|
|
|
Is Peacekeeping Dead as a Viable Option for the Canadian Military? August 2002
Most Canadians over 40 recognize that of their country's many contributions to the world, two stand out: hockey and peacekeeping. And just as hockey has changed in the last 40 years (often requiring that we swallow some pride and adjust our expectations), so it is with peacekeeping. We are no longer the only, or even the best known, of the peacekeepers - and we are struggling to keep up with other nations whose training in best practices is more advanced than ours. The rude reality is that peacekeeping of the type that the late Lester B. Pearson proposed in the 1960s, and for which he received his Nobel Peace Prize, is no longer considered a viable approach to easing tensions between countries or within countries. The three basic principles put forward by the former Canadian prime minister: consent, non-use of force and impartiality, are still useful guideposts. But today they are much less absolute, and the conflict theatres where they are applied are much more complex, says a new paper written by Canadian political scientist Anne Fitz-Gerald. She reasons this from her field research of recent peacekeeping operations - Haiti between 1994 and 1996, Bosnia in 1996, 1998 and 1999, Somalia in 1997 and Northern Ireland in 1999.* The complexities arise, says Professor Fitz-Gerald, because peace enforcement has taken the place of peacekeeping in some situations, like the current intervention by the Americans and Canadians in Afghanistan. In other situations, for example Haiti, there appeared to be no common ethos among the several participating nations, or even common rules of engagement (ROEs). The Afghanistan intervention has raised serious doubts about Canada's ability or desire to take on any more peacekeeping missions. Working with the Americans in Kandahar implies that Canadian Forces are working in a war zone under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter that underwrites "peace enforcement," not under Chapter 6 that covers peacekeeping, according to Fitz-Gerald. "This raises the question of whether or not the Canadian Forces, through interoperability, are implicitly taking themselves away from peacekeeping (even the most robust kind) and moving towards peace enforcement," says Prof. Fitz-Gerald. "Given the limitations on Canadian military resources, as well as the need to be selective about future operations, does this mean that Canada will not be able do both?" The idea of Canadian interoperability with American forces dates back to treaties between the U.S. and Canada during the Second World War and the 1958 North American Air Defence Agreement (NORAD). Reflecting on this interoperability, another recent paper questions how independent Canada is - or wants to be - from the U.S.** Professors Middlemiss and Stairs provide a useful historical background to the interoperability issue, then point out how closely integrated are the naval operations of Canada and the U.S., to add to the closeness of the cooperation between the air forces. "Interoperability in the operational sense is not the same as the integration of structures of command and control, but the two are closely related and, clearly, mutually reinforcing,"they say. And one of the many wider implications for Canada is how our other allies view this trend. On this issue, the two professors are blunt. "[T]he reality is that there is now increasing anecdotal and other evidence that in recent years the Europeans have come to assume that Canada has so fully integrated with the United States - economically and diplomatically as well as militarily - that it can no longer be regarded as a useful interlocutor, much less an independent player." The notion of Canada as an "independent player" - whether in political, economic or military terms - is an old one that reaches back to the 18th century. It was a theme of our history through the 19th and the 20th centuries as we stretched to defend ourselves against pressure from the British and then the Americans. Canada's role as a peacekeeper was only one of the latest manifestations of that search. But clearly, in an increasingly globalized, interoperable, interdependent world, Canada's choices are more and more limited. And it is not something to cheer or lament. It is simply reality. *"Multinational Land Force Interoperability: Meeting the Challenge of Difference Cultural Backgrounds in Chapter VI Peace Support Operations", by Ann Fitz-Gerald, Department of Defence Management and Security Analysis, Cranfield University, Royal Military College of Science. Published by the IRPP as part of the Choices series in August 2002 and available at www.irpp.org James Ferrabee welcomes comment on this column at jferrabee@irpp.org |
