By: Matthew Fisher, National Post
The Trudeau government has a bit of a pacifist streak, a peacekeeping fetish, a romantic nostalgia for Pearsonian internationalism and a distrust of the security arrangements that have kept Canada safe since the Second World War.
Canadian troops donning blue berets and marching off to Africa for the first time in two decades are part of a seismic shift by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to prioritize working with the UN to solve international disputes rather than collaborating with traditional allies.
The Liberals’ lack of ardour for working with such treaty partners as NATO or NORAD precedes the current prime minister’s term by many years. But with peacekeeping now dominating the conversation in government circles in Ottawa, there is less enthusiasm for those alliances than ever.
While there is no talk of Canada quitting NATO or NORAD — the rote platitudes about a profound and abiding commitment are still uttered — the prime minister and his closest advisers are clearly more comfortable working with the UN than the country’s old partners. This conviction arises partly from the insecurities some Canadians have about their southern neighbours and partly from a desire to stake out international diplomatic turf that Canada can claim as its own.
Geoff Robins/AFP/Getty ImagesPrime Minister Justin Trudeau greets UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon as he arrives for a conference on AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in Montreal Sept. 17, 2016.
The change in focus can not only be seen in Ottawa’s rapture with the UN and French Africa — which Liberal Quebecers such as Trudeau the Elder and Jean Chrétien always had a soft spot for — but in the government’s giddy promotion of trade and friendship with China, whose “basic dictatorship” Trudeau the Younger has said he admires, and which is likely construed from the U.S. point of view as a move away from Washington.
It has been repeated like a mantra recently that China is now Canada’s second-most important trading partner, after the United States. Usually left unsaid is that Canada is only China’s 13th-most important trading partner. Similarly forgotten in the rush to become close to China’s Communist regime — and put aside its appalling human rights record and current mania for building fighter and naval bases on sandbars in the South China Sea — is that Canada’s trade with the U.S. is still about 10 times greater and represents the largest trading relationship in the world.
As for Trudeau’s “bromance” with Barack Obama, it is fun while it lasts. The friendship ends with the U.S. presidential election next month. It will almost certainly be followed by more complicated relationships with either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.
Related
Matthew Fisher: ‘The Kumbaya thing will not work, especially in Africa,’ ex-soldier warns Canadians
Emma Watson praises Justin Trudeau for half-female cabinet in meeting at Ottawa summit
John Ivison: Trudeau wins over UN with strange speech full of liberal platitudes
It was obvious that Trudeau’s bond with Obama was wearing a little thin after the president told Parliament a couple of months ago that he expected Canada to continue pulling its weight in NATO. That polite public reading of the riot act was followed almost immediately by Trudeau’s announcement that a Canadian-led combat force would soon be sent overseas to act as tripwire along the Russian border in the Baltics.
The announcement came as a shock at NATO headquarters in Brussels. As one delighted senior official told me, Ottawa had done everything it could for months to avoid making such a commitment.
The lack of interest in NATO comes as the alliance faces many stresses and tests because of Russia and fractures in the European Union. If NATO comes apart, don’t expect Canada to try to help much to keep it together.
On NORAD, it looks as if Trudeau is determined to buy a new fighter jet that will not have the latest capabilities that the American and other NATO aircraft have. While privately unhappy about this, the Americans are unlikely to publicly criticize Canada. That is because continental air defence is so crucial to Americans that they will simply take over Canada’s northern air space and put our new, small fleet of second-tier fighter jets in the rear with the gear.
The Liberals’ preference for the UN, which has been underlined by Trudeau’s pursuit of a temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council, began long before he decided to follow his father into federal politics. The Chrétien government wisely declined to be part of George W. Bush’s ill-starred coalition in Iraq and the reason at the time was because the operation did not have the UN’s blessing. The Chrétien and Martin Liberals later agreed to send troops to Afghanistan, but that was a UN-sanctioned mission.
Stephen Harper had a famously different view of the UN than Trudeau. Although Canada continued to be one of the UN’s biggest financial supporters during Harper’s years in power, he criticized it frequently as ineffectual and corrupt and for being dominated by unsavoury officials from countries that are dictatorships.
Harper sometimes denounced the UN but mostly ignored it. He preferred to co-operate with the Five Eyes (the intelligence-sharing alliance with Britain, New Zealand, Australia and the U.S.). He signed on to American- and NATO-led bombing campaigns against Iraq, Syria and Libya; sent F-18s on a NATO mission to defend Lithuania; and put Canadian military trainers on the ground in Ukraine, Poland and Iraq.
Until now, the Trudeau government’s warm embrace of the UN has not produced benefits or damaging consequences. But the change of direction must be causing bewilderment and anxiety in Washington and other Western capitals and perverse delight in Beijing and Moscow.
Showing posts with label CAF Peacekeeping. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CAF Peacekeeping. Show all posts
Monday, October 3, 2016
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
All signs point to UN mission in Africa
By: Matthew Fisher, The Ottawa Citizen
Getting logistics right will be priority No. 1
LIKE THE FRENCH, THE CANADIAN MILITARY NEEDS TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT BECOMING OVERSTRETCHED. — COLUMNIST MATTHEW FISHER
Colombia and South Sudan are the longshot options for Canada’s first major UN military operation since Jean Chrétien sent troops to East Timor 16 years ago.
A reasonable case can be made for Colombia, where the government and rebels have just signed a peace accord that may end a war that has gone on for years. But Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan have made it clear the government has its heart set on a mission in French West Africa to further Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s ambition to gain a seat on the UN Security Council.
Only time will tell whether it was worthwhile in Canadian blood and treasure to deploy on an open-ended mission to Mali, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo or other options equally fraught with danger, such as Niger or Burundi. Factored into the equation when that reckoning comes will be the true value to Canada of the UN appointment when, like the other 10 non-permanent members, it would only be admitted to the inner sanctum for two years and would be powerless to do anything there in the face of the veto powers of the five permanent members.
As it is almost certain Canada will become involved in French West Africa, Ottawa has been keen to begin that mission with French-speaking troops. This makes sense, but could seriously complicate the training and readiness regimes of the country’s three combat brigades.
Since early August, the Canadian Army’s high-readiness brigade has been built around the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry. But the first force to be deployed to Africa may have to be drawn from the Quebec-based Royal 22nd Regiment, the Vandoos, some of whom returned only weeks ago from a deployment to eastern Europe.
Not much has been heard from Gen. Jonathan Vance, chief of the defence staff of the Canadian Armed Forces, about the potential perils of a mission in a region where Canadian deployments to Rwanda and Somalia have had difficulties and where the UN’s current peacemaking operations have been so rife with allegations of grave sexual misconduct, incompetence and cowardice, they can only be described as a total disaster.
Once the Canadians’ destination is revealed in September, Vance, who is a famously straight shooter, is likely to begin making it clear to the troops and the public what lies ahead.
Among the unspoken military concerns is that this is an open-ended mission and little or no help can be expected from the Americans. That may sound great to some Canadians. But if things go south, as they might, nobody except perhaps the French, who are already badly stretched by combat operations in Africa and the Middle East and in dealing with the terrorist threat at home, may have our backs.
One of the reasons Canadian forces would prefer to go to Mali may be because that is where the French have the most troops and the most robust military capability. It is also where Germany and the Netherlands have quietly sent about 1,000 troops over the past year, although those countries do not see their contributions as part of a bid for a Security Council seat.
Like the French, the Canadian military needs to be careful about becoming overstretched. As African operations involving about 600 ramp up, it must also sustain about 800 troops in Kuwait and the Kurdish part of Iraq. It will soon send about 450 combat troops on a new NATO mission to Latvia to to try to contain Russia’s irredentist impulses on its western borders.
With only five C-17 heavylift aircraft and oceans between these disparate missions and Canada, getting the logistics right will be job No. 1. Much of the planning will fall to Maj.-Gen. Chuck Lamarre.
The logistician responsible for the massive undertaking of bringing all Canada’s equipment back from Kandahar, he is now Vance’s director of staff and his right arm on operations.
Given that the Trudeau government intends to keep Canadian Forces in Africa for many years and that those troops will require scores of heavy armoured personnel carriers, weapons, a field hospital and helicopters, something to look for soon may be an announcement Canada intends to establish a regional logistics hub, most likely in the Senegalese port of Dakar. It would be something akin to the ones that already exist in Kuwait and Cologne.
Identifying personnel and assembling the tens of thousands of nuts and bolts required to deploy to a part of the world where infrastructure is almost totally lacking will take time and patience. That will give Canadians the opportunity to ponder whether the African mission is an altruistic endeavour to do good in a deeply troubled part of the world or a grand bid to enhance Canada’s chances of winning the Security Council seat.
Getting logistics right will be priority No. 1
LIKE THE FRENCH, THE CANADIAN MILITARY NEEDS TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT BECOMING OVERSTRETCHED. — COLUMNIST MATTHEW FISHER
 |
| CHAD HIPOLITO / THE CANADIAN PRESS FILESThe Quebec-based Royal 22nd Regiment, the Vandoos, some of whom returned weeks ago from Europe, may be the first force to be deployed to Africa, writes Matthew Fisher. |
A reasonable case can be made for Colombia, where the government and rebels have just signed a peace accord that may end a war that has gone on for years. But Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan have made it clear the government has its heart set on a mission in French West Africa to further Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s ambition to gain a seat on the UN Security Council.
Only time will tell whether it was worthwhile in Canadian blood and treasure to deploy on an open-ended mission to Mali, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo or other options equally fraught with danger, such as Niger or Burundi. Factored into the equation when that reckoning comes will be the true value to Canada of the UN appointment when, like the other 10 non-permanent members, it would only be admitted to the inner sanctum for two years and would be powerless to do anything there in the face of the veto powers of the five permanent members.
As it is almost certain Canada will become involved in French West Africa, Ottawa has been keen to begin that mission with French-speaking troops. This makes sense, but could seriously complicate the training and readiness regimes of the country’s three combat brigades.
Since early August, the Canadian Army’s high-readiness brigade has been built around the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry. But the first force to be deployed to Africa may have to be drawn from the Quebec-based Royal 22nd Regiment, the Vandoos, some of whom returned only weeks ago from a deployment to eastern Europe.
Not much has been heard from Gen. Jonathan Vance, chief of the defence staff of the Canadian Armed Forces, about the potential perils of a mission in a region where Canadian deployments to Rwanda and Somalia have had difficulties and where the UN’s current peacemaking operations have been so rife with allegations of grave sexual misconduct, incompetence and cowardice, they can only be described as a total disaster.
Once the Canadians’ destination is revealed in September, Vance, who is a famously straight shooter, is likely to begin making it clear to the troops and the public what lies ahead.
Among the unspoken military concerns is that this is an open-ended mission and little or no help can be expected from the Americans. That may sound great to some Canadians. But if things go south, as they might, nobody except perhaps the French, who are already badly stretched by combat operations in Africa and the Middle East and in dealing with the terrorist threat at home, may have our backs.
One of the reasons Canadian forces would prefer to go to Mali may be because that is where the French have the most troops and the most robust military capability. It is also where Germany and the Netherlands have quietly sent about 1,000 troops over the past year, although those countries do not see their contributions as part of a bid for a Security Council seat.
Like the French, the Canadian military needs to be careful about becoming overstretched. As African operations involving about 600 ramp up, it must also sustain about 800 troops in Kuwait and the Kurdish part of Iraq. It will soon send about 450 combat troops on a new NATO mission to Latvia to to try to contain Russia’s irredentist impulses on its western borders.
With only five C-17 heavylift aircraft and oceans between these disparate missions and Canada, getting the logistics right will be job No. 1. Much of the planning will fall to Maj.-Gen. Chuck Lamarre.
The logistician responsible for the massive undertaking of bringing all Canada’s equipment back from Kandahar, he is now Vance’s director of staff and his right arm on operations.
Given that the Trudeau government intends to keep Canadian Forces in Africa for many years and that those troops will require scores of heavy armoured personnel carriers, weapons, a field hospital and helicopters, something to look for soon may be an announcement Canada intends to establish a regional logistics hub, most likely in the Senegalese port of Dakar. It would be something akin to the ones that already exist in Kuwait and Cologne.
Identifying personnel and assembling the tens of thousands of nuts and bolts required to deploy to a part of the world where infrastructure is almost totally lacking will take time and patience. That will give Canadians the opportunity to ponder whether the African mission is an altruistic endeavour to do good in a deeply troubled part of the world or a grand bid to enhance Canada’s chances of winning the Security Council seat.
Friday, August 5, 2016
Ivison: Liberals’ African peacekeeping plan unlikely to offer easy wins
By: John Ivision, The National Post
OTTAWA — Harjit Sajjan is heading to West Africa this month on a fact-finding mission impossible.
The defence minister will search for an elusive United Nations peacekeeping mission that will maximize Canada’s chances of winning a seat on the UN Security Council but minimize the potential cost in Canadian lives and resources.
“That’s hard to find in Africa,” warned a senior military source.
Justin Trudeau’s belief in the United Nations as an effective institution runs from the top of his perfectly coiffed head to the tips of his stripey socks, and he is apparently prepared to send Canadian Forces into action to test it.
At a time when people like former UN assistant secretary general Anthony Banbury are lamenting an organization he called a “black hole into which disappear countless tax dollars and human aspirations, never to be seen again,” the Liberals are exploring a role in an African trouble-spot like Mali or the Central African Republic.
Trudeau and his team feel obliged to do something in the world. There was the small deployment to Latvia, as part of NATO’s mini-surge in eastern Europe, but these Liberals have a Chrétien-like aversion to being aligned too closely with U.S. foreign policy and they see the UN as much more sound ideologically than NATO.
A mission in Africa would bring about the happy coincidence of winning acclaim from the developing nations who will decide which country gets the “Western Europe and Others” seat on the UN Security Council in 2020 (Canada is in the running against Ireland and Norway).
Winning this prize would be all the sweeter given the Conservative government’s abject failure to do so in 2010.
“The UN thing looms much larger (for Trudeau’s team) than people credit,” said one senior source.
The military is gung-ho, not least because there are no other major deployments on the horizon — dangerous for morale (there has been a mass exodus of experienced soldiers since Afghanistan) and budgets (the view in National Defence Headquarters is that it would be a good idea to get the army out the door before the completion of the current defence review; “More missions mean more visibility,” said one NDHQ source).
None of this need necessarily be a bad thing. Dr. Walter Dorn, professor of defence studies at the Royal Military College of Canada, has long argued that Canada should beef up the number of military personnel on UN deployment from its current level of less than 30.
Canada, he contends, has special capabilities that could be used in French-speaking West Africa, not least of which are language skills, and there is a “new generation” of peacekeeping missions that differ from those Canada experienced in Rwanda and Somalia because the UN has since adopted a “protection of civilians” mandate.
In the government’s defence, it can be argued that a mission to bolster local African forces would be useful in denying haven to Islamist terror groups. But even if the cause is noble, the Canadian public deserves a thorough explanation on where we might be going and what the mission might entail.
Will we have an end-date or a plan to hand off responsibility to another country? Is there even a peace to keep?
Nobody in Sajjan’s office was prepared to answer these questions, presumably on the basis that the minister hasn’t yet found his facts.
Yet Jon Vance, chief of the defence staff, told a change-of-command ceremony on Parliament Hill last month that the army would be deploying to Africa “very soon.”
If we are going, and it seems we are, let’s hope it’s not to Mali (apparently Sajjan’s trip will not take him to Bamako, though this doesn’t necessarily mean Canadians won’t end up there).
Of 27 UN fatalities so far in 2016, 24 of them were inflicted in Mali as part of the country’s nasty civil war. (In 2015, 12 of 34 deaths were in Mali, and 10 were in the Central African Republic, another potential landing place for Canadian troops).
As Banbury, who quit the UN earlier this year, wrote in The New York Times: “Our most grievous blunder was in Mali.… More than 80 per cent of the force’s resources are spent on self-protection.
“The United Nations in Mali is day to day marching into its first quagmire.”
For a Canadian military with recent experience of fighting in hostile terrain, where hard-won tactical gains were rarely sustained, the prospect of spending all its time and resources on “force protection” can scarcely be an attractive one.
Related
Matthew Fisher: Truck attack in France ups the ante for Canada’s peacekeeping mission in Mali
Canadian Army headed to mission in Africa ‘very soon’: top general
“I think they will be extremely leery of putting themselves in an area where significant groups target peacekeepers,” said one senior military source.
With the security situation in Sudan deteriorating, perhaps Central African Republic offers the best prospect for Sajjan to fulfil his impossible mission.
For reasons best known to themselves, UN bureaucrats sent soldiers from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Republic of Congo as part of its CAR mission, resulting in serious human rights violations by the soldiers. Banbury noted “a persistent pattern of rape and abuse of the people the UN was sent to protect.”
Protecting civilian populations from rape and abuse; winning the acclaim of emerging nations; avoiding cost in blood and treasure — that would be an ideal trifecta for a government launching its first peacekeeping mission.
It must seem such a no-brainer to the Liberals that they see no need to hold a parliamentary debate, or “consult with Canadians,” normally their favourite pastime.
“It seems anything labelled ‘peacekeeping’ gets a free pass,” said one defence source. “But given the destination, that’s a very bad idea.”
OTTAWA — Harjit Sajjan is heading to West Africa this month on a fact-finding mission impossible.
The defence minister will search for an elusive United Nations peacekeeping mission that will maximize Canada’s chances of winning a seat on the UN Security Council but minimize the potential cost in Canadian lives and resources.
“That’s hard to find in Africa,” warned a senior military source.
Justin Trudeau’s belief in the United Nations as an effective institution runs from the top of his perfectly coiffed head to the tips of his stripey socks, and he is apparently prepared to send Canadian Forces into action to test it.
At a time when people like former UN assistant secretary general Anthony Banbury are lamenting an organization he called a “black hole into which disappear countless tax dollars and human aspirations, never to be seen again,” the Liberals are exploring a role in an African trouble-spot like Mali or the Central African Republic.
Trudeau and his team feel obliged to do something in the world. There was the small deployment to Latvia, as part of NATO’s mini-surge in eastern Europe, but these Liberals have a Chrétien-like aversion to being aligned too closely with U.S. foreign policy and they see the UN as much more sound ideologically than NATO.
A mission in Africa would bring about the happy coincidence of winning acclaim from the developing nations who will decide which country gets the “Western Europe and Others” seat on the UN Security Council in 2020 (Canada is in the running against Ireland and Norway).
Winning this prize would be all the sweeter given the Conservative government’s abject failure to do so in 2010.
“The UN thing looms much larger (for Trudeau’s team) than people credit,” said one senior source.
The military is gung-ho, not least because there are no other major deployments on the horizon — dangerous for morale (there has been a mass exodus of experienced soldiers since Afghanistan) and budgets (the view in National Defence Headquarters is that it would be a good idea to get the army out the door before the completion of the current defence review; “More missions mean more visibility,” said one NDHQ source).
None of this need necessarily be a bad thing. Dr. Walter Dorn, professor of defence studies at the Royal Military College of Canada, has long argued that Canada should beef up the number of military personnel on UN deployment from its current level of less than 30.
Canada, he contends, has special capabilities that could be used in French-speaking West Africa, not least of which are language skills, and there is a “new generation” of peacekeeping missions that differ from those Canada experienced in Rwanda and Somalia because the UN has since adopted a “protection of civilians” mandate.
In the government’s defence, it can be argued that a mission to bolster local African forces would be useful in denying haven to Islamist terror groups. But even if the cause is noble, the Canadian public deserves a thorough explanation on where we might be going and what the mission might entail.
Will we have an end-date or a plan to hand off responsibility to another country? Is there even a peace to keep?
Nobody in Sajjan’s office was prepared to answer these questions, presumably on the basis that the minister hasn’t yet found his facts.
Yet Jon Vance, chief of the defence staff, told a change-of-command ceremony on Parliament Hill last month that the army would be deploying to Africa “very soon.”
If we are going, and it seems we are, let’s hope it’s not to Mali (apparently Sajjan’s trip will not take him to Bamako, though this doesn’t necessarily mean Canadians won’t end up there).
Of 27 UN fatalities so far in 2016, 24 of them were inflicted in Mali as part of the country’s nasty civil war. (In 2015, 12 of 34 deaths were in Mali, and 10 were in the Central African Republic, another potential landing place for Canadian troops).
As Banbury, who quit the UN earlier this year, wrote in The New York Times: “Our most grievous blunder was in Mali.… More than 80 per cent of the force’s resources are spent on self-protection.
“The United Nations in Mali is day to day marching into its first quagmire.”
For a Canadian military with recent experience of fighting in hostile terrain, where hard-won tactical gains were rarely sustained, the prospect of spending all its time and resources on “force protection” can scarcely be an attractive one.
Related
Matthew Fisher: Truck attack in France ups the ante for Canada’s peacekeeping mission in Mali
Canadian Army headed to mission in Africa ‘very soon’: top general
“I think they will be extremely leery of putting themselves in an area where significant groups target peacekeepers,” said one senior military source.
With the security situation in Sudan deteriorating, perhaps Central African Republic offers the best prospect for Sajjan to fulfil his impossible mission.
For reasons best known to themselves, UN bureaucrats sent soldiers from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Republic of Congo as part of its CAR mission, resulting in serious human rights violations by the soldiers. Banbury noted “a persistent pattern of rape and abuse of the people the UN was sent to protect.”
Protecting civilian populations from rape and abuse; winning the acclaim of emerging nations; avoiding cost in blood and treasure — that would be an ideal trifecta for a government launching its first peacekeeping mission.
It must seem such a no-brainer to the Liberals that they see no need to hold a parliamentary debate, or “consult with Canadians,” normally their favourite pastime.
“It seems anything labelled ‘peacekeeping’ gets a free pass,” said one defence source. “But given the destination, that’s a very bad idea.”
Thursday, July 14, 2016
Can Canada's army do it all: deter Russia and keep the peace?
By: The Canadian Press, CTV News
OTTAWA -- Canada's army has the ability to simultaneously help its NATO allies deter Russia on Europe's eastern border while launching a substantial United Nations peacekeeping mission, top military officials and leading experts say.
The government's decision last week to contribute 450 soldiers, light armoured vehicles and other equipment to Latvia to a 1,000-strong multinational NATO force has raised questions about whether the Canadian Forces can still make good on mounting a major UN peacekeeping mission -- a core foreign policy goal of the Trudeau Liberals.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and Foreign Affairs Stephane Dion insist the answer is yes.
Now, the commander of the army, as well as a leading Canadian peacekeeping expert who is helping to advise the government, are backing up those political assertions.
"We will be able to deliver whatever the government wants us to do," said Lt.-Gen. Marquis Hainse, who turns over command of the army today to Lt.-Gen. Paul Wynnyk.
"There's room to manoeuvre there, to contribute to somewhere else."
Indeed, there's room --but it won't be easy, said Walter Dorn, a professor at the Canadian Forces Staff College in Kingston.
"The NATO commitment puts a strain on the number of forces that are available for UN deployments but I think we can do both," Dorn said.
The benchmark for what's sustainable for a Canadian Forces mission is essentially 3,000 military members deployed abroad at any given time, said Dorn, who cites the fact that a pool of 3,000 was needed for any given rotation to Kandahar in recent years, while a record 3,300 Forces members served in UN peacekeeping missions in the early 1990s.
Canada already has about 400 troops in Ukraine and Poland, and another 800 military personnel in Iraq and Kuwait, drawn mainly from special forces and the air force.
That means Canada could supply up to 1,000 troops to a UN mission and not be stretched too thin, Dorn said.
"Numbers up to 1,000 are sustainable for many years."
Peacekeeping missions, or peace operations as the government now calls them, would likely draw heavily from the regular army.
Hainse said the army is broken into three different brigades of about 5,000 soldiers who rotate through a 36-month training cycle. The training cycle during the Afghanistan war was accelerated to 18 months, he said.
The end of the combat mission in Afghanistan in 2011, as well as budget cuts imposed in more recent years, resulted in the cycle being slowed. While Hainse said he wouldn't want to scale it back any further, he was adamant the army can sustain multiple missions at once.
"There's enough flexibility there to be able to cover a lot," he said.
Sajjan said Wednesday that containing the spread of terrorism across Africa is a consideration as Canada mulls where it will contribute to a UN peacekeeping mission. Sources say Mali, where the French are leading a UN mission that has seen at least 19 peacekeepers killed this year, is one destination that's being carefully considered.
OTTAWA -- Canada's army has the ability to simultaneously help its NATO allies deter Russia on Europe's eastern border while launching a substantial United Nations peacekeeping mission, top military officials and leading experts say.
The government's decision last week to contribute 450 soldiers, light armoured vehicles and other equipment to Latvia to a 1,000-strong multinational NATO force has raised questions about whether the Canadian Forces can still make good on mounting a major UN peacekeeping mission -- a core foreign policy goal of the Trudeau Liberals.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and Foreign Affairs Stephane Dion insist the answer is yes.
Now, the commander of the army, as well as a leading Canadian peacekeeping expert who is helping to advise the government, are backing up those political assertions.
"We will be able to deliver whatever the government wants us to do," said Lt.-Gen. Marquis Hainse, who turns over command of the army today to Lt.-Gen. Paul Wynnyk.
"There's room to manoeuvre there, to contribute to somewhere else."
Indeed, there's room --but it won't be easy, said Walter Dorn, a professor at the Canadian Forces Staff College in Kingston.
"The NATO commitment puts a strain on the number of forces that are available for UN deployments but I think we can do both," Dorn said.
The benchmark for what's sustainable for a Canadian Forces mission is essentially 3,000 military members deployed abroad at any given time, said Dorn, who cites the fact that a pool of 3,000 was needed for any given rotation to Kandahar in recent years, while a record 3,300 Forces members served in UN peacekeeping missions in the early 1990s.
Canada already has about 400 troops in Ukraine and Poland, and another 800 military personnel in Iraq and Kuwait, drawn mainly from special forces and the air force.
That means Canada could supply up to 1,000 troops to a UN mission and not be stretched too thin, Dorn said.
"Numbers up to 1,000 are sustainable for many years."
Peacekeeping missions, or peace operations as the government now calls them, would likely draw heavily from the regular army.
Hainse said the army is broken into three different brigades of about 5,000 soldiers who rotate through a 36-month training cycle. The training cycle during the Afghanistan war was accelerated to 18 months, he said.
The end of the combat mission in Afghanistan in 2011, as well as budget cuts imposed in more recent years, resulted in the cycle being slowed. While Hainse said he wouldn't want to scale it back any further, he was adamant the army can sustain multiple missions at once.
"There's enough flexibility there to be able to cover a lot," he said.
Sajjan said Wednesday that containing the spread of terrorism across Africa is a consideration as Canada mulls where it will contribute to a UN peacekeeping mission. Sources say Mali, where the French are leading a UN mission that has seen at least 19 peacekeepers killed this year, is one destination that's being carefully considered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)