By: Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA — Make sure you have a plan to get out before you actually get in.
That is one of the main messages of an internal paper that military officials prepared last summer as they considered the challenges associated with the Liberal governments' promised return to international peacekeeping.
The paper also warns about the need to clearly explain why whatever mission the government chooses is in the national interest and expresses real concerns about the threat posed by terrorism.
The July 2016 paper was prepared by the strategic joint staff, which provides analysis and advice directly to the chief of defence staff, and was obtained by The Canadian Press through the Access to Information Act.
It emerges as the Liberal government continues to dither over where to send up to 600 Canadian peacekeepers, despite pressure from some allies as well as the UN for a decision.
The Liberals had been leaning toward — but have since waffled over — sending troops to the African nation of Mali, where more than 100 peacekeepers have been killed, many in terrorist attacks.
The government won't say when it will choose a mission, or why it is dragging its feet, but the issues and concerns raised in the paper may explain part of the delay.
One is the need to start thinking about an exit strategy even before the first troops arrive.
The paper notes that while countries like Canada often want to make only short-term contributions to UN missions, history has shown that there is often "significant pressure" to stay longer than expected. Canadian soldiers joined a UN peacekeeping force in Cyprus in 1964 and stayed until 1993.
"From the outset of planning, consideration should be given to the sustainment and eventual withdrawal from the (operation)," the paper reads, adding that leaving is often "a delicate mission to execute."
The government was encouraged to essentially line up other countries to step into the breach once Canada's commitment expires — a task that could be easier said than done for a mission like Mali.
Part of the reason Canada has faced international pressure to go into Mali is because some of the European countries already there have had trouble finding replacements.
The paper also says that moral arguments about peacekeeping being the right thing to do aren't a good enough reason for deploying troops on specific missions.
"There is a legitimate moral component to this discussion, namely that Canadian participation … is the right thing for a nation with Canada's good fortune, wealth and means to undertake," the paper says.
"But the discussion must be wider than a moral one in order to define the national interest in more tangible terms and to provide some balance by measuring the risks and rewards."
The Liberals have said expanding Canada's participation in peacekeeping serves the national interest by contributing to a more peaceful and stable world.
But government sources have admitted they must do a better job explaining why the Liberals are intent on peacekeeping — a task that will become even more important once a mission is chosen.
Much of the paper focuses on the new dangers that have crept into peacekeeping, with officials noting that missions "are higher-risk and take place in more complex environments than before."
Special attention is paid to terrorist organizations, which the paper says "pose an undeniable threat in certain locations," especially when it comes to protecting troops and fulfilling a mission's objectives.
This is especially true for UN missions, the paper says, which aren't mandated to conduct counter-terrorism operations.
While Mali isn't mentioned, the findings are particularly relevant to the mission there, as groups such as terrorist groups such as al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb have repeatedly targeted peacekeepers.
Other factors to consider before choosing a mission, the paper says, are whether it is effective or could be made effective and what impact it could have on Canada's international reputation and national security.
"Canadian participation . . . should be grounded in a well-conceived and articulated strategic purpose, delivered via a strategy nested with other Canadian efforts globally," the paper concludes.
"It must reflect the contemporary operating environment, is mandated to have protection of civilians at its heart and should seek to promote responsible burden-sharing within the international community."
Showing posts with label CAF to Africa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CAF to Africa. Show all posts
Friday, May 12, 2017
CAF "Peacekeeping" Mission Decision is Delayed for Months
By: Bruce Campion-Smith, Toronto Star
OTTAWA—Canada’s high-profile military mission to Africa appears off the radar for now with a decision on a deployment delayed, perhaps until fall, the Star has learned.
Political upheaval among key allies — notably the United States, France and Great Britain — is cited as the reason why Justin Trudeau’s government has pushed back its high-profile pledge to return Canada to international peacekeeping efforts.
The federal government does not want to deploy soldiers on a potentially dangerous mission only to find other nations have decided their priorities lie elsewhere, leaving Canada “stuck with a legacy mission,” one source told the Star.
One official at defence headquarters offered a blunt assessment of where the peace mission currently stood on the list of priorities. “It’s not on the radar,” said the source.
When asked about the delay, officials point to the political shake-ups around the globe, notably in Washington, where the unexpected election of Donald Trump as president and his unpredictable tenure in office so far has forced Ottawa to rethink priorities on issues from defence to trade.
But political change bubbles in other capitals too. Britons go to the polls in a general election in June. France just saw the election of a new president, Emmanuel Macron, who beat out right-wing candidate Marine Le Pen. That country has a significant military mission ongoing in Mali, one nation cited as the likely destination for the Canadian deployment.
At home, other issues are competing for attention. Next week, the Liberal government will unveil its defence policy review that will lay out a new vision for the armed forces and the promise of additional funding to pay for it.
That vision, expected to provide policy guidance for the coming two decades, will almost certainly include a nod to the record of Canadian peacekeeping around the globe. But it’s not expected to include any new details of forthcoming missions.
The government’s attention has also been distracted as the political front as the man tasked to sell that new vision — Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan — is fighting for his credibility after being forced to apologize for inflating his role as an officer during an Afghanistan offensive.
And within defence headquarters, the fallout from the surprise January ouster of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, the second-in-command of the military is still being felt.
All that means that a decision on a peace support mission is now not expected for months yet. That timing means it could be more than a year since the Liberal government laid out its promise of personnel and funding for a mission — 600 troops, 150 police officers and $450 million over three years for a new Peace and Stability Operations Program.
An announcement on exactly where Canada would deploy those personnel on a peace mission had been expected by last Christmas. But there was no word and nothing yet in the months since.
Trudeau said in March that his government would not be pushed into making a decision, saying that any deployment had to be done “responsibly and thoughtfully.”
But months later, the government seems no closer to a decision.
“I don’t have a timeframe on that,” Sajjan told the Star in a recent interview.
“All I can tell you is we will make that decision as a government when we feel comfortable that we have all the necessary information, that we have a whole of government approach and definitely from the military side, one that is going to have an impact on the ground,” Sajjan said.
He conceded that the changes around the globe were, in part, the reason for prolonged discussions about Canada’s role in a UN mission.
“We do need to look at . . . the changing environment. We have to make sure that when we add in and say we’re going to do ‘X,’ we have to make sure that ‘X’ is actually going to provide added value to the UN,” Sajjan said.
In the January cabinet shake-up that made Chrystia Freeland foreign affairs minister, one of the tasks handed the Toronto MP was to “increase Canada’s support for United Nations peace operations.”
Alex Lawrence, her spokesperson, told the Star that the peace deployment remains under active consideration. “Our government is committed to international peace operations, and we are currently considering what precise role Canada can play,” Lawrence said.
But Canada’s hand could be forced when Sajjan hosts an international summit on peacekeeping at the end of the year.
Sajjan used last year’s summit in London to herald the willingness of the Liberal government to reengage in peace missions, declaring that, “Canada is committed to leading international efforts in peace support operations.
“Conflicts today are more complex than ever before and we’re serious about being part of the solution — that’s the reason we’re bringing our resources and skills to the table,” Sajjan said in a statement issued for the 2016 summit.
It could be awkward for the Liberal government to go into this year’s summit with nothing to show for the statements it made more than a year earlier.
Defence analyst Dave Perry says the delay in deciding a mission has already likely forced military officers and diplomats back to the drawing boards to update the proposals they first presented to the government.
“I would imagine given how long it has taken since some of those initial inputs were provided that revisiting some plans because events and things on the ground have changed significantly would be part of the delay now,” said Perry, a senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
“Some of the plans would have been submitted a half year ago. Hard to think they would still be viable today,” he said in an interview.
OTTAWA—Canada’s high-profile military mission to Africa appears off the radar for now with a decision on a deployment delayed, perhaps until fall, the Star has learned.
Political upheaval among key allies — notably the United States, France and Great Britain — is cited as the reason why Justin Trudeau’s government has pushed back its high-profile pledge to return Canada to international peacekeeping efforts.
The federal government does not want to deploy soldiers on a potentially dangerous mission only to find other nations have decided their priorities lie elsewhere, leaving Canada “stuck with a legacy mission,” one source told the Star.
One official at defence headquarters offered a blunt assessment of where the peace mission currently stood on the list of priorities. “It’s not on the radar,” said the source.
When asked about the delay, officials point to the political shake-ups around the globe, notably in Washington, where the unexpected election of Donald Trump as president and his unpredictable tenure in office so far has forced Ottawa to rethink priorities on issues from defence to trade.
But political change bubbles in other capitals too. Britons go to the polls in a general election in June. France just saw the election of a new president, Emmanuel Macron, who beat out right-wing candidate Marine Le Pen. That country has a significant military mission ongoing in Mali, one nation cited as the likely destination for the Canadian deployment.
At home, other issues are competing for attention. Next week, the Liberal government will unveil its defence policy review that will lay out a new vision for the armed forces and the promise of additional funding to pay for it.
That vision, expected to provide policy guidance for the coming two decades, will almost certainly include a nod to the record of Canadian peacekeeping around the globe. But it’s not expected to include any new details of forthcoming missions.
The government’s attention has also been distracted as the political front as the man tasked to sell that new vision — Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan — is fighting for his credibility after being forced to apologize for inflating his role as an officer during an Afghanistan offensive.
And within defence headquarters, the fallout from the surprise January ouster of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, the second-in-command of the military is still being felt.
All that means that a decision on a peace support mission is now not expected for months yet. That timing means it could be more than a year since the Liberal government laid out its promise of personnel and funding for a mission — 600 troops, 150 police officers and $450 million over three years for a new Peace and Stability Operations Program.
An announcement on exactly where Canada would deploy those personnel on a peace mission had been expected by last Christmas. But there was no word and nothing yet in the months since.
Trudeau said in March that his government would not be pushed into making a decision, saying that any deployment had to be done “responsibly and thoughtfully.”
But months later, the government seems no closer to a decision.
“I don’t have a timeframe on that,” Sajjan told the Star in a recent interview.
“All I can tell you is we will make that decision as a government when we feel comfortable that we have all the necessary information, that we have a whole of government approach and definitely from the military side, one that is going to have an impact on the ground,” Sajjan said.
He conceded that the changes around the globe were, in part, the reason for prolonged discussions about Canada’s role in a UN mission.
“We do need to look at . . . the changing environment. We have to make sure that when we add in and say we’re going to do ‘X,’ we have to make sure that ‘X’ is actually going to provide added value to the UN,” Sajjan said.
In the January cabinet shake-up that made Chrystia Freeland foreign affairs minister, one of the tasks handed the Toronto MP was to “increase Canada’s support for United Nations peace operations.”
Alex Lawrence, her spokesperson, told the Star that the peace deployment remains under active consideration. “Our government is committed to international peace operations, and we are currently considering what precise role Canada can play,” Lawrence said.
But Canada’s hand could be forced when Sajjan hosts an international summit on peacekeeping at the end of the year.
Sajjan used last year’s summit in London to herald the willingness of the Liberal government to reengage in peace missions, declaring that, “Canada is committed to leading international efforts in peace support operations.
“Conflicts today are more complex than ever before and we’re serious about being part of the solution — that’s the reason we’re bringing our resources and skills to the table,” Sajjan said in a statement issued for the 2016 summit.
It could be awkward for the Liberal government to go into this year’s summit with nothing to show for the statements it made more than a year earlier.
Defence analyst Dave Perry says the delay in deciding a mission has already likely forced military officers and diplomats back to the drawing boards to update the proposals they first presented to the government.
“I would imagine given how long it has taken since some of those initial inputs were provided that revisiting some plans because events and things on the ground have changed significantly would be part of the delay now,” said Perry, a senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
“Some of the plans would have been submitted a half year ago. Hard to think they would still be viable today,” he said in an interview.
Monday, March 27, 2017
UN Mission Still Possible in 2017: PM Trudeau
By: The Canadian Press - National Post
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not ruling out sending troops to a peacekeeping mission this year, even though Canada has not yet told the United Nations what it is up to.
“We have a difficult history in Africa as peacekeepers and we need to make sure that when we embark on any . . . military mission, we make the right decisions about what we’re going to do, how we’re going to do it, and the kind of impact we’re going to have on the ground and on Canadians,” Trudeau said Saturday.
“That’s a decision we’re not going to fast-track. We’re making it responsibly and thoughtfully.”
Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian PressPrime Minister Justin Trudeau responds to a question in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, March 20, 2017.
The Liberal government pledged last summer to allot up to 600 troops and 150 police officers for UN peacekeeping operations, plus $450 million over three years on peace and stability projects.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan originally promised to reveal where they were headed by the end of last year. Military officials and Canadian diplomats put some work into figuring out where Canadian troops could make an impact, but an announcement has yet to be made.
The Liberals ended up stalling their plans — including a request from the UN to lead the peacekeeping mission in Mali — as the federal government tried to figure out the priorities of U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration.
Jordan Owens, a spokeswoman for Sajjan, confirmed Saturday that Canada has not provided the UN with formal notice of its specific contributions, saying “it would be inappropriate” to do so before the government has decided what that would be.
Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian PressDefence Minister Harjit Sajjan holds a press conference in the foyer of the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on March 6, 2017.
Asked Saturday morning whether that means Canada will not be sending more blue helmets out in the world by the end of the year, Trudeau said he would not draw that conclusion.
“We continue to look very carefully at ways to move forward on the strong commitment we made on peacekeeping,” Trudeau said.
“We know that Canada has to play a strong and effective role on the world stage in ways that suit our capacities and we’re looking to make sure that that happens right,” he said.
Herve Ladsous, the outgoing UN under-secretary-general for peacekeeping operations, said Friday that he had been “very eager” when Canada made its peacekeeping promise.
“Well, so far, it hasn’t materialized,” he said. “I hope it will.”
Trudeau also stood firm on the Canadian line that its contribution to NATO should not be measured by that fact that it spend about one per cent of its GDP on defence, which falls short of the agreed-upon target of two per cent.
“Lots of different countries in NATO measure their contributions in different ways. Canada measures its contribution by the amount of times and ways that we step up concretely on issues that matter,” Trudeau said.
Trudeau is on Parliament Hill for a rare weekend Liberal caucus meeting, where MPs are discussing the budget and how to make the most of their remaining time in Ottawa before they head home for the summer.
Related
National Post View: Which branch of the military, exactly, do the Liberals plan to gut this time?
Terry Glavin: Canada is here to help, Justin Trudeau says. Just not by actually doing anything
Michael Den Tandt: Undramatic it may be, but calm response to Trump is right for Canada
Liberal MPs who sit on the backbenches have recently been exercising the freedom Trudeau promised them with more free votes, such as when a majority of them voted earlier this month in favour of a bill that would bar health and life insurance companies from forcing clients to disclose the results of genetic testing. That happened even though cabinet voted against it and Trudeau said it was unconstitutional.
However, the prime minister said Saturday that his caucus is more united than ever.
“I’ve been around the Liberal party an awfully long time, as you all know, and I’ve never seen a caucus as strongly united in our approach and our values,” Trudeau said on his way into the second day of the meeting.
“One of the great strengths of the Liberal party is there is always a range of perspectives that allow us to represent the range of perspectives of Canadians,” he said.
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not ruling out sending troops to a peacekeeping mission this year, even though Canada has not yet told the United Nations what it is up to.
“We have a difficult history in Africa as peacekeepers and we need to make sure that when we embark on any . . . military mission, we make the right decisions about what we’re going to do, how we’re going to do it, and the kind of impact we’re going to have on the ground and on Canadians,” Trudeau said Saturday.
“That’s a decision we’re not going to fast-track. We’re making it responsibly and thoughtfully.”
Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian PressPrime Minister Justin Trudeau responds to a question in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, March 20, 2017.
The Liberal government pledged last summer to allot up to 600 troops and 150 police officers for UN peacekeeping operations, plus $450 million over three years on peace and stability projects.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan originally promised to reveal where they were headed by the end of last year. Military officials and Canadian diplomats put some work into figuring out where Canadian troops could make an impact, but an announcement has yet to be made.
The Liberals ended up stalling their plans — including a request from the UN to lead the peacekeeping mission in Mali — as the federal government tried to figure out the priorities of U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration.
Jordan Owens, a spokeswoman for Sajjan, confirmed Saturday that Canada has not provided the UN with formal notice of its specific contributions, saying “it would be inappropriate” to do so before the government has decided what that would be.
Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian PressDefence Minister Harjit Sajjan holds a press conference in the foyer of the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on March 6, 2017.
Asked Saturday morning whether that means Canada will not be sending more blue helmets out in the world by the end of the year, Trudeau said he would not draw that conclusion.
“We continue to look very carefully at ways to move forward on the strong commitment we made on peacekeeping,” Trudeau said.
“We know that Canada has to play a strong and effective role on the world stage in ways that suit our capacities and we’re looking to make sure that that happens right,” he said.
Herve Ladsous, the outgoing UN under-secretary-general for peacekeeping operations, said Friday that he had been “very eager” when Canada made its peacekeeping promise.
 |
| MCpl. Frank Hudec/Canadian Forces Combat CameraCanadian peacekeepers prepare auto atropine injectors during chemical defence refresher training at Camp Ziouani in the Golan Heights in 2002. |
Trudeau also stood firm on the Canadian line that its contribution to NATO should not be measured by that fact that it spend about one per cent of its GDP on defence, which falls short of the agreed-upon target of two per cent.
“Lots of different countries in NATO measure their contributions in different ways. Canada measures its contribution by the amount of times and ways that we step up concretely on issues that matter,” Trudeau said.
Trudeau is on Parliament Hill for a rare weekend Liberal caucus meeting, where MPs are discussing the budget and how to make the most of their remaining time in Ottawa before they head home for the summer.
Related
National Post View: Which branch of the military, exactly, do the Liberals plan to gut this time?
Terry Glavin: Canada is here to help, Justin Trudeau says. Just not by actually doing anything
Michael Den Tandt: Undramatic it may be, but calm response to Trump is right for Canada
Liberal MPs who sit on the backbenches have recently been exercising the freedom Trudeau promised them with more free votes, such as when a majority of them voted earlier this month in favour of a bill that would bar health and life insurance companies from forcing clients to disclose the results of genetic testing. That happened even though cabinet voted against it and Trudeau said it was unconstitutional.
However, the prime minister said Saturday that his caucus is more united than ever.
“I’ve been around the Liberal party an awfully long time, as you all know, and I’ve never seen a caucus as strongly united in our approach and our values,” Trudeau said on his way into the second day of the meeting.
“One of the great strengths of the Liberal party is there is always a range of perspectives that allow us to represent the range of perspectives of Canadians,” he said.
Thursday, March 9, 2017
R22eR Taking over Niger Training Mission From Special Forces
By: Murray Brewster, CBC News
As many as 25 Canadian soldiers, based out of Valcartier, Que., will soon take part in a revamped mission to train security forces in the troubled western African country of Niger.
Last summer, CBC News reported that regular army troops would take over an ongoing deployment, known as Operation Naberius, from Canada's elite special forces.
A handful of the highly-trained soldiers have since 2013 helped train the Niger Armed Forces in marksmanship, reconnaissance and other basic military skills.
National Defence confirms troops from the French-speaking 1st Battalion, Royal 22nd Regiment, will assume that responsibility and carry out "periodic" instruction of local forces from now on.
There will be two deployments per year and each will last between two and three months. The military will not say precisely when the first team will be in the field.
Mission flies below the radar
The intent, according to spokesman Dan Le Bouthillier, is to buttress "regional efforts to counter the influence of violent extremist organizations in the Sahel region of Africa."
Members of the Royal 22nd Regiment, better known as the Van Doos, parade at the Citadel in Quebec City last September. Members of the Van Doos' 1st battalion will head to Niger to train military personnel there. (Jacques Boissinot/Canadian Press)
Unlike other high profile training missions in Iraq and Ukraine, there has been virtually no attention paid to the latest mission.
There has been no formal announcement by National Defence and the news comes after requests for comment by CBC News and the online military publication 45eNord.ca.
The mission is separate, but could be complementary to the Liberal government's long-promised return to United Nations peacekeeping, which has been in a holding pattern.
Walter Dorn, a professor of defence studies at the Royal Military College of Canada, says there is anticipation and some impatience among planners at the UN.
"Countries are eagerly awaiting the government's decision," said Dorn. "They're surprised it has taken this long."
Dithering causes distress
Last summer, the Liberals committed to deploying 600 soldiers and 150 police officers into a series of UN missions, with details expected by the end of last year.
That didn't happen as the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president forced politicians and decision-makers in Canada to take stock of how each policy would be perceived in by the new administration in Washington.
Walter Dorn, professor of defence studies at the Royal Military College, says Canada's decision on a peacekeeping mission is eagerly awaited. (Mike Blanchfield/Canadian Press)
The UN had held open command of the peacekeeping mission in Mali for a Canadian, but that appointment has now gone elsewhere and allies in New York are drumming their fingers.
"The dithering has caused problems with UN planning," said Dorn.
The training of local forces in Niger does not fall within the mandate of the world body because the UN does not conduct counter-terrorism operations.
Le Bouthillier would not say why the switch is being made, other the notion that the military "continually examines and reviews all operations."
Last summer, defence sources told CBC News that officials now believe the basic-level training is best delivered by regular army soldiers.
Precarious security
A small reconnaissance team visited Niger in the fall of last year and the Quebec-based troops have been preparing for the handover ever since, Le Bouthillier said.
The operation flew almost entirely under the radar since it was first ordered by the former Conservative government, which faced repeated calls from the international community to help beat back Islamic militants, who in 2014 had overrun a large swath of territory in neighbouring Mali.
Le Bouthillier said the government of the day determined that special forces, which usually operate in secret, were "best-suited for this type of capacity-building operation."
The mission has also been precarious.
Canadian trainers briefly pulled out of a town in Niger that had been the scene of heavy fighting between government troops and Boko Haram militants in 2015.
No Canadians were involved in combat at Diffa, which sits on the border with Nigeria, but the incident served to underscore the instability in the country.
The deployment is being funded by Global Affairs Canada, which has counter-terrorism capacity building program.
As many as 25 Canadian soldiers, based out of Valcartier, Que., will soon take part in a revamped mission to train security forces in the troubled western African country of Niger.
Last summer, CBC News reported that regular army troops would take over an ongoing deployment, known as Operation Naberius, from Canada's elite special forces.
A handful of the highly-trained soldiers have since 2013 helped train the Niger Armed Forces in marksmanship, reconnaissance and other basic military skills.
National Defence confirms troops from the French-speaking 1st Battalion, Royal 22nd Regiment, will assume that responsibility and carry out "periodic" instruction of local forces from now on.
There will be two deployments per year and each will last between two and three months. The military will not say precisely when the first team will be in the field.
Mission flies below the radar
The intent, according to spokesman Dan Le Bouthillier, is to buttress "regional efforts to counter the influence of violent extremist organizations in the Sahel region of Africa."
Members of the Royal 22nd Regiment, better known as the Van Doos, parade at the Citadel in Quebec City last September. Members of the Van Doos' 1st battalion will head to Niger to train military personnel there. (Jacques Boissinot/Canadian Press)
Unlike other high profile training missions in Iraq and Ukraine, there has been virtually no attention paid to the latest mission.
There has been no formal announcement by National Defence and the news comes after requests for comment by CBC News and the online military publication 45eNord.ca.
The mission is separate, but could be complementary to the Liberal government's long-promised return to United Nations peacekeeping, which has been in a holding pattern.
Walter Dorn, a professor of defence studies at the Royal Military College of Canada, says there is anticipation and some impatience among planners at the UN.
"Countries are eagerly awaiting the government's decision," said Dorn. "They're surprised it has taken this long."
Dithering causes distress
Last summer, the Liberals committed to deploying 600 soldiers and 150 police officers into a series of UN missions, with details expected by the end of last year.
That didn't happen as the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president forced politicians and decision-makers in Canada to take stock of how each policy would be perceived in by the new administration in Washington.
Walter Dorn, professor of defence studies at the Royal Military College, says Canada's decision on a peacekeeping mission is eagerly awaited. (Mike Blanchfield/Canadian Press)
The UN had held open command of the peacekeeping mission in Mali for a Canadian, but that appointment has now gone elsewhere and allies in New York are drumming their fingers.
"The dithering has caused problems with UN planning," said Dorn.
The training of local forces in Niger does not fall within the mandate of the world body because the UN does not conduct counter-terrorism operations.
Le Bouthillier would not say why the switch is being made, other the notion that the military "continually examines and reviews all operations."
Last summer, defence sources told CBC News that officials now believe the basic-level training is best delivered by regular army soldiers.
Precarious security
A small reconnaissance team visited Niger in the fall of last year and the Quebec-based troops have been preparing for the handover ever since, Le Bouthillier said.
The operation flew almost entirely under the radar since it was first ordered by the former Conservative government, which faced repeated calls from the international community to help beat back Islamic militants, who in 2014 had overrun a large swath of territory in neighbouring Mali.
Le Bouthillier said the government of the day determined that special forces, which usually operate in secret, were "best-suited for this type of capacity-building operation."
The mission has also been precarious.
Canadian trainers briefly pulled out of a town in Niger that had been the scene of heavy fighting between government troops and Boko Haram militants in 2015.
No Canadians were involved in combat at Diffa, which sits on the border with Nigeria, but the incident served to underscore the instability in the country.
The deployment is being funded by Global Affairs Canada, which has counter-terrorism capacity building program.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Canada is Considering its Next Military Deployments
By: Bruce Campion-Smith, The Toronto Star
OTTAWA—Canada's military is facing a critical few weeks as the federal government weighs renewed deployments to Iraq and Ukraine, ponders the fate of a long-awaited peace mission, lays out a new vision for the armed forces and decides the budget to pay for it all.
It all sets the stage for what promises to be a busy year for Canadian soldiers — one that could leave supply lines stretched — as they continue ongoing deployments in eastern Europe, the Middle East, embark on a new mission to Latvia and finally move ahead on the peace mission that could take them to Africa.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan used his oft-repeated line Tuesday that the Liberal government is taking the time it needs.
“We want to make sure that we actually spend the time to get the analysis right and that it goes through the appropriate government process before we make any announcements,” Sajjan said after a cabinet meeting.
In the meantime though, the defence department hangs in limbo as it waits for announcements.
“There’s a lot of uncertainty,” said Dave Perry, a senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
Military deployments to Ukraine and Iraq are due to expire in March though observers expect both missions to be extended.
The former Conservative government dispatched 200 Canadian troops to Ukraine in 2015 in a non-combat role to train local soldiers, as part of efforts to bolster eastern European countries in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Crimea. It’s expected that a renewed mission in Ukraine will be announced soon.
“Canada is dedicated to the future good fortune of Ukraine. I am preparing options for the government to consider,” Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of defence staff, said last week.
Vance said the military has also laid the groundwork to continue its deployment in Iraq, where some 200 special forces soldiers are helping train and advise Peshmerga troops in their fight against Daesh near Mosul. The military operates a hospital near Erbil that has treated 100 patients since November while an air-to-air tanker and surveillance aircraft operate out of airfields in Kuwait.
“Canada is committed to this coalition and options will go before government on how to stay committed to it,” Vance said.
The big question mark continues to hang over the Liberals’ peace mission. After an announcement last August that the government could deploy up to 600 soldiers and 150 police officers on such a mission, a flurry of fact-finding trips to Africa by cabinet ministers, and promises of a decision by Christmas, the file has gone quiet since Donald Trump’s election as U.S. president.
Vance said the world has “changed a little bit” since planning for the mission began and said the government now needs to weigh those changes before deciding where troops are best deployed.
“The government has options before it but I think we’re finding that kind of set piece decision-making doesn’t work very well sometimes in a very, very fluid world where things are changing,” Vance told reporters.
“Where will coalition efforts occur next? What are our allies doing? What do they think?” Vance said.
Since taking over, Trump’s administration has turned up the heat on NATO member nations to pony up more for defence. The Liberal government has made the case that it matters more what Canada — which ranks near the bottom of the spending list — does with its military rather than simply measuring the bottom line. But that dynamic could be forcing the government to reframe its peace mission to account for U.S. concerns.
“I guess it’s understandable that the government wants to wait and see how the security environment unfolds given the U.S. election,” Perry said.
“They may be looking to make sure that any kind of operation we do is connected as much as it possibly could be to a broader alliance,” he said.
Still, the delay in an announcement has likely meant that plans conceived last fall will have to be updated,” Perry said.
“The mission doesn’t sit static, frozen in time while Canada decides whether or not we’re going to participate,” he said.
The other two big pieces of the defence puzzle are the upcoming budget — expected in the coming weeks — and the defence policy review which will lay out a new blueprint for the Canadian Armed Forces for the next 20 years.
According to the government, that strategy will deliver “a modern, more agile and better-equipped military.” It’s expected to touch on everything from procurement process, to whether the navy should have subs, what kind of fighter jets are required for the air force to how the military looks after its personnel.
“What are the capabilities that are required for this and what investment is going to be needed,” Sajjan said during a visit to NATO headquarters earlier this month. “Yes, we will be investing.”
But Perry said the military — which has a budget of $18.6 billion in 2016-17 — needs more money just to maintain the status quo.
“Unless the government directs them to do fewer things than it’s done before, they can’t make do with the existing funding,” he said.
OTTAWA—Canada's military is facing a critical few weeks as the federal government weighs renewed deployments to Iraq and Ukraine, ponders the fate of a long-awaited peace mission, lays out a new vision for the armed forces and decides the budget to pay for it all.
It all sets the stage for what promises to be a busy year for Canadian soldiers — one that could leave supply lines stretched — as they continue ongoing deployments in eastern Europe, the Middle East, embark on a new mission to Latvia and finally move ahead on the peace mission that could take them to Africa.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan used his oft-repeated line Tuesday that the Liberal government is taking the time it needs.
“We want to make sure that we actually spend the time to get the analysis right and that it goes through the appropriate government process before we make any announcements,” Sajjan said after a cabinet meeting.
In the meantime though, the defence department hangs in limbo as it waits for announcements.
“There’s a lot of uncertainty,” said Dave Perry, a senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
Military deployments to Ukraine and Iraq are due to expire in March though observers expect both missions to be extended.
The former Conservative government dispatched 200 Canadian troops to Ukraine in 2015 in a non-combat role to train local soldiers, as part of efforts to bolster eastern European countries in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Crimea. It’s expected that a renewed mission in Ukraine will be announced soon.
“Canada is dedicated to the future good fortune of Ukraine. I am preparing options for the government to consider,” Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of defence staff, said last week.
Vance said the military has also laid the groundwork to continue its deployment in Iraq, where some 200 special forces soldiers are helping train and advise Peshmerga troops in their fight against Daesh near Mosul. The military operates a hospital near Erbil that has treated 100 patients since November while an air-to-air tanker and surveillance aircraft operate out of airfields in Kuwait.
“Canada is committed to this coalition and options will go before government on how to stay committed to it,” Vance said.
The big question mark continues to hang over the Liberals’ peace mission. After an announcement last August that the government could deploy up to 600 soldiers and 150 police officers on such a mission, a flurry of fact-finding trips to Africa by cabinet ministers, and promises of a decision by Christmas, the file has gone quiet since Donald Trump’s election as U.S. president.
Vance said the world has “changed a little bit” since planning for the mission began and said the government now needs to weigh those changes before deciding where troops are best deployed.
“The government has options before it but I think we’re finding that kind of set piece decision-making doesn’t work very well sometimes in a very, very fluid world where things are changing,” Vance told reporters.
“Where will coalition efforts occur next? What are our allies doing? What do they think?” Vance said.
Since taking over, Trump’s administration has turned up the heat on NATO member nations to pony up more for defence. The Liberal government has made the case that it matters more what Canada — which ranks near the bottom of the spending list — does with its military rather than simply measuring the bottom line. But that dynamic could be forcing the government to reframe its peace mission to account for U.S. concerns.
“I guess it’s understandable that the government wants to wait and see how the security environment unfolds given the U.S. election,” Perry said.
“They may be looking to make sure that any kind of operation we do is connected as much as it possibly could be to a broader alliance,” he said.
Still, the delay in an announcement has likely meant that plans conceived last fall will have to be updated,” Perry said.
“The mission doesn’t sit static, frozen in time while Canada decides whether or not we’re going to participate,” he said.
The other two big pieces of the defence puzzle are the upcoming budget — expected in the coming weeks — and the defence policy review which will lay out a new blueprint for the Canadian Armed Forces for the next 20 years.
According to the government, that strategy will deliver “a modern, more agile and better-equipped military.” It’s expected to touch on everything from procurement process, to whether the navy should have subs, what kind of fighter jets are required for the air force to how the military looks after its personnel.
“What are the capabilities that are required for this and what investment is going to be needed,” Sajjan said during a visit to NATO headquarters earlier this month. “Yes, we will be investing.”
But Perry said the military — which has a budget of $18.6 billion in 2016-17 — needs more money just to maintain the status quo.
“Unless the government directs them to do fewer things than it’s done before, they can’t make do with the existing funding,” he said.
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
Canadian Military to Become First to Issue Guidelines on Child Soldiers
The Canadian Press
The Canadian military is poised to become the first in the world to issue guidelines for dealing with child soldiers, which could be put to the test immediately in Africa.
The guidelines are intended to ensure Canadian troops are properly trained and emotionally prepared for situations involving child soldiers — including where they may have to shoot to kill.
“If a child has a gun pointed at you and they have the intent, they have the capability, and they have the means by which to conduct harm on you or your partners, you have to use force as necessary to neutralize that,” said Cmdr. Rory McLay, who is overseeing development of the guidelines.
“That is a tough reality, but we cannot afford to have our folks harmed because they hesitated.”
The guidelines are also intended to make sure Canadian soldiers deal appropriately with a child soldier who isn’t a threat.
“If you’re talking about detainees, for example, once it’s suspected or proven that the individual is a minor then they are immediately removed from the adult population,” said McLay. “The real push there is separation and rehabilitation. That’s what you want to do with child soldiers...to try to get these kids into a rehabilitated state and back to their families.”
The guidelines were ordered by defence chief Gen. Jonathan Vance last March after a meeting with retired senator Romeo Dallaire, who has championed the fight against using children in conflict.
While a variety of rules and policies on how to deal with child soldiers already exist, McLay said the new guidelines will be the first to gather everything into one place for Canadian military personnel.
Vance is expected to sign off on them in the coming days, after which they will be distributed to commanders across the Canadian Armed Forces to be included in training and other mission preparation.
“Training is one of the best ways to mentally prepare them to deal with the sights and sounds that they’re going to encounter,” McLay said.
“So if you can specifically guide the training to deal with a specific issue, you are better preparing your team to react appropriately and to be able to deal with their own actions during and down the road.”
Such direction is timely given the Liberal government is expected to greenlight the deployment of hundreds of Canadian soldiers to Mali in the coming weeks.
The UN and human rights groups say armed groups in Mali have intentionally recruited and are using child soldiers in a number of capacities.
The presence of child soldiers on the battlefield is a potential minefield for militaries like Canada, as the French learned the hard way last month when they came under fire for killing a 10-year-old boy.
While the French military says the boy was acting as a lookout for one armed group suspected of planting improvised-explosive devices, the killing has marred its counter-terrorism mission in Mali.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which Canadian troops are fighting in Iraq, has also made extensive use of child soldiers.
While the British are developing similar guidelines, Shelly Whitman, executive director of the Romeo Dallaire Child Soldiers Initiative, said they aren’t as far along as the Canadian military.
Preparing Canadian soldiers for dealing with child soldiers in the field is critical for a number of reasons, Whitman said, which includes ensuring they are properly treated.
But it is also important to consider the impact of child soldiers on the battlefield when planning missions from a legal perspective and in terms of making sure Canadian soldiers don’t hesitate when threatened.
“A lot of soldiers would tell you they didn’t have any preparation for how to handle children in these contexts until they saw it in the battlefield,” she said.
“And that’s where the emotional part of your brain kicks in instead of the cognitive part of your brain. Which means you’ll make decisions based on emotion and not on what’s the best professional decision on that matter.”
The Canadian military is poised to become the first in the world to issue guidelines for dealing with child soldiers, which could be put to the test immediately in Africa.
The guidelines are intended to ensure Canadian troops are properly trained and emotionally prepared for situations involving child soldiers — including where they may have to shoot to kill.
“If a child has a gun pointed at you and they have the intent, they have the capability, and they have the means by which to conduct harm on you or your partners, you have to use force as necessary to neutralize that,” said Cmdr. Rory McLay, who is overseeing development of the guidelines.
“That is a tough reality, but we cannot afford to have our folks harmed because they hesitated.”
The guidelines are also intended to make sure Canadian soldiers deal appropriately with a child soldier who isn’t a threat.
“If you’re talking about detainees, for example, once it’s suspected or proven that the individual is a minor then they are immediately removed from the adult population,” said McLay. “The real push there is separation and rehabilitation. That’s what you want to do with child soldiers...to try to get these kids into a rehabilitated state and back to their families.”
The guidelines were ordered by defence chief Gen. Jonathan Vance last March after a meeting with retired senator Romeo Dallaire, who has championed the fight against using children in conflict.
While a variety of rules and policies on how to deal with child soldiers already exist, McLay said the new guidelines will be the first to gather everything into one place for Canadian military personnel.
Vance is expected to sign off on them in the coming days, after which they will be distributed to commanders across the Canadian Armed Forces to be included in training and other mission preparation.
“Training is one of the best ways to mentally prepare them to deal with the sights and sounds that they’re going to encounter,” McLay said.
“So if you can specifically guide the training to deal with a specific issue, you are better preparing your team to react appropriately and to be able to deal with their own actions during and down the road.”
Such direction is timely given the Liberal government is expected to greenlight the deployment of hundreds of Canadian soldiers to Mali in the coming weeks.
The UN and human rights groups say armed groups in Mali have intentionally recruited and are using child soldiers in a number of capacities.
The presence of child soldiers on the battlefield is a potential minefield for militaries like Canada, as the French learned the hard way last month when they came under fire for killing a 10-year-old boy.
While the French military says the boy was acting as a lookout for one armed group suspected of planting improvised-explosive devices, the killing has marred its counter-terrorism mission in Mali.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which Canadian troops are fighting in Iraq, has also made extensive use of child soldiers.
While the British are developing similar guidelines, Shelly Whitman, executive director of the Romeo Dallaire Child Soldiers Initiative, said they aren’t as far along as the Canadian military.
Preparing Canadian soldiers for dealing with child soldiers in the field is critical for a number of reasons, Whitman said, which includes ensuring they are properly treated.
But it is also important to consider the impact of child soldiers on the battlefield when planning missions from a legal perspective and in terms of making sure Canadian soldiers don’t hesitate when threatened.
“A lot of soldiers would tell you they didn’t have any preparation for how to handle children in these contexts until they saw it in the battlefield,” she said.
“And that’s where the emotional part of your brain kicks in instead of the cognitive part of your brain. Which means you’ll make decisions based on emotion and not on what’s the best professional decision on that matter.”
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Canada pauses Peacekeeping Plans to co-ordinate with Americans
By: Lee Berthiaume, Canadian Press
OTTAWA — Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan plans to talk to his American counterpart before he pursues Canada's plan to send peacekeepers to Africa, saying co-ordination with the U.S. is essential.
The government announced in August that Canada would deploy up to 600 troops on future UN peacekeeping missions, though it stopped short of saying exactly where they would go.
A decision was promised by the end of the year, after military officials and Canadian diplomats had a chance to test the waters and get a better sense of where the troops could make a difference.
But the question of where Canadian blue helmets will end up is still hanging in the air as the government tries to get a handle on the Trump administration's priorities.
Sajjan spoke to new U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis by telephone on Monday, and while they did not discuss peacekeeping, Sajjan said he intends to when the two meet in person for the first time.
That's because any troop deployment must be done with the bigger picture in mind, Sajjan said.
"It's all interconnected. For example, what's happening in Iraq right now impacts what's happening in Africa and other parts of the world," he told reporters in Calgary. "So we have to discuss this because we need to be able to maximize our impact on the ground."
The minister insisted Canada would make its own decision on when and where to send peacekeepers.
Sajjan had the distinction of being the first foreign defence minister that Mattis has spoken to after being confirmed U.S. defence secretary. The retired general was reportedly effusive in his praise for Canada.
According to a readout from the U.S. Defence Department, Mattis not only thanked Canada for its contributions to North American security, he noted the country's military contributions in Iraq and Latvia.
"Secretary Mattis thanked Minister Sajjan for Canada's strong support for our alliance," the readout says, "and expressed his personal appreciation for the professionalism of the Canadian Armed Forces."
Those words will be welcomed by Canadian officials who have been wringing their hands over whether the Trump administration plans to pressure Canada to spend more on defence.
Trump has previously railed against what he called "freeriders" within NATO, and while those words were largely targeted at European allies, critics say they could easily apply to Canada.
Canada spends less than one per cent of its gross domestic product on defence, while the NATO target is two per cent. But the federal government argues that such calculations ignore Canada's in-kind contributions to global security.
While Mattis does not appear to have raised the issue of defence spending with Sajjan, the touchy subject did figure prominently in the U.S. defense secretary's later phone call with British counterpart Michael Fallon.
Mattis reportedly emphasized the U.S.'s "unshakable commitment to NATO," according to a readout from that conversation, before thanking the UK for committing two per cent of GDP to defence.
In his own statement, Fallon said he and Mattis talked about "our joint leadership in NATO, including…how we ensure that all members meet the two per cent spending commitment alongside America and Britain."
The Liberal government is currently drawing up a new defence policy, and one of the key questions is whether it will include significant new cash for the military.
OTTAWA — Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan plans to talk to his American counterpart before he pursues Canada's plan to send peacekeepers to Africa, saying co-ordination with the U.S. is essential.
The government announced in August that Canada would deploy up to 600 troops on future UN peacekeeping missions, though it stopped short of saying exactly where they would go.
A decision was promised by the end of the year, after military officials and Canadian diplomats had a chance to test the waters and get a better sense of where the troops could make a difference.
But the question of where Canadian blue helmets will end up is still hanging in the air as the government tries to get a handle on the Trump administration's priorities.
Sajjan spoke to new U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis by telephone on Monday, and while they did not discuss peacekeeping, Sajjan said he intends to when the two meet in person for the first time.
That's because any troop deployment must be done with the bigger picture in mind, Sajjan said.
"It's all interconnected. For example, what's happening in Iraq right now impacts what's happening in Africa and other parts of the world," he told reporters in Calgary. "So we have to discuss this because we need to be able to maximize our impact on the ground."
The minister insisted Canada would make its own decision on when and where to send peacekeepers.
Sajjan had the distinction of being the first foreign defence minister that Mattis has spoken to after being confirmed U.S. defence secretary. The retired general was reportedly effusive in his praise for Canada.
According to a readout from the U.S. Defence Department, Mattis not only thanked Canada for its contributions to North American security, he noted the country's military contributions in Iraq and Latvia.
"Secretary Mattis thanked Minister Sajjan for Canada's strong support for our alliance," the readout says, "and expressed his personal appreciation for the professionalism of the Canadian Armed Forces."
Those words will be welcomed by Canadian officials who have been wringing their hands over whether the Trump administration plans to pressure Canada to spend more on defence.
Trump has previously railed against what he called "freeriders" within NATO, and while those words were largely targeted at European allies, critics say they could easily apply to Canada.
Canada spends less than one per cent of its gross domestic product on defence, while the NATO target is two per cent. But the federal government argues that such calculations ignore Canada's in-kind contributions to global security.
While Mattis does not appear to have raised the issue of defence spending with Sajjan, the touchy subject did figure prominently in the U.S. defense secretary's later phone call with British counterpart Michael Fallon.
Mattis reportedly emphasized the U.S.'s "unshakable commitment to NATO," according to a readout from that conversation, before thanking the UK for committing two per cent of GDP to defence.
In his own statement, Fallon said he and Mattis talked about "our joint leadership in NATO, including…how we ensure that all members meet the two per cent spending commitment alongside America and Britain."
The Liberal government is currently drawing up a new defence policy, and one of the key questions is whether it will include significant new cash for the military.
Monday, December 5, 2016
CAF to get Guidelines on Dealing with Child Soldiers
By: TONDA MACCHARLES, Toronto Star
OTTAWA—Canada’s top soldier is issuing the first-ever guidelines for Canadian military personnel on how to deal with child soldiers in advance of deployment to Africa, the Star has learned.
Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of defence staff, and senior military officials have consulted with the Roméo Dallaire Child Soldiers Initiative and others on how to best prepare troops for a soon-to-be decided UN “peace operations” mission.
In September, Vance issued a draft version of the new guidelines which was expected to be finalized this week.
Called the CAF Child Soldiers Doctrine, it is not country-specific but will provide overarching principles to military personnel, no matter what the mission or mandate. The Star reported last week that Mali has emerged as the likely destination for a large contingent of up to 600 Canadian Armed Forces personnel, but the federal cabinet has not yet given its nod.
According to information obtained by the Star, excerpts of the new guidelines say the “aim is to provide the interim guidance required to address and mitigate the broad challenges posed by the presence of child soldiers in areas where we may undertake missions.”
The United Nations in 2005 identified six categories of grave violations against children that include killing and maiming of children, the recruiting of children as soldiers, sexual violence against children, attacks against schools, denial of humanitarian access to children, and abduction of children.
The military’s guidelines will make clear that all Canadian Armed Forces personnel have a legal duty to report any such violations, and it recognizes that the issue of child soldiers “needs to be better addressed within Canadian Forces doctrine.”
“It is important to ensure our soldiers are prepared to respond to the presence of children and vulnerable populations while on operations. Implementation of such steps will greatly contribute to the operational effectiveness of the CF when reinforced during developmental and pre-deployment training,” it says.
“It will also help prepare troops for the tactical and psychological challenges found in modern theatres.”
The move was hailed by the Roméo Dallaire Child Soldiers Initiative, a global partnership based at Dalhousie University. Executive Director Shelly Whitman said “it means essentially that the military’s efforts, or the training, have to be guided by the doctrine; it’s like a bible of the military.”
“When you have a doctrine note come out and it says in it that we’re going to have to understand what this means operationally, strategically, tactically for how our forces address such issues, it’s a huge step forward,” Whitman said in an interview.
Canadian Armed Forces doctrine spells out everything from fundamental principles to details on how to execute operational tasks “to achieve a specific aim,” according to the military’s website.
More specific how-to operational guidelines such as when and how to engage with child fighters would be set out in the rules of engagement of a mission, which are usually classified information.
The guidelines have been a long time coming.
More than seven years ago, former army commander Andrew Leslie, now a Liberal MP, appointed now-retired colonel Jake Bell as the army’s liaison officer with the Dallaire Initiative “to essentially look at this issue to see the things that we could do to incorporate that knowledge into what we do,” Bell said in an interview with the Star.
During his military career, Bell was posted to Bosnia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and in 2012-13 was chief of operations for the United Nations mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo. Now a consultant for the Dallaire Initiative, he recently travelled to Congo to work with the Congolese army on developing a training curriculum on child soldiers for its officers and non-commissioned troops.
He believes it’s important for the Canadian military and other armed forces to have realistic, practical and scenario-based guidance in dealing with children in a operational theatre, and says “where you can really make an impact is in the prevention of recruitment of child soldiers.”
The Dallaire Initiative consulted with Vance, the chief of defence staff, and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan in March about the issue.
Whitman said military leaders learned many lessons from “challenging situations” in the past, including the war in Afghanistan, dealing with detainees and “also the chai boys, the tea boys.”
That’s a reference to allegations that Canadian soldiers turned a blind eye to abuse of boys by Afghan troops. An inquiry reported to Vance on the issue shortly after he took the top job in Canada’s military.
Earlier this year in response to that inquiry, Vance assured Canadians the military has changed how it trains soldiers for overseas deployments, with more focus on ethical issues, cultural differences and addressing human rights violations.
The Canadian Armed Forces do not identify a specific motivation for this new doctrine.
In an emailed response to the Star’s questions, a military spokesperson said the forces “continually revise and update doctrinal documents in order to ensure operational effectiveness and relevance. Providing our members with a better understanding of issues is therefore critical to mission success.”
“We are doing the responsible thing and recognizing that issues — such as the recruitment of child soldiers by illegal armed groups — can and do occur,” wrote Daniel Le Bouthillier, head of media relations.
“This is why we plan, prepare and ensure our members uphold our legal requirement to report any grave violations against children, as identified by the UN secretary general. The protection of the most vulnerable populations is of the utmost importance.”
He said the Canadian Armed Forces “takes its international obligations extremely seriously and will continue to help ensure our proud men and women have the tools required to carry out their mandates responsibly and with the ethos expected of them by Canadians.”
The concept of child soldiers is defined broadly by the United Nations.
The UN says “a child associated with an armed force or armed group refers to any person below 18 years of age who is, or who has been, recruited or used by an armed force or armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to children, boys and girls, used as fighters, cooks, porters, spies or for sexual purposes.”
Whitman said she hopes the military will now focus part of its pre-deployment training on the kinds of “moral dilemmas” soldiers will face, and how best to deal with them.
“Our hope is by doing that it means a) it more success overall in their mission and b) we protect children better and c) when our troops come back home we are reducing levels of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) and operational stress injury because we will have emotionally and practically prepared them for that and have it not be the first time that they thought about it—the first time they saw it on the battlefield.”
Whitman hopes to offer support and training for military trainers at the military’s Peace Support Training Centre in Kingston. It trains over 1,000 members of the CAF and other government personnel each year, prior to deployment on operations.
In each of the countries to which Canada has looked at deploying — South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic or Mali, children are recruited by military forces, whether to act as fighters, intelligence gatherers, sex slaves or domestic labour. In Mali, in particular they have been used by Islamist groups as suicide bombers, says Whitman.
OTTAWA—Canada’s top soldier is issuing the first-ever guidelines for Canadian military personnel on how to deal with child soldiers in advance of deployment to Africa, the Star has learned.
Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of defence staff, and senior military officials have consulted with the Roméo Dallaire Child Soldiers Initiative and others on how to best prepare troops for a soon-to-be decided UN “peace operations” mission.
In September, Vance issued a draft version of the new guidelines which was expected to be finalized this week.
Called the CAF Child Soldiers Doctrine, it is not country-specific but will provide overarching principles to military personnel, no matter what the mission or mandate. The Star reported last week that Mali has emerged as the likely destination for a large contingent of up to 600 Canadian Armed Forces personnel, but the federal cabinet has not yet given its nod.
According to information obtained by the Star, excerpts of the new guidelines say the “aim is to provide the interim guidance required to address and mitigate the broad challenges posed by the presence of child soldiers in areas where we may undertake missions.”
The United Nations in 2005 identified six categories of grave violations against children that include killing and maiming of children, the recruiting of children as soldiers, sexual violence against children, attacks against schools, denial of humanitarian access to children, and abduction of children.
The military’s guidelines will make clear that all Canadian Armed Forces personnel have a legal duty to report any such violations, and it recognizes that the issue of child soldiers “needs to be better addressed within Canadian Forces doctrine.”
“It is important to ensure our soldiers are prepared to respond to the presence of children and vulnerable populations while on operations. Implementation of such steps will greatly contribute to the operational effectiveness of the CF when reinforced during developmental and pre-deployment training,” it says.
“It will also help prepare troops for the tactical and psychological challenges found in modern theatres.”
The move was hailed by the Roméo Dallaire Child Soldiers Initiative, a global partnership based at Dalhousie University. Executive Director Shelly Whitman said “it means essentially that the military’s efforts, or the training, have to be guided by the doctrine; it’s like a bible of the military.”
“When you have a doctrine note come out and it says in it that we’re going to have to understand what this means operationally, strategically, tactically for how our forces address such issues, it’s a huge step forward,” Whitman said in an interview.
Canadian Armed Forces doctrine spells out everything from fundamental principles to details on how to execute operational tasks “to achieve a specific aim,” according to the military’s website.
More specific how-to operational guidelines such as when and how to engage with child fighters would be set out in the rules of engagement of a mission, which are usually classified information.
The guidelines have been a long time coming.
More than seven years ago, former army commander Andrew Leslie, now a Liberal MP, appointed now-retired colonel Jake Bell as the army’s liaison officer with the Dallaire Initiative “to essentially look at this issue to see the things that we could do to incorporate that knowledge into what we do,” Bell said in an interview with the Star.
During his military career, Bell was posted to Bosnia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and in 2012-13 was chief of operations for the United Nations mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo. Now a consultant for the Dallaire Initiative, he recently travelled to Congo to work with the Congolese army on developing a training curriculum on child soldiers for its officers and non-commissioned troops.
He believes it’s important for the Canadian military and other armed forces to have realistic, practical and scenario-based guidance in dealing with children in a operational theatre, and says “where you can really make an impact is in the prevention of recruitment of child soldiers.”
The Dallaire Initiative consulted with Vance, the chief of defence staff, and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan in March about the issue.
Whitman said military leaders learned many lessons from “challenging situations” in the past, including the war in Afghanistan, dealing with detainees and “also the chai boys, the tea boys.”
That’s a reference to allegations that Canadian soldiers turned a blind eye to abuse of boys by Afghan troops. An inquiry reported to Vance on the issue shortly after he took the top job in Canada’s military.
Earlier this year in response to that inquiry, Vance assured Canadians the military has changed how it trains soldiers for overseas deployments, with more focus on ethical issues, cultural differences and addressing human rights violations.
The Canadian Armed Forces do not identify a specific motivation for this new doctrine.
In an emailed response to the Star’s questions, a military spokesperson said the forces “continually revise and update doctrinal documents in order to ensure operational effectiveness and relevance. Providing our members with a better understanding of issues is therefore critical to mission success.”
“We are doing the responsible thing and recognizing that issues — such as the recruitment of child soldiers by illegal armed groups — can and do occur,” wrote Daniel Le Bouthillier, head of media relations.
“This is why we plan, prepare and ensure our members uphold our legal requirement to report any grave violations against children, as identified by the UN secretary general. The protection of the most vulnerable populations is of the utmost importance.”
He said the Canadian Armed Forces “takes its international obligations extremely seriously and will continue to help ensure our proud men and women have the tools required to carry out their mandates responsibly and with the ethos expected of them by Canadians.”
The concept of child soldiers is defined broadly by the United Nations.
The UN says “a child associated with an armed force or armed group refers to any person below 18 years of age who is, or who has been, recruited or used by an armed force or armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to children, boys and girls, used as fighters, cooks, porters, spies or for sexual purposes.”
Whitman said she hopes the military will now focus part of its pre-deployment training on the kinds of “moral dilemmas” soldiers will face, and how best to deal with them.
“Our hope is by doing that it means a) it more success overall in their mission and b) we protect children better and c) when our troops come back home we are reducing levels of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) and operational stress injury because we will have emotionally and practically prepared them for that and have it not be the first time that they thought about it—the first time they saw it on the battlefield.”
Whitman hopes to offer support and training for military trainers at the military’s Peace Support Training Centre in Kingston. It trains over 1,000 members of the CAF and other government personnel each year, prior to deployment on operations.
In each of the countries to which Canada has looked at deploying — South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic or Mali, children are recruited by military forces, whether to act as fighters, intelligence gatherers, sex slaves or domestic labour. In Mali, in particular they have been used by Islamist groups as suicide bombers, says Whitman.
Canadian Forces firm on anti-malaria drug ahead of Africa mission
By: Gloria Galloway, The Globe and Mail
Val Reyes-Santiesteban is convinced she lost a military son to the neuropsychotic side effects of the anti-malarial drug mefloquine, and she fears some of the Canadian soldiers who are about to deploy to Africa could meet the same fate.
Val Reyes-Santiesteban is convinced she lost a military son to the neuropsychotic side effects of the anti-malarial drug mefloquine, and she fears some of the Canadian soldiers who are about to deploy to Africa could meet the same fate.
 |
| Members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment get into position as they arrive to assume responsibility for the airport at Bali Dogle, Somalia, on December 15, 1992. Senior medical officials in the Canadian Forces say there is not enough scientific evidence to remove mefloquine as an option for troops who go to countries where malaria is a threat. (Andrew Vaughan/Canadian Press) |
“It makes me sick. They’ve got to stop them from taking this drug,” Ms. Reyes-Santiesteban, of Welland, Ont., told The Globe and Mail. “Everyone in the government should take this pill once a week for a month and let them see what happens.”
Her son, Corporal Scott Smith, died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound on Christmas Day of 1994 in Rwanda, where he had been sent after taking part in the 1992 Somalia peacekeeping mission. Military doctors prescribed mefloquine for him on both deployments.
The army says he was “killed in action” even though his death, at the age of 23, was clearly suicide.
But, more than two decades later, as the government determines where its next peacekeeping mission in Africa will be, senior medical officials in the Canadian Forces say there is not enough scientific evidence to remove mefloquine as an option for troops who go to countries where malaria is a threat. They remain dubious of claims it can cause permanent damage, despite a Health Canada warning and veterans who say the medication ruined their lives.
Military brass said the same after allowing more than 1,000 Canadian Forces members in Somalia to be part of a poorly monitored clinical trial. Two of the soldiers on that mission were charged in the beating death of a Somali teen, and many others complained of alarming dreams, hallucinations and depression.
Even after doctors on the front lines implicated mefloquine in the troops’ violent behaviour, officers in Canada reassured the commission of inquiry into the Somalia affair that the drug could not cause the psychotic side effects being reported.
The current Liberal government has rejected calls from an all-party committee of the House of Commons and Somalia veterans for more research on mefloquine. And a previous Liberal government shut down the Somalia commission just before the issue of mefloquine was to be addressed.
As a result of recent media coverage, the chief of defence staff asked the military’s surgeon-general to take another look at the scientific literature about the drug. It is now prescribed to just a small fraction of Canadian troops.
The use of mefloquine in Somalia was unorthodox and possibly illegal. The drug had not been approved in Canada in 1992, but National Defence obtained it from Health Canada as part of a clinical trial in which military personnel were supposed to receive the informed consent of the users and to monitor the efficacy and the adverse reactions. They did neither.
The military chose mefloquine over other options because, unlike most anti-malarial drugs, it is taken once a week instead of daily and the Forces determined it was the best option for the Somalia theatre.
Ms. Reyes-Santiesteban does not doubt the drug killed her son.
As he was on his way to Rwanda in the fall of 1994, Cpl. Smith told a reporter for what is now called Canadian Shipper magazine that the malaria medication gave him hallucinations. A few months later, he was dead.
In the hours before he shot himself, Cpl. Smith took part in a convoy in which he was laughing and joking with his colleagues. Then he called his mother, his father and his best friend to wish them a Merry Christmas.
“He was coming home, we were going to have a late Christmas in February,” Ms. Reyes-Santiesteban said. “Nothing seemed to add up.”
Ms. Reyes-Santiesteban wrote to the military and politicians to demand they examine the role mefloquine may have played in the tragedy but, she said, she was never taken seriously.
That was also the response when Barry Armstrong, one of the military doctors who took part in the Somalia mission, expressed concerns about the drug’s effects on the troops.
In a post-deployment analysis he wrote for a 1993 conference, Dr. Armstrong said the failure of the United Nations forces in Somalia was “rather exceptional,” and “I believe that a simple reason may exist. Canadian and American troops may have been impaired by the use of mefloquine.”
Of the three military people who presented papers about the Somalia mission at the conference, “two of us had minor neuropsychiatric problems which occurred regularly in the 24 to 48 hours after our weekly mefloquine doses. If there are two of us, these reactions aren’t so rare.”
Greg Passey, a military doctor who was deployed to Rwanda in 1994, had similar concerns, and wanted to make them known to the Somalia inquiry. Despite a forces-wide communication that said any member of the military who had pertinent information should step forward, Dr. Passey said his decision to testify drew anger from senior officers.
Dr. Passey said one of his colleagues told him “the surgeon-general [then Major-General Wendy Clay] was very upset with me.” He said he decided to testify at the commission anyway, but it was shut down the week before his scheduled appearance.
Dr. Clay said in a telephone interview that she has no recollection of the incident, given that it took place nearly 20 years ago, and it would not have been her place to stop someone from testifying.
She was deputy surgeon-general during the Somalia mission and “certainly, at the time, you weighed the risks and the benefits and there seemed to be no doubt that mefloquine was an appropriate drug to give at that time,” Dr. Clay said. “Whether I would say the same thing now, I don’t know.”
Additional background material for the Somali inquiry includes a 1994 memo from Dr. Clay to the chief of defence staff saying she did not mean to “deny the perceptions of those who served in Somalia,” but the weight of scientific evidence suggests “that the probability of there being adverse effects severe enough to have an impact on the behaviour of our troops, and to constitute a contributing factor to the tragic events that occurred, is very low indeed.”
Some of the troops who believe they suffer long-lasting effects from the drug have started a class-action suit against the government and Hoffman-LaRoche, the drug’s manufacturer.
“The management of the soldiers’ mefloquine use was not at all what would constitute an approved trial,” Dr. Armstrong said in an e-mail. “Considering the dangers of mefloquine, its unapproved status in 1992 and the promise of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to guarantee Canadians’ rights to life, liberty and security of the person, I consider the military orders about taking mefloquine to be wrong.”
Early studies of mefloquine conducted by Hoffman-LaRoche put the risk of even mild side effects at about one in 10,000. Those statistics were recently quoted to The Globe and Mail by Brigadier-General Hugh MacKay, the current military surgeon-general.
But Hervey Blois, a medic on the Somalia mission, estimates that 300 or 400 troops who took part in that deployment were affected in one way or another.
“It was an extreme topic of conversation,” Mr. Blois said. The soldiers would say: “Holy cow, was I ever loopy the other night,” he said. “I would have some really vivid and real dreams. I got into a state of paranoia later on.”
A medical report from HMCS Preserver, a navy support ship stationed off the coast of Somalia at the time, said mefloquine was a problem. “Ten patients experienced nightmares with one patient having feelings of unease and paranoia,” it said. “One patient heard voices and talked to himself. All were switched to Doxycycline with no subsequent problems.”
In March, 1993, Clayton Matchee and Kyle Brown were charged in the beating death of Shidane Arone, a 16-year-old Somali. Mr. Brown was convicted of manslaughter and served a third of a five-year sentence. Mr. Matchee suffered brain damage when he tried to hang himself and was found unfit to stand trial.
When news of the crime hit the papers, an employee of the drug approvals branch of Health Canada walked into the office of Michele Brill-Edwards looking worried. Dr. Brill-Edwards was the senior physician at the department in the late 1980s, when Hoffman-LaRoche began the process of obtaining approval for mefloquine in Canada and, although she was no longer in that role, her former staff still came to her for advice.
“He said: ‘We allowed access under a clinical trial and all of this is going on and it clearly reflects possible mental derangement and we’re not getting any information back. We have no idea whether they are following the protocol that’s been set up and this is basically a big mess,’” Dr. Brill-Edwards said.
Several years later, Dr. Brill-Edwards decided to check the claim that just one in 10,000 people experience mefloquine’s side effects. She said she found those results were obtained from questionnaires handed to travellers on airplanes returning from Africa.
That is no way to collect data, she said, because those who had killed themselves or were in jail over a mefloquine-induced crime would not be counted, and people who had a psychotic episode abroad might be reluctant to divulge it on a card collected by a flight attendant. “If you think about it,” Dr. Brill-Edwards said, “it is the perfect way not to collect the experience of people who have had adverse effects of a mental nature.”
Health Canada, which still says “the benefits of mefloquine outweigh its risks when it is used as directed,” updated its warning labels in August. The department says mefloquine can cause adverse neuropsychiatric reactions that can persist after it is discontinued, and that permanent damage has been seen in some cases.
Nearly 1,000 British soldiers have required psychiatric treatment after taking the drug.
And the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee of the European Medicines Agency says that, due to the long half-life of mefloquine, adverse reactions may occur or persist up to several months after discontinuation, or become permanent.
Val Reyes-Santiesteban, who found her son riding a bicycle down a hallway of her home in the middle of the night while he was on leave from his deployment to Somalia, does not need more proof of mefloquine’s long-term psychiatric damage.
“I blame it now. I blamed it then,” she said. The government and the defence department “don’t admit fault. It’s not their job to admit fault. But I knew right away.”
Her son, Corporal Scott Smith, died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound on Christmas Day of 1994 in Rwanda, where he had been sent after taking part in the 1992 Somalia peacekeeping mission. Military doctors prescribed mefloquine for him on both deployments.
The army says he was “killed in action” even though his death, at the age of 23, was clearly suicide.
But, more than two decades later, as the government determines where its next peacekeeping mission in Africa will be, senior medical officials in the Canadian Forces say there is not enough scientific evidence to remove mefloquine as an option for troops who go to countries where malaria is a threat. They remain dubious of claims it can cause permanent damage, despite a Health Canada warning and veterans who say the medication ruined their lives.
Military brass said the same after allowing more than 1,000 Canadian Forces members in Somalia to be part of a poorly monitored clinical trial. Two of the soldiers on that mission were charged in the beating death of a Somali teen, and many others complained of alarming dreams, hallucinations and depression.
Even after doctors on the front lines implicated mefloquine in the troops’ violent behaviour, officers in Canada reassured the commission of inquiry into the Somalia affair that the drug could not cause the psychotic side effects being reported.
The current Liberal government has rejected calls from an all-party committee of the House of Commons and Somalia veterans for more research on mefloquine. And a previous Liberal government shut down the Somalia commission just before the issue of mefloquine was to be addressed.
As a result of recent media coverage, the chief of defence staff asked the military’s surgeon-general to take another look at the scientific literature about the drug. It is now prescribed to just a small fraction of Canadian troops.
The use of mefloquine in Somalia was unorthodox and possibly illegal. The drug had not been approved in Canada in 1992, but National Defence obtained it from Health Canada as part of a clinical trial in which military personnel were supposed to receive the informed consent of the users and to monitor the efficacy and the adverse reactions. They did neither.
The military chose mefloquine over other options because, unlike most anti-malarial drugs, it is taken once a week instead of daily and the Forces determined it was the best option for the Somalia theatre.
Ms. Reyes-Santiesteban does not doubt the drug killed her son.
As he was on his way to Rwanda in the fall of 1994, Cpl. Smith told a reporter for what is now called Canadian Shipper magazine that the malaria medication gave him hallucinations. A few months later, he was dead.
In the hours before he shot himself, Cpl. Smith took part in a convoy in which he was laughing and joking with his colleagues. Then he called his mother, his father and his best friend to wish them a Merry Christmas.
“He was coming home, we were going to have a late Christmas in February,” Ms. Reyes-Santiesteban said. “Nothing seemed to add up.”
Ms. Reyes-Santiesteban wrote to the military and politicians to demand they examine the role mefloquine may have played in the tragedy but, she said, she was never taken seriously.
That was also the response when Barry Armstrong, one of the military doctors who took part in the Somalia mission, expressed concerns about the drug’s effects on the troops.
In a post-deployment analysis he wrote for a 1993 conference, Dr. Armstrong said the failure of the United Nations forces in Somalia was “rather exceptional,” and “I believe that a simple reason may exist. Canadian and American troops may have been impaired by the use of mefloquine.”
Of the three military people who presented papers about the Somalia mission at the conference, “two of us had minor neuropsychiatric problems which occurred regularly in the 24 to 48 hours after our weekly mefloquine doses. If there are two of us, these reactions aren’t so rare.”
Greg Passey, a military doctor who was deployed to Rwanda in 1994, had similar concerns, and wanted to make them known to the Somalia inquiry. Despite a forces-wide communication that said any member of the military who had pertinent information should step forward, Dr. Passey said his decision to testify drew anger from senior officers.
Dr. Passey said one of his colleagues told him “the surgeon-general [then Major-General Wendy Clay] was very upset with me.” He said he decided to testify at the commission anyway, but it was shut down the week before his scheduled appearance.
Dr. Clay said in a telephone interview that she has no recollection of the incident, given that it took place nearly 20 years ago, and it would not have been her place to stop someone from testifying.
She was deputy surgeon-general during the Somalia mission and “certainly, at the time, you weighed the risks and the benefits and there seemed to be no doubt that mefloquine was an appropriate drug to give at that time,” Dr. Clay said. “Whether I would say the same thing now, I don’t know.”
Additional background material for the Somali inquiry includes a 1994 memo from Dr. Clay to the chief of defence staff saying she did not mean to “deny the perceptions of those who served in Somalia,” but the weight of scientific evidence suggests “that the probability of there being adverse effects severe enough to have an impact on the behaviour of our troops, and to constitute a contributing factor to the tragic events that occurred, is very low indeed.”
Some of the troops who believe they suffer long-lasting effects from the drug have started a class-action suit against the government and Hoffman-LaRoche, the drug’s manufacturer.
“The management of the soldiers’ mefloquine use was not at all what would constitute an approved trial,” Dr. Armstrong said in an e-mail. “Considering the dangers of mefloquine, its unapproved status in 1992 and the promise of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to guarantee Canadians’ rights to life, liberty and security of the person, I consider the military orders about taking mefloquine to be wrong.”
Early studies of mefloquine conducted by Hoffman-LaRoche put the risk of even mild side effects at about one in 10,000. Those statistics were recently quoted to The Globe and Mail by Brigadier-General Hugh MacKay, the current military surgeon-general.
But Hervey Blois, a medic on the Somalia mission, estimates that 300 or 400 troops who took part in that deployment were affected in one way or another.
“It was an extreme topic of conversation,” Mr. Blois said. The soldiers would say: “Holy cow, was I ever loopy the other night,” he said. “I would have some really vivid and real dreams. I got into a state of paranoia later on.”
A medical report from HMCS Preserver, a navy support ship stationed off the coast of Somalia at the time, said mefloquine was a problem. “Ten patients experienced nightmares with one patient having feelings of unease and paranoia,” it said. “One patient heard voices and talked to himself. All were switched to Doxycycline with no subsequent problems.”
In March, 1993, Clayton Matchee and Kyle Brown were charged in the beating death of Shidane Arone, a 16-year-old Somali. Mr. Brown was convicted of manslaughter and served a third of a five-year sentence. Mr. Matchee suffered brain damage when he tried to hang himself and was found unfit to stand trial.
When news of the crime hit the papers, an employee of the drug approvals branch of Health Canada walked into the office of Michele Brill-Edwards looking worried. Dr. Brill-Edwards was the senior physician at the department in the late 1980s, when Hoffman-LaRoche began the process of obtaining approval for mefloquine in Canada and, although she was no longer in that role, her former staff still came to her for advice.
“He said: ‘We allowed access under a clinical trial and all of this is going on and it clearly reflects possible mental derangement and we’re not getting any information back. We have no idea whether they are following the protocol that’s been set up and this is basically a big mess,’” Dr. Brill-Edwards said.
Several years later, Dr. Brill-Edwards decided to check the claim that just one in 10,000 people experience mefloquine’s side effects. She said she found those results were obtained from questionnaires handed to travellers on airplanes returning from Africa.
That is no way to collect data, she said, because those who had killed themselves or were in jail over a mefloquine-induced crime would not be counted, and people who had a psychotic episode abroad might be reluctant to divulge it on a card collected by a flight attendant. “If you think about it,” Dr. Brill-Edwards said, “it is the perfect way not to collect the experience of people who have had adverse effects of a mental nature.”
Health Canada, which still says “the benefits of mefloquine outweigh its risks when it is used as directed,” updated its warning labels in August. The department says mefloquine can cause adverse neuropsychiatric reactions that can persist after it is discontinued, and that permanent damage has been seen in some cases.
Nearly 1,000 British soldiers have required psychiatric treatment after taking the drug.
And the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee of the European Medicines Agency says that, due to the long half-life of mefloquine, adverse reactions may occur or persist up to several months after discontinuation, or become permanent.
Val Reyes-Santiesteban, who found her son riding a bicycle down a hallway of her home in the middle of the night while he was on leave from his deployment to Somalia, does not need more proof of mefloquine’s long-term psychiatric damage.
“I blame it now. I blamed it then,” she said. The government and the defence department “don’t admit fault. It’s not their job to admit fault. But I knew right away.”
Monday, November 28, 2016
Senators issue warning over potential Mali peacekeeping mission
By: Murray Brewster, CBC News
A Senate committee has tossed political hurdles in front of the Trudeau government's plan to rejoin the ranks of peacekeeping nations, demanding more funding for the military and a clear end-date to whatever United Nations mission is undertaken.
Senators are also demanding the Liberal government seek the approval of Parliament before a deployment takes place.
The report, with eight recommendations, by the committee on national security and defence comes as the federal cabinet is set to debate, next month, where in Africa to contribute peacekeepers.
The Liberals made peacekeeping a cornerstone of their defence plan in the last election campaign and last summer committed up to 600 soldiers, 150 police officers and $450 million over three years towards a yet-to-be-defined series of missions.
A lot of detailed planning, including two trips to Africa by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, have gone into the pending cabinet decision.
Meeting current needs
But the Senate, which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has encouraged to be independent, is laying down its own political markers, which could give opponents of the mission something to rally around.
"The military has needs of its own that are not being fully met," said Conservative Senator Dan Lang, the head of the committee.
He noted there are recruitment, training and equipment needs that are pressing and those should be dealt with before the army is committed to another overseas deployment.
"These are essential requirements that must be met," he said following the release of 55-page report.
"The committee believes (that) before the government increases our commitments to UN peace support operations, they must ensure adequate funding is available to meet the current needs of our Armed Forces."
Lang also questioned whether a deployment to Africa would be in Canada's national interest and said the most often discussed destination — Mali — has been described by international officials as a quagmire.
Avoid another Afghanistan
If Mali is the government's choice, he said the committee is worried the mission may slide into a counter-terrorism operation given the presence of jihadist elements, including al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
We don't want to get involved "in a situation somewhat similar to Afghanistan," said Lang.
"If we're getting involved in a commitment, and say it's Mali, I don't think we want to to led into a situation where all of a sudden we have a 10-year commitment."
Consideration of a peacekeeping mission should take a back seat given that the country's commitments to NATO and North American defence — through Norad — are not being met, said Lang.
As an example, he pointed to the fact Canada does not meet NATO's benchmark spending requirement of two per cent of the country's gross domestic product — something no Canadian government has done in decades.
"The government must fulfil our current national obligations before committing new resources — military or otherwise — to a dangerous and costly UN mission in Africa," Lang said.
Justify mission
Recognizing the government is plowing ahead regardless, the Senate committee attempted to set limits by demanding the Liberals table a "statement of justification" for the mission in both the House of Commons and the Senate.
It would include the size, scope, risks and objectives of the mission to ensure "bipartisan support" for troops going out the door.
Also, the committee says the public deserves to know the rules of engagement under which the troops will be operating, specifically what action they'll take to protect themselves and civilians.
Establishing a clear end-date is something the Netherlands did with its UN involvement, and the lesson should not be lost on Canada, said deputy committee chair Mobina Jaffer.
"They had a very, very clear exit strategy," said Jaffer. "We as a committee believe that is very important."
She also encouraged Canada to be more like the Dutch in setting out its strategy objectives for missions.
A Senate committee has tossed political hurdles in front of the Trudeau government's plan to rejoin the ranks of peacekeeping nations, demanding more funding for the military and a clear end-date to whatever United Nations mission is undertaken.
Senators are also demanding the Liberal government seek the approval of Parliament before a deployment takes place.
The report, with eight recommendations, by the committee on national security and defence comes as the federal cabinet is set to debate, next month, where in Africa to contribute peacekeepers.
The Liberals made peacekeeping a cornerstone of their defence plan in the last election campaign and last summer committed up to 600 soldiers, 150 police officers and $450 million over three years towards a yet-to-be-defined series of missions.
A lot of detailed planning, including two trips to Africa by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, have gone into the pending cabinet decision.
Meeting current needs
But the Senate, which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has encouraged to be independent, is laying down its own political markers, which could give opponents of the mission something to rally around.
"The military has needs of its own that are not being fully met," said Conservative Senator Dan Lang, the head of the committee.
He noted there are recruitment, training and equipment needs that are pressing and those should be dealt with before the army is committed to another overseas deployment.
 |
| Malian and MINUSMA soldiers carry the flag-draped coffins of two UN soldiers killed in a 2013 bomb attack in Kidal, during their funeral in Bamako, the capital of Mali. (Reuters) |
"The committee believes (that) before the government increases our commitments to UN peace support operations, they must ensure adequate funding is available to meet the current needs of our Armed Forces."
Lang also questioned whether a deployment to Africa would be in Canada's national interest and said the most often discussed destination — Mali — has been described by international officials as a quagmire.
Avoid another Afghanistan
If Mali is the government's choice, he said the committee is worried the mission may slide into a counter-terrorism operation given the presence of jihadist elements, including al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
We don't want to get involved "in a situation somewhat similar to Afghanistan," said Lang.
"If we're getting involved in a commitment, and say it's Mali, I don't think we want to to led into a situation where all of a sudden we have a 10-year commitment."
 |
| Canadian soldiers patrol southwest of Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 2010. (Anja Niedringhaus/Canadian Press) |
As an example, he pointed to the fact Canada does not meet NATO's benchmark spending requirement of two per cent of the country's gross domestic product — something no Canadian government has done in decades.
"The government must fulfil our current national obligations before committing new resources — military or otherwise — to a dangerous and costly UN mission in Africa," Lang said.
Justify mission
Recognizing the government is plowing ahead regardless, the Senate committee attempted to set limits by demanding the Liberals table a "statement of justification" for the mission in both the House of Commons and the Senate.
It would include the size, scope, risks and objectives of the mission to ensure "bipartisan support" for troops going out the door.
Also, the committee says the public deserves to know the rules of engagement under which the troops will be operating, specifically what action they'll take to protect themselves and civilians.
Establishing a clear end-date is something the Netherlands did with its UN involvement, and the lesson should not be lost on Canada, said deputy committee chair Mobina Jaffer.
"They had a very, very clear exit strategy," said Jaffer. "We as a committee believe that is very important."
She also encouraged Canada to be more like the Dutch in setting out its strategy objectives for missions.
Canadian soldiers Appear headed to Mali
By TONDA MACCHARLES & BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH Toronto Star
OTTAWA—The federal cabinet will decide soon where to send Canadian soldiers in Africa, with Mali emerging the most likely prospect for the military peace support operation, the Star has learned.
The range of options, prepared by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and Global Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion, may be brought to cabinet by as early as Tuesday or the following week, sources said.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who campaigned on a promise to re-engage Canadian soldiers in United Nations peacekeeping, is said not to have made up his mind yet, despite obvious pressure building from French and UN diplomats to choose Mali.
Any military mission to Mali in West Africa is expected to engage Canadian ground and air forces along with an intensive Canadian development effort to support the ongoing UN mission headquartered in the capital, Bamako.
The government has pledged up to 600 soldiers and 150 police officers for its Africa peace mission. The options being prepared for cabinet suggest that a deployment at the upper range of those numbers would have the greatest impact and offer the best chance of success, sources said.
It’s likely the government will also deploy helicopters as part of the mission — the air force has Griffons and larger Chinook transport choppers. That would respond to a direct appeal by the United Nations for the Mali mission.
It would also help ensure that deployed troops have their own means of moving around and a dedicated lifeline in the event of an emergency.
The Canadian deployment would support a separate French-led military operation across the broader region, known as the Sahel, which is targeting Islamist terrorist groups operating in the northern part of Mali. Known as Operation Barkhane, the French-led counter-insurgency mission is on front lines that span the borders of Mali, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Chad and Niger.
Canadian soldiers could well face the very grim prospect of dealing with determined and hardened fighters, including child soldiers, in a way that could become challenging for the military and for a Canadian public.
Children, while often recruited by armies across Africa to act as fighters, intelligence gatherers, sex slaves or domestic labour, have been used by Islamist groups in Mali as suicide bombers, said Shelly Whitman, executive director of the Roméo Dallaire Child Soldiers Initiative.
“It’s a huge issue for Mali,” Whitman said in an interview. “One of the things we’ve been saying to the minister of national defence, as well as to Dion, is (that) if you are going to send the guys in there you better make sure they’re prepared for this issue.”
It could mean engaging in firefights with children, trying to remove them from conflict zones in order to demobilize them, and working to prevent radicalization and recruitment in the first place.
The Dallaire Initiative, a global partnership housed at Dalhousie University, works to prevent the use of child soldiers worldwide. It has developed a handbook and training resources to help military forces deal with the moral dilemmas associated with confronting a child soldier, the risks associated with post-traumatic stress disorder, and teaches ways to improve how they deal with child soldiers in “non-lethal interactions.”
Its advisers have consulted closely with the Canadian Forces, and retired Lt.-Gen. Roméo Dallaire, a former senator, travelled in August to Africa with Sajjan on the minister’s five-country tour, to Uganda, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania and Kenya.
Whitman said she advised the government against going to Mali, saying it must weigh the impact on Canadian soldiers “and the ability of us to have success.” She believes Canadian troops could make a greater and more tangible difference if they went instead to Central African Republic, the Congo or South Sudan, and played a larger mentorship role with African troops already on the ground.
How to engage with child soldiers is just one challenge among many that await the Canadians in country beset by violence and a breakdown in government institutions.
The UN mission in Mali was established in April 2013 after Islamist groups and extremist elements overran towns in the north. French forces deployed to assist Malian troops regain control and the UN force was brought in later to help stabilize the situation.
But the violence has continued to take a toll on daily life, with delayed elections, the displacement of some 130,000 Malians and violations of the 2015 ceasefire agreement meant to bring peace between warring factions.
The UN mission in Mali, known as MINUSMA — which includes troops from Burkina Faso, Bangladesh, Niger, Togo and Chad — has been assisting Malian forces with training, logistics, intelligence and co-ordinating operations.
But the operation, with 10,635 military personnel and another 1,264 police officers on the ground, is short of troops, police and equipment.
“We do have very pressing needs in Mali,” Hervé Ladsous, the UN’s undersecretary general for Peacekeeping Operations said in an interview with CBC’s The House.
He said Canada could bring many assets to a Mali mission, citing its “professional” army with a francophone background, making it able to communicate with local residents, and one that has integrated women throughout its ranks.
He singled out the UN’s request for additional helicopters, saying the aircraft are “absolutely critical” in northern Mali.
In 2014 report Amnesty International said children as young as 16 were being recruited by armed groups in Mali. It raised concerns after finding child soldiers locked up in adult jails, denied access to family members and legal advice.
“At the same time there were pro-government militias who were recruiting child soldiers,” said Gaëtan Mootoo, Amnesty International’s researcher for West Africa.
In the north, there has been a breakdown of civil society with no one to run the schools, leaving children susceptible to be pulled into the ranks of the armed groups, he said.
“The kids are on their own,” Mootoo told the Star in an interview from Paris, where he is based.
“When the state fails to look after the population, including the kids, there is the risk of an increase in the recruitment of child soldiers,” he said.
Mootoo said the training and discipline of Canadian soldiers would bring an important contribution to Mali, in the wake of abuses catalogued by the UN by troops already on the ground, including illegal detentions and excessive use of force.
Jake Bell, a retired Canadian forces colonel previously posted to Bosnia, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Congo who does consulting work for the Dallaire Initiative, said wherever it deploys, the Canadian mission should take a broad and long-term approach.
“The reality is prevention is the key, and that is dealing with the long-term development issues that create the conditions that are ripe for the recruitment of children,” he said.
“I think you’ll find — and most of the people that I know that ever wore a uniform, that were ever involved in conflict zones, will tell you — that violence will never solve anything. The best you can hope for with violence, with force, is to create the conditions that will get the people to solve the problem on their own.”
The latest UN assessment of Mali paints a picture of the dire situation in the country and the violence that puts peacekeepers in the crosshairs of “complex” attacks involving rockets, mortars, mines and even remote-controlled bombs.
Over the summer, there was a “significant” increase in attacks aimed at Malian troops and the UN forces that now often accompany them on patrols — 66 in total in the three months leading up to the end of September. Those attacks left 13 peacekeepers dead and 32 injured.
“The attacks have become increasingly frequent, bold and well co-ordinated,” the UN report states.
In one July incident, attackers used 18 vehicles and several motorbikes to assault a Malian military camp, killing 15 soldiers and injuring 34 others. In May, an attack on a UN military convoy left five peacekeepers dead.
In response, the UN mission has become more “proactive and robust,” launching operations in concert with Malian troops and French forces to root out terrorists, the report says.
But Ladsous says that the UN mission is not meant to be a counter-insurgency operation, saying that role is filled by the French in Mali.
He said the UN mission aims to support the political process, the disarmament of combatants, training local forces and protecting local civilians.
“Very clearly, we are not designed and cannot be the anti-terrorist tool of choice,” he told CBC.
The UN in Mali
The United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) has been in Mali since April 2013, and boasts 13,083 personnel in total, including:
Uniformed personnel: 11,883
Troops: 10,579
Military observers: 40
Police: 1,264
Civilian personnel: 1,246
International civilians: 585
Local civilians: 661
UN Volunteers: 146
Fatalities: 106
Approved 2016-17: $933,411,000
OTTAWA—The federal cabinet will decide soon where to send Canadian soldiers in Africa, with Mali emerging the most likely prospect for the military peace support operation, the Star has learned.
The range of options, prepared by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and Global Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion, may be brought to cabinet by as early as Tuesday or the following week, sources said.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who campaigned on a promise to re-engage Canadian soldiers in United Nations peacekeeping, is said not to have made up his mind yet, despite obvious pressure building from French and UN diplomats to choose Mali.
Any military mission to Mali in West Africa is expected to engage Canadian ground and air forces along with an intensive Canadian development effort to support the ongoing UN mission headquartered in the capital, Bamako.
The government has pledged up to 600 soldiers and 150 police officers for its Africa peace mission. The options being prepared for cabinet suggest that a deployment at the upper range of those numbers would have the greatest impact and offer the best chance of success, sources said.
It’s likely the government will also deploy helicopters as part of the mission — the air force has Griffons and larger Chinook transport choppers. That would respond to a direct appeal by the United Nations for the Mali mission.
It would also help ensure that deployed troops have their own means of moving around and a dedicated lifeline in the event of an emergency.
The Canadian deployment would support a separate French-led military operation across the broader region, known as the Sahel, which is targeting Islamist terrorist groups operating in the northern part of Mali. Known as Operation Barkhane, the French-led counter-insurgency mission is on front lines that span the borders of Mali, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Chad and Niger.
Canadian soldiers could well face the very grim prospect of dealing with determined and hardened fighters, including child soldiers, in a way that could become challenging for the military and for a Canadian public.
Children, while often recruited by armies across Africa to act as fighters, intelligence gatherers, sex slaves or domestic labour, have been used by Islamist groups in Mali as suicide bombers, said Shelly Whitman, executive director of the Roméo Dallaire Child Soldiers Initiative.
“It’s a huge issue for Mali,” Whitman said in an interview. “One of the things we’ve been saying to the minister of national defence, as well as to Dion, is (that) if you are going to send the guys in there you better make sure they’re prepared for this issue.”
It could mean engaging in firefights with children, trying to remove them from conflict zones in order to demobilize them, and working to prevent radicalization and recruitment in the first place.
The Dallaire Initiative, a global partnership housed at Dalhousie University, works to prevent the use of child soldiers worldwide. It has developed a handbook and training resources to help military forces deal with the moral dilemmas associated with confronting a child soldier, the risks associated with post-traumatic stress disorder, and teaches ways to improve how they deal with child soldiers in “non-lethal interactions.”
Its advisers have consulted closely with the Canadian Forces, and retired Lt.-Gen. Roméo Dallaire, a former senator, travelled in August to Africa with Sajjan on the minister’s five-country tour, to Uganda, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania and Kenya.
Whitman said she advised the government against going to Mali, saying it must weigh the impact on Canadian soldiers “and the ability of us to have success.” She believes Canadian troops could make a greater and more tangible difference if they went instead to Central African Republic, the Congo or South Sudan, and played a larger mentorship role with African troops already on the ground.
How to engage with child soldiers is just one challenge among many that await the Canadians in country beset by violence and a breakdown in government institutions.
The UN mission in Mali was established in April 2013 after Islamist groups and extremist elements overran towns in the north. French forces deployed to assist Malian troops regain control and the UN force was brought in later to help stabilize the situation.
But the violence has continued to take a toll on daily life, with delayed elections, the displacement of some 130,000 Malians and violations of the 2015 ceasefire agreement meant to bring peace between warring factions.
The UN mission in Mali, known as MINUSMA — which includes troops from Burkina Faso, Bangladesh, Niger, Togo and Chad — has been assisting Malian forces with training, logistics, intelligence and co-ordinating operations.
But the operation, with 10,635 military personnel and another 1,264 police officers on the ground, is short of troops, police and equipment.
“We do have very pressing needs in Mali,” Hervé Ladsous, the UN’s undersecretary general for Peacekeeping Operations said in an interview with CBC’s The House.
He said Canada could bring many assets to a Mali mission, citing its “professional” army with a francophone background, making it able to communicate with local residents, and one that has integrated women throughout its ranks.
He singled out the UN’s request for additional helicopters, saying the aircraft are “absolutely critical” in northern Mali.
In 2014 report Amnesty International said children as young as 16 were being recruited by armed groups in Mali. It raised concerns after finding child soldiers locked up in adult jails, denied access to family members and legal advice.
“At the same time there were pro-government militias who were recruiting child soldiers,” said Gaëtan Mootoo, Amnesty International’s researcher for West Africa.
In the north, there has been a breakdown of civil society with no one to run the schools, leaving children susceptible to be pulled into the ranks of the armed groups, he said.
“The kids are on their own,” Mootoo told the Star in an interview from Paris, where he is based.
“When the state fails to look after the population, including the kids, there is the risk of an increase in the recruitment of child soldiers,” he said.
Mootoo said the training and discipline of Canadian soldiers would bring an important contribution to Mali, in the wake of abuses catalogued by the UN by troops already on the ground, including illegal detentions and excessive use of force.
Jake Bell, a retired Canadian forces colonel previously posted to Bosnia, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Congo who does consulting work for the Dallaire Initiative, said wherever it deploys, the Canadian mission should take a broad and long-term approach.
“The reality is prevention is the key, and that is dealing with the long-term development issues that create the conditions that are ripe for the recruitment of children,” he said.
“I think you’ll find — and most of the people that I know that ever wore a uniform, that were ever involved in conflict zones, will tell you — that violence will never solve anything. The best you can hope for with violence, with force, is to create the conditions that will get the people to solve the problem on their own.”
The latest UN assessment of Mali paints a picture of the dire situation in the country and the violence that puts peacekeepers in the crosshairs of “complex” attacks involving rockets, mortars, mines and even remote-controlled bombs.
Over the summer, there was a “significant” increase in attacks aimed at Malian troops and the UN forces that now often accompany them on patrols — 66 in total in the three months leading up to the end of September. Those attacks left 13 peacekeepers dead and 32 injured.
“The attacks have become increasingly frequent, bold and well co-ordinated,” the UN report states.
In one July incident, attackers used 18 vehicles and several motorbikes to assault a Malian military camp, killing 15 soldiers and injuring 34 others. In May, an attack on a UN military convoy left five peacekeepers dead.
In response, the UN mission has become more “proactive and robust,” launching operations in concert with Malian troops and French forces to root out terrorists, the report says.
But Ladsous says that the UN mission is not meant to be a counter-insurgency operation, saying that role is filled by the French in Mali.
He said the UN mission aims to support the political process, the disarmament of combatants, training local forces and protecting local civilians.
“Very clearly, we are not designed and cannot be the anti-terrorist tool of choice,” he told CBC.
The UN in Mali
The United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) has been in Mali since April 2013, and boasts 13,083 personnel in total, including:
Uniformed personnel: 11,883
Troops: 10,579
Military observers: 40
Police: 1,264
Civilian personnel: 1,246
International civilians: 585
Local civilians: 661
UN Volunteers: 146
Fatalities: 106
Approved 2016-17: $933,411,000
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Mason: Why UN Peacekeeping is worth the Risks
By: Peggy Mason, Toronto Star
Pages of newspaper ink are being spilled to highlight the risks in any of the UN peacekeeping missions Canada might be considering — from the Democratic Republic of Congo to Mali to the Central African Republic. What has been missing from all the commentary and government pronouncements, though, is a coherent argument for why UN peacekeeping is a job worth the all-too-evident dangers.
This is too bad because there are solid reasons for Canada to re-engage. While UN peacekeeping is no miracle cure and there are no guarantees of success, when done right and properly mandated and resourced, UN peacekeeping offers the best chance for a society emerging from violent conflict.
Peacekeeping is the front end of a complex, long-term process of helping conflicting parties create the necessary conditions — political, socio-economic, security — for sustainable peace.
At the centre of this effort is the peace process. Complex political problems always lie at the heart of violent conflict and require political solutions that are negotiated and agreed to by the parties. A capable security force will be essential in both the peace negotiation and implementation phases, but it is a supporting element of the overall mission nonetheless.
As the Afghanistan debacle has so dramatically and tragically illustrated, no amount of military “robustness” and professionalism on the part of international military forces can make up for the lack of a credible peace process.
The statistical evidence is also clear: looking at all past wars of the last quarter-century, only 15 per cent have ended decisively on the battlefield, and in these cases the rebels prevailed at least as often as the governments they fought. All the rest ultimately had to be settled at the negotiating table.
Precisely because of the primacy of the peace process, today’s multi-dimensional UN peace operations — which involve military, police and civilian contingents — are much more than military operations charged with providing a safe and secure environment. Their civilian components are mandated to facilitate the peace process, promote the rule of law, and support the establishment of legitimate and effective institutions of governance.
Increasingly mandates, like that for MINUSMA in Mali, also include security assistance to the transitional government so it can reassert its authority nationwide. This military assistance is in concert with support for national political dialogue and reconciliation efforts.
For a collective enterprise of this magnitude to succeed — as UN peacekeeping does more often than not — the international effort must be perceived as legitimate and impartial. And it must have the broadest possible international support within a coherent legal and operational framework.
Only the UN Security Council can mandate such an operation and only the UN Organization can lead the mission if is to be internationally acceptable. Headed by a civilian in the role of Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General (SRSG), with all the other components, including the military and police, reporting to him or her, the very structure of the UN peacekeeping mission reflects the centrality of the peace process. This stands in sharp contrast to NATO-led military missions, even where authorized by the UNSC to assist in stabilizing a conflict.
NATO-led stability operations lack the perceived legitimacy and impartiality of UN-led operations precisely because their political and military leaders are seen to represent a very specific set of powerful countries and interests. Not only does this undermine coherence in the international effort; it also constitutes a gift to spoilers on the ground decrying alleged “foreign occupation.”
An integrated mission under the overall authority of the SRSG also allows UN command and control to be decentralized to the operational level. This contrasts with the centralized, top-heavy and opaque command structure operating in NATO.
Many current UN missions may have comprehensive mandates to build sustainable peace but they manifestly lack the professional forces and equipment to do the job. That’s a major concern.
Re-engagement by Canada and other Western countries is therefore long overdue and welcome. This is why 10 leading civil society organizations in their submission to the Defence Policy Review, entitled “A Shift to Sustainable Peace and Common Security,” call on Canada to make UN peacekeeping a Canadian defence priority.
But they also caution that specialized interdisciplinary peacekeeping training for Canadian forces, particularly commanders and their staff, is an indispensable precondition if there is to be effective Canadian engagement.
---
Peggy Mason is President of the Rideau Institute and a former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament to the UN, with over 20 years of experience in peacekeeping training.
Pages of newspaper ink are being spilled to highlight the risks in any of the UN peacekeeping missions Canada might be considering — from the Democratic Republic of Congo to Mali to the Central African Republic. What has been missing from all the commentary and government pronouncements, though, is a coherent argument for why UN peacekeeping is a job worth the all-too-evident dangers.
This is too bad because there are solid reasons for Canada to re-engage. While UN peacekeeping is no miracle cure and there are no guarantees of success, when done right and properly mandated and resourced, UN peacekeeping offers the best chance for a society emerging from violent conflict.
Peacekeeping is the front end of a complex, long-term process of helping conflicting parties create the necessary conditions — political, socio-economic, security — for sustainable peace.
At the centre of this effort is the peace process. Complex political problems always lie at the heart of violent conflict and require political solutions that are negotiated and agreed to by the parties. A capable security force will be essential in both the peace negotiation and implementation phases, but it is a supporting element of the overall mission nonetheless.
As the Afghanistan debacle has so dramatically and tragically illustrated, no amount of military “robustness” and professionalism on the part of international military forces can make up for the lack of a credible peace process.
The statistical evidence is also clear: looking at all past wars of the last quarter-century, only 15 per cent have ended decisively on the battlefield, and in these cases the rebels prevailed at least as often as the governments they fought. All the rest ultimately had to be settled at the negotiating table.
Precisely because of the primacy of the peace process, today’s multi-dimensional UN peace operations — which involve military, police and civilian contingents — are much more than military operations charged with providing a safe and secure environment. Their civilian components are mandated to facilitate the peace process, promote the rule of law, and support the establishment of legitimate and effective institutions of governance.
Increasingly mandates, like that for MINUSMA in Mali, also include security assistance to the transitional government so it can reassert its authority nationwide. This military assistance is in concert with support for national political dialogue and reconciliation efforts.
For a collective enterprise of this magnitude to succeed — as UN peacekeeping does more often than not — the international effort must be perceived as legitimate and impartial. And it must have the broadest possible international support within a coherent legal and operational framework.
Only the UN Security Council can mandate such an operation and only the UN Organization can lead the mission if is to be internationally acceptable. Headed by a civilian in the role of Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General (SRSG), with all the other components, including the military and police, reporting to him or her, the very structure of the UN peacekeeping mission reflects the centrality of the peace process. This stands in sharp contrast to NATO-led military missions, even where authorized by the UNSC to assist in stabilizing a conflict.
NATO-led stability operations lack the perceived legitimacy and impartiality of UN-led operations precisely because their political and military leaders are seen to represent a very specific set of powerful countries and interests. Not only does this undermine coherence in the international effort; it also constitutes a gift to spoilers on the ground decrying alleged “foreign occupation.”
An integrated mission under the overall authority of the SRSG also allows UN command and control to be decentralized to the operational level. This contrasts with the centralized, top-heavy and opaque command structure operating in NATO.
Many current UN missions may have comprehensive mandates to build sustainable peace but they manifestly lack the professional forces and equipment to do the job. That’s a major concern.
Re-engagement by Canada and other Western countries is therefore long overdue and welcome. This is why 10 leading civil society organizations in their submission to the Defence Policy Review, entitled “A Shift to Sustainable Peace and Common Security,” call on Canada to make UN peacekeeping a Canadian defence priority.
But they also caution that specialized interdisciplinary peacekeeping training for Canadian forces, particularly commanders and their staff, is an indispensable precondition if there is to be effective Canadian engagement.
---
Peggy Mason is President of the Rideau Institute and a former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament to the UN, with over 20 years of experience in peacekeeping training.
Monday, November 14, 2016
Canada Committed to 3-Year deployment in Africa: Sajjan
By TONDA MACCHARLES, Toronto Star
OTTAWA—Canadian troops headed to Africa will operate in dangerous territory where peacekeepers have been killed, says Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.
In an exclusive interview with the Star from Vancouver Sajjan said Canada has committed to a three-year deployment that will be reassessed each year to ensure it has an “enduring” impact.
It will be spread among a number of unspecified African countries, have a major focus on training and increasing “capacity” of the host nation as well as other countries’ troops, and build on existing social, economic and deradicalization programs on the ground.
“These missions, all of them, have the level of risk where peacekeepers have been hurt, they have been killed. And we’ve been looking at the risk factor in a very serious way,” said Sajjan.
Asked about his approach to deploying Canadian forces to conduct counter-insurgency operations — something the previous Conservative government was keen to avoid in Africa when it turned down requests to deploy soldiers to Congo and Mali — Sajjan said “some of it is going to be the reduction of radicalization in certain areas, in other parts it will be developing the capacity of the host nation.”
Just back from Mali, which hosts the deadliest United Nations mission in the world right now, Sajjan says it’s clear there are risks there. He said the same risks exist in the other African missions under consideration by the Liberal government.
But, he added, there are also risks to Canada of doing nothing to counter insurgent groups that are terrorizing populations and radicalizing new recruits, and suggested he and the Liberal government have made this clear to Canadians from “day one.”
“This is not the peacekeeping of the past — we need to look at what the challenges are of today and develop the peace operations for today’s challenges.”
After having travelled to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia in late summer, and Senegal and Mali in the past week — Sajjan said he believes the UN mandate for and rules of engagement with hostile forces are “robust” enough to address the risks, particularly in Mali. The UN mission in Mali, known as MINUSMA, has seen 106 casualties since it was established in 2013, including 69 from “malicious acts.”
“One thing I did learn, the mandate for the mission is robust so there no concern that our troops would be limited in any way,” said Sajjan. “I had a very direct conversation with the political leadership of the UN and the force commander about that, and the safety of our troops is always paramount.”
The defence minister, a Canadian Armed Forces veteran of the Afghanistan combat mission, suggested the risk to soldiers’ lives, however, does not justify inaction.
“It can’t just be one factor that we look at. That’s one; that’s an important factor that needs to be addressed. We have looked at that and the question always comes: how do you mitigate some of these challenges,” he said.
“But at the end of the day just because you see a problem ahead of you, you can’t just ignore it, you have to look at, can we look at addressing it.”
He insisted Canada “can play a huge role where we can reduce conflict and get into areas where we can start preventing conflict by addressing certain root causes at an early stage.”
Sajjan said there are ways to “mitigate” risk, just as he says the Liberal government did when it overhauled Canada’s combat mission to Iraq, “and making sure that we put the right type of troops, the right equipment with the right mandate for that mission.”
The Liberals pulled out Canada’s CF-18 fighter jets and refocused Canada’s military contribution to the fight against Daesh on training Iraqi and Kurdish peshmerga forces to fight the Islamist rebel forces.
Sajjan stressed that a big part of the federal analysis underway — as he, two other federal ministers, and military and civilian fact-finders have travelled to Africa — is examining how Canada’s contribution of some 600 soldiers and up to 150 police can have a maximum impact, whether it’s through military training, building on economic development programs and opportunities like on the “agriculture side” in Mali, or combating sexual violence, including by UN peacekeeping troops.
“What we do provide will be enduring. We committed for three years, but the thinking is to have the impact, we always need to assess,” said Sajjan.
Asked how Canada avoids sending troops to be injured or killed in a mission where there is no end in sight, Sajjan stressed Canada’s intention is to effect measurable change.
“I wouldn’t want to put troops in any place where there is no end,” he said, suggesting the plan is to provide “innovative” solutions, to help UN or African Union troops be better able to do their jobs, “so we don’t have to look at a very long, protracted deployment that will not have an impact.”
Sajjan said Canada is looking at spreading its various contributions — military, police and civilian — among a number of UN missions, not African Union-led missions, in Africa. But it will support African Union efforts at the same time.
Right now, he said, much of the public attention is on exactly where soldiers will be sent.
But he said Canadians should expect a broader mission that could see troops sent to one end of Africa while other elements of Canada’s contribution will be sent to a different part. He said there are troop and police training centres across Africa, and “a small number of troops or even RCMP can have significant impact in other areas, to make a training centre far more effective.”
“We will be assisting in capacity-building in many of the training centres and that will be . . . regardless of where we go.”
Much has been made of the fact Canada has French-speaking troops and no colonial baggage, an asset from the perspective of many francophone African nations and the UN. Sajjan said it doesn’t mean soldiers from Quebec or New Brunswick would be the only ones to deploy, rather he said that across the armed forces, the leadership in officer ranks are bilingual, as are many in the non-commissioned ranks.
Sajjan said the government has “narrowed” the ultimate destinations for its Canadian mission, but did not tip his hand on his preference.
He said there is nothing to be read into the countries he’s travelled to, nor the fact that he recently went to Mali, saying he couldn’t fit it into the earlier trip to central and East Africa. Although he has not travelled to the Central African Republic, Darfur, or South Sudan, Sajjan said he has addressed the same questions around those missions at meetings in Ethiopia late summer.
He said the decision on where to dispatch Canada’s peace support mission is expected to be finalized by the federal cabinet before end of year.
“I think when Canadians see the level of work that’s gone into this it’s not just the location that’s going to be the main news, it’s how we’re going to be deployed.”
Sajjan’s comments flesh out the “layered approach” that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Canadians should expect to its upcoming Africa “peace support” operation.
Several ministers and government departments are working up options to make good on the Liberal election pledge to re-engage with the United Nations.
International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau also travelled to Senegal (where many UN offices operating in West Africa are located) and Mali in August. And Global Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion travelled this week to Kenya, Nigeria and Ethiopia.
Dion, in a statement issued Thursday from Nairobi where he announced $21.5 million for development and security projects, said: “Kenya is an important partner for Canada in regional peace and security in Africa, but there is room for further growth.”
Dion said the money will “help provide youth with enhanced skills for employment and improve security and stability by countering terrorism, combating radicalization and violent extremism, and ensuring safety and security of borders within the region.”
OTTAWA—Canadian troops headed to Africa will operate in dangerous territory where peacekeepers have been killed, says Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.
In an exclusive interview with the Star from Vancouver Sajjan said Canada has committed to a three-year deployment that will be reassessed each year to ensure it has an “enduring” impact.
It will be spread among a number of unspecified African countries, have a major focus on training and increasing “capacity” of the host nation as well as other countries’ troops, and build on existing social, economic and deradicalization programs on the ground.
“These missions, all of them, have the level of risk where peacekeepers have been hurt, they have been killed. And we’ve been looking at the risk factor in a very serious way,” said Sajjan.
Asked about his approach to deploying Canadian forces to conduct counter-insurgency operations — something the previous Conservative government was keen to avoid in Africa when it turned down requests to deploy soldiers to Congo and Mali — Sajjan said “some of it is going to be the reduction of radicalization in certain areas, in other parts it will be developing the capacity of the host nation.”
Just back from Mali, which hosts the deadliest United Nations mission in the world right now, Sajjan says it’s clear there are risks there. He said the same risks exist in the other African missions under consideration by the Liberal government.
But, he added, there are also risks to Canada of doing nothing to counter insurgent groups that are terrorizing populations and radicalizing new recruits, and suggested he and the Liberal government have made this clear to Canadians from “day one.”
“This is not the peacekeeping of the past — we need to look at what the challenges are of today and develop the peace operations for today’s challenges.”
After having travelled to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia in late summer, and Senegal and Mali in the past week — Sajjan said he believes the UN mandate for and rules of engagement with hostile forces are “robust” enough to address the risks, particularly in Mali. The UN mission in Mali, known as MINUSMA, has seen 106 casualties since it was established in 2013, including 69 from “malicious acts.”
“One thing I did learn, the mandate for the mission is robust so there no concern that our troops would be limited in any way,” said Sajjan. “I had a very direct conversation with the political leadership of the UN and the force commander about that, and the safety of our troops is always paramount.”
The defence minister, a Canadian Armed Forces veteran of the Afghanistan combat mission, suggested the risk to soldiers’ lives, however, does not justify inaction.
“It can’t just be one factor that we look at. That’s one; that’s an important factor that needs to be addressed. We have looked at that and the question always comes: how do you mitigate some of these challenges,” he said.
“But at the end of the day just because you see a problem ahead of you, you can’t just ignore it, you have to look at, can we look at addressing it.”
He insisted Canada “can play a huge role where we can reduce conflict and get into areas where we can start preventing conflict by addressing certain root causes at an early stage.”
Sajjan said there are ways to “mitigate” risk, just as he says the Liberal government did when it overhauled Canada’s combat mission to Iraq, “and making sure that we put the right type of troops, the right equipment with the right mandate for that mission.”
The Liberals pulled out Canada’s CF-18 fighter jets and refocused Canada’s military contribution to the fight against Daesh on training Iraqi and Kurdish peshmerga forces to fight the Islamist rebel forces.
Sajjan stressed that a big part of the federal analysis underway — as he, two other federal ministers, and military and civilian fact-finders have travelled to Africa — is examining how Canada’s contribution of some 600 soldiers and up to 150 police can have a maximum impact, whether it’s through military training, building on economic development programs and opportunities like on the “agriculture side” in Mali, or combating sexual violence, including by UN peacekeeping troops.
“What we do provide will be enduring. We committed for three years, but the thinking is to have the impact, we always need to assess,” said Sajjan.
Asked how Canada avoids sending troops to be injured or killed in a mission where there is no end in sight, Sajjan stressed Canada’s intention is to effect measurable change.
“I wouldn’t want to put troops in any place where there is no end,” he said, suggesting the plan is to provide “innovative” solutions, to help UN or African Union troops be better able to do their jobs, “so we don’t have to look at a very long, protracted deployment that will not have an impact.”
Sajjan said Canada is looking at spreading its various contributions — military, police and civilian — among a number of UN missions, not African Union-led missions, in Africa. But it will support African Union efforts at the same time.
Right now, he said, much of the public attention is on exactly where soldiers will be sent.
But he said Canadians should expect a broader mission that could see troops sent to one end of Africa while other elements of Canada’s contribution will be sent to a different part. He said there are troop and police training centres across Africa, and “a small number of troops or even RCMP can have significant impact in other areas, to make a training centre far more effective.”
“We will be assisting in capacity-building in many of the training centres and that will be . . . regardless of where we go.”
Much has been made of the fact Canada has French-speaking troops and no colonial baggage, an asset from the perspective of many francophone African nations and the UN. Sajjan said it doesn’t mean soldiers from Quebec or New Brunswick would be the only ones to deploy, rather he said that across the armed forces, the leadership in officer ranks are bilingual, as are many in the non-commissioned ranks.
Sajjan said the government has “narrowed” the ultimate destinations for its Canadian mission, but did not tip his hand on his preference.
He said there is nothing to be read into the countries he’s travelled to, nor the fact that he recently went to Mali, saying he couldn’t fit it into the earlier trip to central and East Africa. Although he has not travelled to the Central African Republic, Darfur, or South Sudan, Sajjan said he has addressed the same questions around those missions at meetings in Ethiopia late summer.
He said the decision on where to dispatch Canada’s peace support mission is expected to be finalized by the federal cabinet before end of year.
“I think when Canadians see the level of work that’s gone into this it’s not just the location that’s going to be the main news, it’s how we’re going to be deployed.”
Sajjan’s comments flesh out the “layered approach” that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Canadians should expect to its upcoming Africa “peace support” operation.
Several ministers and government departments are working up options to make good on the Liberal election pledge to re-engage with the United Nations.
International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau also travelled to Senegal (where many UN offices operating in West Africa are located) and Mali in August. And Global Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion travelled this week to Kenya, Nigeria and Ethiopia.
Dion, in a statement issued Thursday from Nairobi where he announced $21.5 million for development and security projects, said: “Kenya is an important partner for Canada in regional peace and security in Africa, but there is room for further growth.”
Dion said the money will “help provide youth with enhanced skills for employment and improve security and stability by countering terrorism, combating radicalization and violent extremism, and ensuring safety and security of borders within the region.”
Friday, November 4, 2016
Sajjan's Africa trip could be Logistics Planning for Mali Mission
By: Amanda Connolly, iPolitics
“I think there’s two important components. One is that Senegal is a major contributor to the UN mission in Mali,” said Walter Dorn, a professor at the Royal Military College who focuses on peace operations and who has worked worked as an advisor with the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations.
“Secondly, Senegal is a major route for supply, it’s a major logistics component for support of a mission in Mali.”
Sajjan has said Canadian troops will take part in a UN peace support mission in Africa. He’s said he is making 600 troops and 150 military police available to the UN, but has yet to announce where Canadian troops will go.
The speculation in defence and foreign policy circles has focused largely on three locations: Mali, where a UN mission works in conjunction with a broader French counterterrorism operation to support a peace process; and the Central African Republic or the Democratic Republic of Congo — both engaged in bloody and long-standing civil wars.
iPolitics has confirmed the government is not looking at a mission in South Sudan, which is sometimes mentioned in speculation.
The Mali mission offers what some experts have described as a potential for both risk and reward. The mission there is currently the UN’s most deadly, having claimed the lives of 69 peacekeepers since it began in 2013.
However, it also faces specific gaps that match Canadian capabilities and the skill set the Canadian Forces developed during their nine-year deployment to Afghanistan: a shortage of expertise in dealing with improvised explosive devices and insurgent populations, and a looming, critical shortage of Chinook transport and Apache — or possibly Griffon — troop support helicopters.
The Dutch, citing operational strain, are pulling out their three helicopter units, leaving the mission with only two, which UN officials say is not nearly enough.
If the government is eyeing a possible mission to Mali, ensuring it has a reliable stream of supplies and a way of getting its gear into the country will be critical.
“If you wanted to have a relatively secure location to support a Canadian operation in Mali, Senegal fits the bill,” said Lewis MacKenzie, a retired major general with the Canadian Forces who has served on nine UN peace operations and led the mission in the Balkans in 1992.
Dorn and Mackenzie both cite the importance to any Mali mission of Senegal’s port on the Atlantic, its airfield and its history of playing a significant role as a contributor of troops to UN peace operations.
“It’s got a port and through Senegal you can get to Bamako … so you can see that would be a way to bring larger items by ship,” said Dorn. “That would make a lot of sense.”
Announced Tuesday evening, Sajjan’s office said his trip next week to Mali and Senegal will be aimed at gathering facts on the ground and isn’t necessarily an indication of a decision to deploy troops to either country.
It also comes on the heels of a “fact-finding” trip this summer to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda that saw Sajjan meet with NGOs, defence counterparts and other organizations involved in peace support operations.
“As with the last trip, I wouldn’t look too much into the countries he is visiting an an indication of a potential deployment,” said Jordan Owens, the minister’s press secretary. “This trip to West Africa will build upon his understanding of the ‘ground truth’ as Canada continues to investigate how we can contribute to international peace and security with a whole-of-government approach.”
When asked specifically whether the minister would be looking at possible logistical support for any future mission, Owens said that is something that the military — not the minister — would take care of and that this trip is more similar to the five-country trip he took this summer.
“That is more of a military planning issue, which [Sajjan] would leave up to the pros in the [Canadian Armed Forces], she said.
“The purpose of the minister’s trip is to get a better understanding of the political situation on the ground and see first-hand how Canada could contribute to peace support efforts on the continent. The East Africa trip was helpful in that way, and he would like to get a similar understanding of the situation in West Africa.”
Senegal billed as key location to support for Mali operation
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan’s trip to Mali and Senegal next week could be a sign the government is trying to nail down logistics for a possible peacekeeping mission in Mali, two peace operation experts suggest.“I think there’s two important components. One is that Senegal is a major contributor to the UN mission in Mali,” said Walter Dorn, a professor at the Royal Military College who focuses on peace operations and who has worked worked as an advisor with the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations.
“Secondly, Senegal is a major route for supply, it’s a major logistics component for support of a mission in Mali.”
Sajjan has said Canadian troops will take part in a UN peace support mission in Africa. He’s said he is making 600 troops and 150 military police available to the UN, but has yet to announce where Canadian troops will go.
The speculation in defence and foreign policy circles has focused largely on three locations: Mali, where a UN mission works in conjunction with a broader French counterterrorism operation to support a peace process; and the Central African Republic or the Democratic Republic of Congo — both engaged in bloody and long-standing civil wars.
iPolitics has confirmed the government is not looking at a mission in South Sudan, which is sometimes mentioned in speculation.
The Mali mission offers what some experts have described as a potential for both risk and reward. The mission there is currently the UN’s most deadly, having claimed the lives of 69 peacekeepers since it began in 2013.
However, it also faces specific gaps that match Canadian capabilities and the skill set the Canadian Forces developed during their nine-year deployment to Afghanistan: a shortage of expertise in dealing with improvised explosive devices and insurgent populations, and a looming, critical shortage of Chinook transport and Apache — or possibly Griffon — troop support helicopters.
The Dutch, citing operational strain, are pulling out their three helicopter units, leaving the mission with only two, which UN officials say is not nearly enough.
If the government is eyeing a possible mission to Mali, ensuring it has a reliable stream of supplies and a way of getting its gear into the country will be critical.
“If you wanted to have a relatively secure location to support a Canadian operation in Mali, Senegal fits the bill,” said Lewis MacKenzie, a retired major general with the Canadian Forces who has served on nine UN peace operations and led the mission in the Balkans in 1992.
Dorn and Mackenzie both cite the importance to any Mali mission of Senegal’s port on the Atlantic, its airfield and its history of playing a significant role as a contributor of troops to UN peace operations.
“It’s got a port and through Senegal you can get to Bamako … so you can see that would be a way to bring larger items by ship,” said Dorn. “That would make a lot of sense.”
Announced Tuesday evening, Sajjan’s office said his trip next week to Mali and Senegal will be aimed at gathering facts on the ground and isn’t necessarily an indication of a decision to deploy troops to either country.
It also comes on the heels of a “fact-finding” trip this summer to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda that saw Sajjan meet with NGOs, defence counterparts and other organizations involved in peace support operations.
“As with the last trip, I wouldn’t look too much into the countries he is visiting an an indication of a potential deployment,” said Jordan Owens, the minister’s press secretary. “This trip to West Africa will build upon his understanding of the ‘ground truth’ as Canada continues to investigate how we can contribute to international peace and security with a whole-of-government approach.”
When asked specifically whether the minister would be looking at possible logistical support for any future mission, Owens said that is something that the military — not the minister — would take care of and that this trip is more similar to the five-country trip he took this summer.
“That is more of a military planning issue, which [Sajjan] would leave up to the pros in the [Canadian Armed Forces], she said.
“The purpose of the minister’s trip is to get a better understanding of the political situation on the ground and see first-hand how Canada could contribute to peace support efforts on the continent. The East Africa trip was helpful in that way, and he would like to get a similar understanding of the situation in West Africa.”
Start in Senegal for new "peace and stabilization" operation
Globe and Mail Editorial
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan continues to be very discreet about his plans to give content to Justin Trudeau’s 2015 election pledge to revive Canada peacekeeping – or rather, in contemporary terms, to “peace and stabilization operations.” The straightforward Pearsonian era of supervising an agreed-upon ceasefire lines is long past.
On a trip this week, Mr. Sajjan is going to Mali and Senegal. The federal government has already been considering Mali, the Central African Republic and the not so very Democratic Republic of the Congo. The government insists that any visit to a particular country does not signify an intention to undertake a military mission there.
But if a military mission in Africa there must be, Senegal may be a good way to start. Though hardly a utopia, it is much more stable than any other country that has hitherto been mentioned in this context. The prevalence of peaceable Sufism there does not provide much ripe ground for radical jihadism.
Nonetheless, there have been incursions into Senegal by Islamic extremists from time to time, unsuccessful so far, from neighbouring Mauritanian and Malian militias. (A Christian and animist uprising in Senegal ended with a unilateral ceasefire in 2014.)
Hypothetically, in any case, it’s worth looking at what a Canadian military contingent of 600 troops and 150 military police in Senegal (the number that Canada is thinking of) or some other African country might find itself dealing with.
On its face, a Canadian the new peacekeeping or “peace security operations” contribution in Senegal might be more like an allied presence, to share in the continuing defence of Senegal – perhaps a little like the Canadian forces in Germany in NATO before the end of the Cold War.
A counterinsurgency in a chaotic, arid country such as Mali or Mauritania would be outside the experience of most members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Mr. Sajjan has prudently said, “We need to go into this eyes wide open. So based on that, I have not set a deadline,” specifically, not the end of 2016, “as I want to make sure that we do all the necessary work, so that we can have [a] meaningful impact.”
Such a moderate initial objective may be a good start.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan continues to be very discreet about his plans to give content to Justin Trudeau’s 2015 election pledge to revive Canada peacekeeping – or rather, in contemporary terms, to “peace and stabilization operations.” The straightforward Pearsonian era of supervising an agreed-upon ceasefire lines is long past.
On a trip this week, Mr. Sajjan is going to Mali and Senegal. The federal government has already been considering Mali, the Central African Republic and the not so very Democratic Republic of the Congo. The government insists that any visit to a particular country does not signify an intention to undertake a military mission there.
But if a military mission in Africa there must be, Senegal may be a good way to start. Though hardly a utopia, it is much more stable than any other country that has hitherto been mentioned in this context. The prevalence of peaceable Sufism there does not provide much ripe ground for radical jihadism.
Nonetheless, there have been incursions into Senegal by Islamic extremists from time to time, unsuccessful so far, from neighbouring Mauritanian and Malian militias. (A Christian and animist uprising in Senegal ended with a unilateral ceasefire in 2014.)
Hypothetically, in any case, it’s worth looking at what a Canadian military contingent of 600 troops and 150 military police in Senegal (the number that Canada is thinking of) or some other African country might find itself dealing with.
On its face, a Canadian the new peacekeeping or “peace security operations” contribution in Senegal might be more like an allied presence, to share in the continuing defence of Senegal – perhaps a little like the Canadian forces in Germany in NATO before the end of the Cold War.
A counterinsurgency in a chaotic, arid country such as Mali or Mauritania would be outside the experience of most members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Mr. Sajjan has prudently said, “We need to go into this eyes wide open. So based on that, I have not set a deadline,” specifically, not the end of 2016, “as I want to make sure that we do all the necessary work, so that we can have [a] meaningful impact.”
Such a moderate initial objective may be a good start.
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Why Canada refused UN’s request to go to the Congo in 2010
By: TONDA MACCHARLES, Toronto Star
OTTAWA—Canada took a long hard look at sending a military commander and soldiers to lead international peacekeeping troops in the Democratic Republic of Congo at the request of the United Nations.
It was early 2010. And the Canadian government was angling — in vain, it would turn out — for a rotating seat on the powerful UN Security Council.
By May, the former Conservative government of prime minister Stephen Harper had turned down the request.
Canada would not send soldiers to lead or boost a UN mission that was struggling to stabilize a massive country where government and army corruption was endemic, rebel attacks rocked the east, and violence to control Congo’s vast mineral riches flared.
The government offered only a brief explanation: “Canada is fully engaged in Afghanistan until 2011. That is what we are concentrating on for now.”
However, with Africa back on the radar, the Star conducted interviews and reviewed nearly 1,000 pages of heavily redacted documents obtained under the Access to Information Act to put together a picture of why Canada gave the UN the cold shoulder, and to shed light on the looming decision facing the current Liberal government.
It’s clear that in 2010 it wasn’t simply a question of military resource constraints. The military said it had enough.
Instead, it came down to a political decision by Harper to avoid what looked certain to be a military and political quagmire for years to come.
Sources say Harper and his cabinet took the view that Canadian soldiers should not be sent to function as domestic or counterterrorism police in countries that were effectively at civil war where there was no end in sight.
Another source puts it differently. Deepak Obhrai, parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs at the time, said: “Let me tell you, the Harper doctrine was very clear on these things — if you’re not effective, he does not see why we should be going out there.”
Six years later, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau boasts that “Canada’s back” on the world stage.
He, too, is angling for a seat on the Security Council, but he has decided to recommit Canadian troops to UN “peace operations.” Ministers and public servants are analyzing where to deploy up to 600 Canadian soldiers and 150 police.
Three ministers say a decision has not yet been made. But it seems several African hot spotsbeckon: the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, South Sudan, or the Central African Republic.
All present opportunities, challenges and risks from Canada’s perspective.
Last time around, that is exactly what the public servants, deputy ministers, military leaders and government officials analyzed.
There had been at least three requests from the UN for Canada to contribute a commander to the Congo mission, according to the documents. The UN also indicated it needed 13 helicopters, “intelligence assets,” and a C-130 Hercules military transport aircraft for a mission that was — and remains — the largest deployment of peacekeeping troops in the world, where some 20,000 military personnel wear blue helmets.
The UN asked Ottawa to send a deputy police commander for its police mission in Congo. In addition, the European Union, which also had a police operation there, asked Canada for a police commander and officers.
At least one senior Mountie, who had previously worked with the EU’s mission, urged the RCMP to accept.
However, an RCMP briefing memo was grim:
“The conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been one of the bloodiest, longest-running struggles in the world, with a death toll surpassing that of Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
“Belligerents on all sides commit horrific human rights violations and use sexual violence as a weapon of war. The front lines of the conflict are blurred, with many actors with varying loyalties.”
The RCMP called the overall security situation in the country “stable, but unpredictable, particularly in the east”
Then, as now, Congo President Joseph Kabila faced elections and was fighting to keep power. He demanded the UN reduce its troops and he strong-armed his opposition critics.
Today, Kabila is defying a constitutional two-term limit and vying for a third. The UN reported last week that Congolese police, armed forces and the Republican Guard had used excessive — including lethal — force to quell demonstrations in September when at least 53 people were killed and 143 injured over two days, and more than 299 were unlawfully arrested.
The assumption in 2010 by military and foreign affairs officials was that a Canadian commander would need Canadian troops under his direct command. The lesson of retired lieutenant-general Roméo Dallaire’s 1994 experience in Rwanda had been learned.
Officials urged that the request for a force commander and the possibility of a larger troop contingent in 2011 be considered separately.
According to Andrew Leslie, who was then the commander of Canada’s army, the Department of National Defence believed the deployment was not only doable, but easily managed and worth doing.
Now an elected Liberal MP and government “whip,” Leslie said the military had ample capacity to take on a new deployment, putting the skills honed in Afghanistan to work in another country that needed stabilizing. It could show allies that Canada was prepared to help in other global hot spots.
At first, Michael Kaduck, director of peace operations and fragile states policy at Foreign Affairs, wrote that the mission was “potentially an attractive offer” in line with Canada’s priorities in the region.
In a widely distributed memo, he nevertheless urged “a hard look” at what civilian, military and police support Canada could offer, what impact it would have on Canada’s engagement in UN missions in Haiti, Darfur and South Sudan, and what kind of political support such a mission would require and for how long.
“We need to consider the overall question of whether this is the right UN mission for Canada, now and in post-2011,” wrote Kaduck.
At that time, Canada had just 12 soldiers posted to the UN in Congo, mainly as legal advisers to improve the military justice system and the Congolese capacity to investigate and prosecute the rampant sexual violence.
For months, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade analyzed the UN request under criteria for when Canada should intervene in fragile states and conflict zones. It sought input from its many branches, Canada’s international development agency CIDA and from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Candice Dandurand, a civilian deployment officer at foreign affairs, “firmly” supported sending Mounties to the EU mission, according to a March 17, 2010 email. She said it dovetailed with Canada’s support of the UN mission to fight rampant sexual and gender-based violence, and had the backing of the department’s Africa branch and the Canadian embassy in Kinshasa, the capital.
Other advisers identified challenges: Canadian allies were represented at mission headquarters, but there were no “formed contingents” of allies on the ground. The bulk of the UN forces came from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Uruguay and South Africa.
Canada had already contributed more than $250 million on the Congo mission since its start in 1999, and had spent $124 million over the previous decade in humanitarian and development aid, and could build on its work.
There had been “progress” as a result of Canada’s efforts, but advisers said “much more is needed.”
“The DRC is a fragile but not a failed state.”
The analysis weighed more questions: whether Congo was a direct and/or indirect threat to Canada or its allies, whether it was a source of organized crime or terrorism, whether Canada had a major strategic interest, such as a key bilateral relationship, at play and whether engagement carried “implications under international law, including tribunals such as the International Criminal Court.”
The answers to those questions and others are blacked out.
Andrew Leslie fills in some of the gaps.
He says the Canadian Forces saw the region’s instability as a potential recruiting ground for Al Qaeda and were keen to help stabilize it. He says government officials also considered the extensive business interests of the Canadian mining industry, and the fact that China was increasingly influential in the country.
Leslie was dispatched in February 2010 — before the UN’s request was formalized in March — on a reconnaissance trip.
Leslie says the military had boosted its ranks of reservists and regular members by 3,000 members in the three years up to 2009. “I knew, and we knew, that we would have had capacity in 2010 . . . to launch into the DRC — not in the same scale as in Afghanistan but in a meaningful way . . . and we could have sustained it, of course.
“It was viewed as a mission that was definitely interesting. If the government of Canada wanted us to do it, we would do it.”
The military’s enthusiasm didn’t impress the Harper government.
In the view of two former senior Harper government officials, the military was always keen to deploy, no matter what.
The government insiders spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk about cabinet-level discussions at that time.
One told the Star that the UN’s request, like many that came to the Harper government, amounted to a dangerous mission that threatened to put Canadian lives on the line in a country where there was little peace to keep, and no clear end in sight.
The Conservative prime minister’s skepticism was a big change from 2006 when Harper first travelled to Afghanistan and told Canadian troops that they were, “serving in a UN-mandated, Canadian-led security operation that is in the very best of the Canadian tradition, providing leadership on global issues, stepping up to the plate, doing good when good is required.”
Others explain the government’s thinking differently.
Obhrai said in an interview the government had “no appetite” for the mission because it had concluded Canadian troops could not be “effective” in achieving Canadian goals. It was thought the “more appropriate” intervention would be to offer logistical support to African Union forces, which the Conservatives did. As well, given widespread human rights abuses, including by government forces, “it would have been absolutely disastrous,” said Obhrai.
“Who are you supporting? Which side are you going with? The side that you want to go with are (sic) also being accused of human rights abuses.”
Whatever misgivings Harper had were soon underscored.
At Foreign Affairs, plans for a team of department and RCMP officials to travel to Congo were put on hold because Canada’s then-governor general, Michaëlle Jean, was on an official four-country visit to Africa, including Congo and Rwanda — at Harper’s request.
Jean’s mid-April trip revealed just how much displeasure had been generated by the Harper government’s decision to reduce the number of African countries eligible for aid, and how little enthusiasm there was for Canada’s attempt to win a Security Council seat.
While she was there, a senior UN official in Congo made a direct public appeal to Canada to help. Soon after Jean returned to Ottawa, it was rebuffed. The government decided to turn down the request for a commander.
Late on April 29, 2010, Canada notified the UN of its decision, and Defence Minister Peter MacKay reassigned Leslie to lead a study of how to transform the Canadian Forces.
“I think they (the former government) were tired of the Afghan war,” Leslie now says. “That they were tired of either soldiers going overseas and getting hurt . . . or even worse. I think they were tired of spending money on these missions, and they were a tired team.”
Yet even after refusing the UN’s request, officials continued to study the possibility of deploying to Congo in the following year. The Foreign Affairs and RCMP team finally travelled to Congo in mid-May.
What the group saw there was eye-opening.
Handwritten notes from one unidentified official documented “a lack of infrastructure, starvation deaths in prison” and a dismal judicial system unable to keep pace with sex-crime investigations. Goma’s one judge faced a “backlog of 8,000 cases.” The country had fewer than 1,200 judges and needed “at least 5,000.”
It’s difficult, due to redactions, to say if the final recommendation to cabinet was in favour of a deployment of more Canadian military and civilian resources.
But Leslie believes the bureaucratic analysis shifted to accommodate the political signal that the government was averse to the mission.
Today, he still believes Canada should engage in an African mission, although as a member of the Privy Council, he will not say where he thinks Canada can be most effective.
Obhrai, one of the Conservative party’s leadership contenders, says the problems that were obvious in Congo in 2010 are evident to this day, and the same risks exist no matter what troubled nation in Africa Trudeau might be looking at.
He said his advice to Trudeau: “Don’t do it.”
OTTAWA—Canada took a long hard look at sending a military commander and soldiers to lead international peacekeeping troops in the Democratic Republic of Congo at the request of the United Nations.
It was early 2010. And the Canadian government was angling — in vain, it would turn out — for a rotating seat on the powerful UN Security Council.
By May, the former Conservative government of prime minister Stephen Harper had turned down the request.
Canada would not send soldiers to lead or boost a UN mission that was struggling to stabilize a massive country where government and army corruption was endemic, rebel attacks rocked the east, and violence to control Congo’s vast mineral riches flared.
The government offered only a brief explanation: “Canada is fully engaged in Afghanistan until 2011. That is what we are concentrating on for now.”
However, with Africa back on the radar, the Star conducted interviews and reviewed nearly 1,000 pages of heavily redacted documents obtained under the Access to Information Act to put together a picture of why Canada gave the UN the cold shoulder, and to shed light on the looming decision facing the current Liberal government.
It’s clear that in 2010 it wasn’t simply a question of military resource constraints. The military said it had enough.
Instead, it came down to a political decision by Harper to avoid what looked certain to be a military and political quagmire for years to come.
Sources say Harper and his cabinet took the view that Canadian soldiers should not be sent to function as domestic or counterterrorism police in countries that were effectively at civil war where there was no end in sight.
Another source puts it differently. Deepak Obhrai, parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs at the time, said: “Let me tell you, the Harper doctrine was very clear on these things — if you’re not effective, he does not see why we should be going out there.”
Six years later, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau boasts that “Canada’s back” on the world stage.
He, too, is angling for a seat on the Security Council, but he has decided to recommit Canadian troops to UN “peace operations.” Ministers and public servants are analyzing where to deploy up to 600 Canadian soldiers and 150 police.
Three ministers say a decision has not yet been made. But it seems several African hot spotsbeckon: the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, South Sudan, or the Central African Republic.
All present opportunities, challenges and risks from Canada’s perspective.
Last time around, that is exactly what the public servants, deputy ministers, military leaders and government officials analyzed.
There had been at least three requests from the UN for Canada to contribute a commander to the Congo mission, according to the documents. The UN also indicated it needed 13 helicopters, “intelligence assets,” and a C-130 Hercules military transport aircraft for a mission that was — and remains — the largest deployment of peacekeeping troops in the world, where some 20,000 military personnel wear blue helmets.
The UN asked Ottawa to send a deputy police commander for its police mission in Congo. In addition, the European Union, which also had a police operation there, asked Canada for a police commander and officers.
At least one senior Mountie, who had previously worked with the EU’s mission, urged the RCMP to accept.
However, an RCMP briefing memo was grim:
“The conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been one of the bloodiest, longest-running struggles in the world, with a death toll surpassing that of Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
“Belligerents on all sides commit horrific human rights violations and use sexual violence as a weapon of war. The front lines of the conflict are blurred, with many actors with varying loyalties.”
The RCMP called the overall security situation in the country “stable, but unpredictable, particularly in the east”
Then, as now, Congo President Joseph Kabila faced elections and was fighting to keep power. He demanded the UN reduce its troops and he strong-armed his opposition critics.
Today, Kabila is defying a constitutional two-term limit and vying for a third. The UN reported last week that Congolese police, armed forces and the Republican Guard had used excessive — including lethal — force to quell demonstrations in September when at least 53 people were killed and 143 injured over two days, and more than 299 were unlawfully arrested.
The assumption in 2010 by military and foreign affairs officials was that a Canadian commander would need Canadian troops under his direct command. The lesson of retired lieutenant-general Roméo Dallaire’s 1994 experience in Rwanda had been learned.
Officials urged that the request for a force commander and the possibility of a larger troop contingent in 2011 be considered separately.
According to Andrew Leslie, who was then the commander of Canada’s army, the Department of National Defence believed the deployment was not only doable, but easily managed and worth doing.
Now an elected Liberal MP and government “whip,” Leslie said the military had ample capacity to take on a new deployment, putting the skills honed in Afghanistan to work in another country that needed stabilizing. It could show allies that Canada was prepared to help in other global hot spots.
At first, Michael Kaduck, director of peace operations and fragile states policy at Foreign Affairs, wrote that the mission was “potentially an attractive offer” in line with Canada’s priorities in the region.
In a widely distributed memo, he nevertheless urged “a hard look” at what civilian, military and police support Canada could offer, what impact it would have on Canada’s engagement in UN missions in Haiti, Darfur and South Sudan, and what kind of political support such a mission would require and for how long.
“We need to consider the overall question of whether this is the right UN mission for Canada, now and in post-2011,” wrote Kaduck.
At that time, Canada had just 12 soldiers posted to the UN in Congo, mainly as legal advisers to improve the military justice system and the Congolese capacity to investigate and prosecute the rampant sexual violence.
For months, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade analyzed the UN request under criteria for when Canada should intervene in fragile states and conflict zones. It sought input from its many branches, Canada’s international development agency CIDA and from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Candice Dandurand, a civilian deployment officer at foreign affairs, “firmly” supported sending Mounties to the EU mission, according to a March 17, 2010 email. She said it dovetailed with Canada’s support of the UN mission to fight rampant sexual and gender-based violence, and had the backing of the department’s Africa branch and the Canadian embassy in Kinshasa, the capital.
Other advisers identified challenges: Canadian allies were represented at mission headquarters, but there were no “formed contingents” of allies on the ground. The bulk of the UN forces came from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Uruguay and South Africa.
Canada had already contributed more than $250 million on the Congo mission since its start in 1999, and had spent $124 million over the previous decade in humanitarian and development aid, and could build on its work.
There had been “progress” as a result of Canada’s efforts, but advisers said “much more is needed.”
“The DRC is a fragile but not a failed state.”
The analysis weighed more questions: whether Congo was a direct and/or indirect threat to Canada or its allies, whether it was a source of organized crime or terrorism, whether Canada had a major strategic interest, such as a key bilateral relationship, at play and whether engagement carried “implications under international law, including tribunals such as the International Criminal Court.”
The answers to those questions and others are blacked out.
Andrew Leslie fills in some of the gaps.
He says the Canadian Forces saw the region’s instability as a potential recruiting ground for Al Qaeda and were keen to help stabilize it. He says government officials also considered the extensive business interests of the Canadian mining industry, and the fact that China was increasingly influential in the country.
Leslie was dispatched in February 2010 — before the UN’s request was formalized in March — on a reconnaissance trip.
Leslie says the military had boosted its ranks of reservists and regular members by 3,000 members in the three years up to 2009. “I knew, and we knew, that we would have had capacity in 2010 . . . to launch into the DRC — not in the same scale as in Afghanistan but in a meaningful way . . . and we could have sustained it, of course.
“It was viewed as a mission that was definitely interesting. If the government of Canada wanted us to do it, we would do it.”
The military’s enthusiasm didn’t impress the Harper government.
In the view of two former senior Harper government officials, the military was always keen to deploy, no matter what.
The government insiders spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk about cabinet-level discussions at that time.
One told the Star that the UN’s request, like many that came to the Harper government, amounted to a dangerous mission that threatened to put Canadian lives on the line in a country where there was little peace to keep, and no clear end in sight.
The Conservative prime minister’s skepticism was a big change from 2006 when Harper first travelled to Afghanistan and told Canadian troops that they were, “serving in a UN-mandated, Canadian-led security operation that is in the very best of the Canadian tradition, providing leadership on global issues, stepping up to the plate, doing good when good is required.”
Others explain the government’s thinking differently.
Obhrai said in an interview the government had “no appetite” for the mission because it had concluded Canadian troops could not be “effective” in achieving Canadian goals. It was thought the “more appropriate” intervention would be to offer logistical support to African Union forces, which the Conservatives did. As well, given widespread human rights abuses, including by government forces, “it would have been absolutely disastrous,” said Obhrai.
“Who are you supporting? Which side are you going with? The side that you want to go with are (sic) also being accused of human rights abuses.”
Whatever misgivings Harper had were soon underscored.
At Foreign Affairs, plans for a team of department and RCMP officials to travel to Congo were put on hold because Canada’s then-governor general, Michaëlle Jean, was on an official four-country visit to Africa, including Congo and Rwanda — at Harper’s request.
Jean’s mid-April trip revealed just how much displeasure had been generated by the Harper government’s decision to reduce the number of African countries eligible for aid, and how little enthusiasm there was for Canada’s attempt to win a Security Council seat.
While she was there, a senior UN official in Congo made a direct public appeal to Canada to help. Soon after Jean returned to Ottawa, it was rebuffed. The government decided to turn down the request for a commander.
Late on April 29, 2010, Canada notified the UN of its decision, and Defence Minister Peter MacKay reassigned Leslie to lead a study of how to transform the Canadian Forces.
“I think they (the former government) were tired of the Afghan war,” Leslie now says. “That they were tired of either soldiers going overseas and getting hurt . . . or even worse. I think they were tired of spending money on these missions, and they were a tired team.”
Yet even after refusing the UN’s request, officials continued to study the possibility of deploying to Congo in the following year. The Foreign Affairs and RCMP team finally travelled to Congo in mid-May.
What the group saw there was eye-opening.
Handwritten notes from one unidentified official documented “a lack of infrastructure, starvation deaths in prison” and a dismal judicial system unable to keep pace with sex-crime investigations. Goma’s one judge faced a “backlog of 8,000 cases.” The country had fewer than 1,200 judges and needed “at least 5,000.”
It’s difficult, due to redactions, to say if the final recommendation to cabinet was in favour of a deployment of more Canadian military and civilian resources.
But Leslie believes the bureaucratic analysis shifted to accommodate the political signal that the government was averse to the mission.
Today, he still believes Canada should engage in an African mission, although as a member of the Privy Council, he will not say where he thinks Canada can be most effective.
Obhrai, one of the Conservative party’s leadership contenders, says the problems that were obvious in Congo in 2010 are evident to this day, and the same risks exist no matter what troubled nation in Africa Trudeau might be looking at.
He said his advice to Trudeau: “Don’t do it.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)