone in its drift away from peacekeeping. Europe has also dialed down its contributions, with EU member nations now providing fewer than 7 per cent of the overall UN peacekeeping force from a high of more than 40 per cent. The top 10 contributors today comprise troops from South Asia and Africa.
But the White House, which provides $2.5 billion (U.S.) of the UN’s annual $8.5-billion peacekeeping budget, wants its allies back in the peacekeeping game. U.S. President Barack Obama is expected to get involved personally in September, when he will chair a meeting at the UN General Assembly to tally up new blue helmet pledges.
The U.S. pivot on peacekeeping marks a turning point, according to Jean-Marie Guehenno, a former UN peacekeeping chief and now president of the International Crisis Group. Since the attacks of 9/11, U.S. policy has focused on NATO and alliances to meet conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond.
“Now, when the U.S. says, ‘You’re our allies, and one of the best ways to show that friendship is to contribute to the UN,’ that’s quite a signal,” Guehenno told The Associated Press.
Should Canada answer the call? Could we, even? Some Canadian analysts argue our current combat-ready, NATO-aligned military orientation makes the notion of a significant, sustained return to peacekeeping almost a non-starter.
“It’s not impossible. But to take the Canadian Forces as they currently exist and to recraft them into a force capable to leading a peacekeeping mission in the absence of its allies is a pretty significant reconsideration,” said Philippe Lagassé, associate professor of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa.
“When Canada operates overseas, it does so in heavy dependence of allies, and particularly the United States, for things like transport and logistics. Looking to any approach that doesn’t fit with that vision would involve a major reassessment of Canada’s force structure.”
But Walter Dorn, one of the last Canadian defence scholars who still teaches advanced peacekeeping classes, says the issue warrants serious reconsideration, given the level of U.S. interest in a blue helmet revival.
“The U.S. effort is genuine. I’ve been to Washington three times in recent months to talk with the (U.S.) Department of Defense on helping bring United Nations peacekeeping technology into the 21st century,” said Dorn, a professor of defence studies at the Royal Military College and the Canadian Forces College.
“And I think the key here is that the two approaches can coexist. It’s not one or the other and nothing in between. We can excel in combat and excel in peacekeeping. It comes down to questions of training and political will.”
In recent years the Canadian Forces have been “wired for war,” said Dorn. “But the skills we once had are not completely gone. Close to 30 per cent of Canadian officer command and staff having served as peacekeepers.”
Dorn has spent years arguing for a partial Canadian pivot back to peacekeeping. Among the potential dividends, he notes, are recouped costs. Canada pays every penny of its deployments alongside NATO — price tags like the $14 billion spent on war with Afghanistan. But the world pays for a significant part of UN peacekeeping, with contributor nations reimbursed about 25 per cent of soldiers’ salaries and close to 50 per cent on equipment costs.
“It’s the reputation dividend that is harder to quantify, and it’s not a simple equation,” said Dorn.
“It’s sheer naivety to think that peacekeeping alone makes all the difference. But at the same time, reputation does matter. And when you are seen as contributing to the cause for peace you are viewed as less of an aggressor,” he said.
“You look at Canada’s unique role in the genesis of peacekeeping, our absence of colonial baggage, our multilingual forces. You add to that the big change now, with the UN and the U.S. very serious about getting developed countries to return to peacekeeping.
“What it adds up to is a perfect moment to Canadians to reflect on where we are going, as a military and as a nation.”
