Between 1956 and 1992, Canada was often the single largest contributor of UN peacekeepers. Since the late 1990s, however, Canada has virtually disappeared from peacekeeping. Professor Michael Byers, holder of the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia (and member of the Rideau Institute’s Board of Directors), presents the case for re-engagement in peacekeeping (“After Afghanistan: Canada’s Return to UN Peacekeeping”, Canadian Military Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1).
The following are some of the main arguments made by Byers.
1. Peacekeeping actually works
“From 2003 to 2005, the RAND Corporation compared eight state-rebuilding missions conducted by the United States, and eight by the UN in terms of inputs, such as personnel, funding, and time, and the achievement of the goals of peace, economic growth, and democratization. The study showed that seven of the UN missions succeeded, whereas only four of the American missions triumphed.”
2. UN Peacekeeping at all-time high
“There are currently more than 80,000 blue-helmeted soldiers from 115 countries in 15 separate peacekeeping operations, from Kosovo, to Lebanon, to the Congo.”
Despite a lack of involvement in missions recently, Canadians in general remain strongly supportive of peacekeeping.
“In an October 2010 poll conducted by Nanos Research for the Toronto Globe and Mail, 52% of Canadians rated UN peacekeeping as an important role for Canada’s armed forces, with 25% giving it a ’10 out of 10’ on a scale of importance.”
3. Lessons from Afghanistan
“In 2005, the counter-insurgency mission in Kandahar was portrayed as a desirable step away from UN peacekeeping for Canada and the Canadian Forces. Today, the mission has fallen significantly short of its objectives, leaving Afghanistan more dangerous than it was before. With the counter-insurgency alternative having experienced a hard death, it is time to re-consider Canada’s relationship to peacekeeping – and return to a much more active UN role.”
4. What can Canada do?
“Most UN peacekeeping missions today have more robust mandates, more soldiers, and better equipment than the missions of the early-1990s. But they tend to lack well-trained soldiers from the developed world: a weakness that can be ascribed, in part, to Canada’s disengagement from peacekeeping. A relatively small number of well-trained, highly disciplined Canadian soldiers could act as force-multipliers in UN missions, by providing leadership and mentoring, and by serving as role models for less-well-trained developing country troops.”
Photo credit: Jamie in Bytown
February 14, 2013 at 8:31 pm
The question as to whether Canada will return to peacekeeping, I believe, is an interesting one. The attachment many Canadians feel towards peacekeeping is the affection many nations throughout the world feel for a national creation myth. The way Canadians feel about the idea of Lester B. Pearson “inventing” peacekeeping is very similar to the way the Japanese feel about the myth of Izanagi and Izanami. It gives them a unique identity.
The problem with the Pearson creation myth is that its a load of bollocks. Lester B. Pearson did not invent peacekeeping: he merely took existing military techniques and gave them a different focus. If you look at the techniques of peacekeeping closely, you will find little difference between the techniques used by the Candian Forces in Cyprus and the techniques employed by the CF during the October crisis of 1970. Back then, this entire category of military operations was called Internal Security. The greatest practioners of IS have always been the British, both in Northern Ireland and earlier in what was then called Malaya. Give credit where credit is due…
February 14, 2013 at 7:43 pm
Oh! While on the subject of UN peacekeeping successes, lets talk about the Democratic Rebpublic of Congo in late 2012. The UN couldn’t “haul ass” fast enough out of Goma when the M23 rebels decided that they were going to take that city. What a sterling example of UN peacekeeping success.
Lets face it, the UN can achieve success in peacekeeping and nation building, but its a question of scale. The scale of UN peacekeeping disasters far outweighs the scale of UN peacekeeping successes. Srebrenica resulted in over 9000 Bosniak men and boys being murdered as Dutch peacekeepers helplessly looked on. The “butcher’s bill” in Srebrenica pales in comparison to the failure of the UN mission in the DRC.
February 14, 2013 at 9:43 am
I would challenge your use of the 2005 RAND Corporation study as a clear indicator of UN peacekeeping success. The report itself states that “low rates of refugee returns are often a sign of continued conflict in the society in question.” By this criteria, the UN mission in East Slavonia would be juged an unmitigated disaster. Very few ethnic Serbs remained or returned to the area. What occured is that Serb families engaged in a program where they exchanged their lands and property with Croat families ethnically cleansed from other areas in the ex-Yugoslavia. In this respect, UN “soft power” actively facilitated the “soft” ethnic cleansing of hundreds of families, effecting a de facto partition of the country and effectively “sealing the deal” on the ethnic cleansing initiated by the paramilitaries.
East Timor is also interesting in that the report acknowledges an Australian-led forcible entry into the territory (which included a company of Canadian soldiers under Op TOUCAN). No one in this entry force wore a UN Blue Beret. Having studied UN peacekeeping missions between 2003 and 2005, the report obviously ignores the bloody troubles which subsequently errupted between the East Timor Police and the Army in July 2006.
The report refers to the UN’s Iraq involvement as “to soon to tell”. Prophetic words, as I seem to recall that the UN virtually pulled out of the country after its headquarters was the target of a suicide bomber.
UN peacekeeping success? Its too soon to tell.
February 5, 2013 at 10:28 am
Thank the War Mongers at NATO, after the balkans, those in power decided that NATO should now be the global cop, it is now being used to de-stabilize Governments of countries that the so called western capitalists dis- like. We are calling it war against terrorism, while raining down terror from drones or pouring down terror for the purpose of R2P.
I would say that the U.N. has been usurped by the war mongers of NATO.
February 1, 2013 at 8:06 am
This is a very welcome and timely initiative on the part of Michael Byers. It has been obvious to many of us for years that Canada should not have withdrawn from UN peacekeeping activities. Although the Harper Government has not openly acknowledged the fact, it is not hard to see that they know that much of their military effort in Afghanistan has been wasted. Mr Harper’s caution regarding Mali, and his awareness that Parliamentary involvement is necessary before and deeper engagement there, suggest that this is a good time politically to press for the kind of things UN missions do.