SHOULD CANADA GO TO AFRICA?
Harjit Sajjan’s trip to Mali and Senegal next week comes as a senator warns of long-term risks posed by a planned peacekeeping mission to Africa.The Star examines our return to peacekeeping in a continuing series.
OTTAWA—Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan is headed to Mali and Senegal on a fact-finding mission next week as the federal government continues to make plans to deploy a military mission to Africa.Sajjan’s five-day visit comes after an August trip to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, all against the backdrop of the Liberal pledge to commit troops to an African mission.
“We need to go into this eyes wide open, making sure that … we look at the complexities of how (peace) operations have been done in the past and what we need to do,” Sajjan told reporters in Ottawa.
“I have not set a deadline,” he said. “I want to make sure that we have all the right information, so that we can have a comprehensive plan, a whole-of-government approach to peace operations that are going to bring added value to the United Nations and how they operate now,” Sajjan said.
As with his previous trip, officials in Sajjan’s office cautioned that his itinerary should not be taken as a signal of where the Canadian force may wind up.
“He’d like to get a better sense of the situation in West Africa,” Jordan Owens told the Star. “Don’t read too much into the location.”
Still, Mali — home to one of the deadliest peace missions in Africa — has emerged as one of the possible locations where Canada could dispatch soldiers.
Sen. Daniel Lang, chair of the Senate committee on national security and defence, said discussions at UN headquarters last week provided a sobering overview of the challenges that are certain to confront a Canadian peace mission in Africa.
In late August, the government sent a reconnaissance team of officials to scout the situation on the ground.
Sajjan’s trip comes as Sen. Daniel Lang, chair of the Senate committee on national security and defence, warns that the military mission to Africa could be risky and could ensnare Canada for the long term.
Lang said discussions at UN headquarters last week provided a sobering overview of the challenges that are certain to confront a Canadian peace mission.
And he said any commitment to dispatch troops on an African mission must involve a clear-eyed appraisal of the risks, the length of the deployment and how it serves the national interest.
“Canadians should be fully aware of what we’re getting involved with,” Lang said Monday.
The Liberal government is weighing options to deploy as many as 600 soldiers and 160 police officers somewhere in Africa on a peace mission.
Lang praised Sajjan for taking time to carefully consider the deployment, given the risks.
He said there is good reason such missions are known as “peace support” operations, rather than “peacekeeping,” in many of the locales where Canadians could wind up.
“There is no peace to keep. You are there to try and maintain some social order and stability and protect the civilian population because you have all these warring factions,” Lang said.
He cited Mali as one example of the dangerous terrain that might await Canadian troops. A UN peacekeeper from Chad was killed there and four others wounded in May when their vehicle struck a mine.
“It’s been described as one of the deadliest missions to be involved in,” Lang told the Star during an interview in his office across from Parliament Hill.
“Canada has to be clear, if they’re going into anything like this, what the rules of engagement will be for any of our troops … that we have the ability to ensure their security,” he said.
During their visit to the UN, Lang and several other members of the Senate committee met with representatives of a number of African nations as well as European countries, such as the Netherlands, that have troops deployed to Africa.
He said there was an “overwhelming” call for Canada to focus on training local soldiers, likely from the African Union, to better enable them to take on the duties of serving in a conflict zone.
“Canadians can bring a fair amount of expertise to the table,” he said. “That was definitely an area that was said over and over again.”
Equipment, such as armoured vehicles, helicopters and other airlift capabilities, was also cited as another area where Canada could help.
Yet the discussions at the UN also underscored the challenge that lies ahead and the fact that the scale of conflict demands long-term intervention.
“It was clearly put to us that these countries and these regions that are undergoing such terrible devastation and political turmoil and violence, (it’s) a 10- to 20-year commitment,” Lang said.
“Not that Canada would necessarily stay there that long, but the fact is these are not a situation for quick fixes,” he said.
But he said Canada must learn from its time in Afghanistan, a costly conflict that began as a short-term deployment and turned into the country’s longest military engagement, stretching to 12 years.
Some have charged that the Liberal government is keen to send troops to Africa as part of its campaign to win a seat on the UN Security Council.
But Lang said the driving consideration must be the “public security of Canada.”
“At the end of the day, we have to know why we are going to deploy to any parts of the world, and that includes Africa. Why is it in our national interest? I think that has to be fully explained to us as Canadians,” he said.
Lang said the rationale is clearer for Europeans and their struggle against extremist terrorism, since Africa is in their “backyard.”
Lang said he came away from the visit “a bit overwhelmed” at the magnitude of the challenges confronting some of the nations.
“But I also came away knowing that Canada has been pulling its weight,” he said. “We’re not taking a back seat to anyone.”
In late August, the government sent a reconnaissance team of officials to scout the situation on the ground.
Sajjan’s trip comes as Sen. Daniel Lang, chair of the Senate committee on national security and defence, warns that the military mission to Africa could be risky and could ensnare Canada for the long term.
Lang said discussions at UN headquarters last week provided a sobering overview of the challenges that are certain to confront a Canadian peace mission.
And he said any commitment to dispatch troops on an African mission must involve a clear-eyed appraisal of the risks, the length of the deployment and how it serves the national interest.
“Canadians should be fully aware of what we’re getting involved with,” Lang said Monday.
The Liberal government is weighing options to deploy as many as 600 soldiers and 160 police officers somewhere in Africa on a peace mission.
Lang praised Sajjan for taking time to carefully consider the deployment, given the risks.
He said there is good reason such missions are known as “peace support” operations, rather than “peacekeeping,” in many of the locales where Canadians could wind up.
“There is no peace to keep. You are there to try and maintain some social order and stability and protect the civilian population because you have all these warring factions,” Lang said.
He cited Mali as one example of the dangerous terrain that might await Canadian troops. A UN peacekeeper from Chad was killed there and four others wounded in May when their vehicle struck a mine.
“It’s been described as one of the deadliest missions to be involved in,” Lang told the Star during an interview in his office across from Parliament Hill.
“Canada has to be clear, if they’re going into anything like this, what the rules of engagement will be for any of our troops … that we have the ability to ensure their security,” he said.
During their visit to the UN, Lang and several other members of the Senate committee met with representatives of a number of African nations as well as European countries, such as the Netherlands, that have troops deployed to Africa.
He said there was an “overwhelming” call for Canada to focus on training local soldiers, likely from the African Union, to better enable them to take on the duties of serving in a conflict zone.
“Canadians can bring a fair amount of expertise to the table,” he said. “That was definitely an area that was said over and over again.”
Equipment, such as armoured vehicles, helicopters and other airlift capabilities, was also cited as another area where Canada could help.
Yet the discussions at the UN also underscored the challenge that lies ahead and the fact that the scale of conflict demands long-term intervention.
“It was clearly put to us that these countries and these regions that are undergoing such terrible devastation and political turmoil and violence, (it’s) a 10- to 20-year commitment,” Lang said.
“Not that Canada would necessarily stay there that long, but the fact is these are not a situation for quick fixes,” he said.
But he said Canada must learn from its time in Afghanistan, a costly conflict that began as a short-term deployment and turned into the country’s longest military engagement, stretching to 12 years.
Some have charged that the Liberal government is keen to send troops to Africa as part of its campaign to win a seat on the UN Security Council.
But Lang said the driving consideration must be the “public security of Canada.”
“At the end of the day, we have to know why we are going to deploy to any parts of the world, and that includes Africa. Why is it in our national interest? I think that has to be fully explained to us as Canadians,” he said.
Lang said the rationale is clearer for Europeans and their struggle against extremist terrorism, since Africa is in their “backyard.”
Lang said he came away from the visit “a bit overwhelmed” at the magnitude of the challenges confronting some of the nations.
“But I also came away knowing that Canada has been pulling its weight,” he said. “We’re not taking a back seat to anyone.”
No comments:
Post a Comment