By Janice Dickson, iPolitics
Conservative MPs are reiterating their call to have a parliamentary debate on the Liberal government’s decision to support the UN peacekeeping mission in war-torn Mali.
“We have to have an opportunity here in the House of Commons for all Parliamentarians to get out to vote — to get out and debate this mission and also an opportunity to vote on it,” Conservative defence critic James Bezan said after question period Wednesday.
Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjan and Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland announced Monday that Canada will send Griffon combat and Chinook transport helicopters to the West African nation. Chief of the Defence Staff Jonathan Vance reportedly later told journalists the mission would involve up to 250 Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members, but also told at least one outlet the number is not fixed.
The federal government has made a year-long commitment to the mission, but some have said the mission is too short.
Bezan said Wednesday that the official opposition has yet to receive any confirmation from the government on whether or not there will be a full debate and a vote on the Mali mission.
“We call upon Minister Sajjan, on Prime Minister Trudeau, that if they’re going to deploy our troops to the deadliest UN mission that we need to have an opportunity to pronounce ourselves through a vote after we get all the information through the debate,” said Bezan.
The Manitoba MP added that the government has been calling it a peacekeeping mission, but you can’t have peacekeeping and combat in the same context.
“If it’s a UN mission, the UN doesn’t do combat. We are saying that this will end up being a combat mission. The French are there not under UN command. They’re there as a combat mission. We need more clarification on what Canadians will be doing in this peacekeeping mission,” said Bezan.
Showing posts with label Canada and UN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canada and UN. Show all posts
Thursday, March 22, 2018
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
Why Peacekeeping needs Bigger Guns in 2016
By Elinor Sloan, iPolitics
October 3, 2016
Asked in a Senate hearing last May what the UN needs for its peacekeeping missions, the undersecretary-general for peacekeeping answered with two words: “attack helicopters”.
That response is telling. If Canada deploys to a UN operation in Africa, something the Trudeau government seems intent upon, it will have to be prepared for war. And with large commitments already in Europe and Iraq, it will have to make some choices.
Peacekeeping missions of the Cold War era operated according to three principles: The UN force acted at all times impartially, used force only in self-defence and deployed only with the consent of the parties to conflict. The principles worked because the fighting parties were usually state actors that could control what their military forces did. It meant that, in most cases, risks to peacekeepers were relatively low — so they could carry out their mission while lightly armed.
Driven by events, each of these principles has fallen away. Impartiality was abandoned in the Congo in 2013 when the UN deployed an intervention brigade to carry out targeted offensive operations against Congolese rebels. Peacekeepers have had to use force beyond self-defence in the Congo and to protect civilians in places like South Sudan. The UN makes a distinction between host nation consent and tactical consent, arguing strategic consent is what’s necessary. But the practical reality of UN forces facing rebels and terrorists reveals the distinction’s fallacy.
When the three principles don’t work, peacekeepers become a party to the conflict themselves — with predictable results. In Africa, UN forces are being targeted and killed by gunfire, rocket fire, mortar shells, suicide car bombs, and improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
In this environment, what are Canada’s options for peace support in Africa? One is training. Canada could help a state build competent military and police forces so that it can address its own internal security. Canada’s expertise here includes training the Afghan national army and Iraqi security forces. Security sector reform takes many years but it’s vital for stabilizing a country.
Another option is enabling. Canada could provide high-end capabilities like signals, logistics, intelligence, engineering and air transport to assist UN combat arms units already in an African mission. But there are challenges. Our signals technology is digital, for example, while the UN mostly uses analog. The interoperability that Canada takes for granted in NATO does not exist in the UN. Canada would need to place officers in the UN force headquarters to ensure enablers are effectively used. And it also needs these enablers in Europe and Iraq, presenting the real possibility of an overstretched force.
Finally, Canada could conduct an operation, deploying Canadian combat arms along with enablers. The force would need Chinook helicopters for troop transport, an armed escort to protect the Chinooks, drones for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, reinforced armored vehicles, lethal firepower and protective body armor. A special concern is medical support and casualty evacuation since, unlike in other places, we cannot rely on the U.S. military.
Canada has light armored vehicles, upgraded to withstand IEDs. But its Chinooks are not at full operational capability, nor are its tactical armored patrol vehicles. Canada has only a limited number of low-flying drones, no armed helicopters like the Apaches used by many of our allies, and no medium altitude long-endurance drones. Again, what is necessary for a high-risk African mission is also in demand elsewhere.
The concurrency challenge goes beyond specific capabilities to include strategic command and control and logistics. If Canada goes into Africa it will be supporting three large geographically dispersed operations at once, placing significant demands on operational staffs in Ottawa.
The Trudeau government will have to prioritize. It will have to decide where it thinks Canada can have the greatest effect. And if it decides on a major mission in Africa, it will have to be ready for war.
October 3, 2016
 |
| Cpl. Arnaud (left) and Sgt. Cordell from the Canadian Special Operations Regiment confer with soldiers from Mali during a training exercise in Senegal. Image: MCpl Paul Franklin |
That response is telling. If Canada deploys to a UN operation in Africa, something the Trudeau government seems intent upon, it will have to be prepared for war. And with large commitments already in Europe and Iraq, it will have to make some choices.
Peacekeeping missions of the Cold War era operated according to three principles: The UN force acted at all times impartially, used force only in self-defence and deployed only with the consent of the parties to conflict. The principles worked because the fighting parties were usually state actors that could control what their military forces did. It meant that, in most cases, risks to peacekeepers were relatively low — so they could carry out their mission while lightly armed.
Driven by events, each of these principles has fallen away. Impartiality was abandoned in the Congo in 2013 when the UN deployed an intervention brigade to carry out targeted offensive operations against Congolese rebels. Peacekeepers have had to use force beyond self-defence in the Congo and to protect civilians in places like South Sudan. The UN makes a distinction between host nation consent and tactical consent, arguing strategic consent is what’s necessary. But the practical reality of UN forces facing rebels and terrorists reveals the distinction’s fallacy.
When the three principles don’t work, peacekeepers become a party to the conflict themselves — with predictable results. In Africa, UN forces are being targeted and killed by gunfire, rocket fire, mortar shells, suicide car bombs, and improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
In this environment, what are Canada’s options for peace support in Africa? One is training. Canada could help a state build competent military and police forces so that it can address its own internal security. Canada’s expertise here includes training the Afghan national army and Iraqi security forces. Security sector reform takes many years but it’s vital for stabilizing a country.
Another option is enabling. Canada could provide high-end capabilities like signals, logistics, intelligence, engineering and air transport to assist UN combat arms units already in an African mission. But there are challenges. Our signals technology is digital, for example, while the UN mostly uses analog. The interoperability that Canada takes for granted in NATO does not exist in the UN. Canada would need to place officers in the UN force headquarters to ensure enablers are effectively used. And it also needs these enablers in Europe and Iraq, presenting the real possibility of an overstretched force.
Finally, Canada could conduct an operation, deploying Canadian combat arms along with enablers. The force would need Chinook helicopters for troop transport, an armed escort to protect the Chinooks, drones for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, reinforced armored vehicles, lethal firepower and protective body armor. A special concern is medical support and casualty evacuation since, unlike in other places, we cannot rely on the U.S. military.
Canada has light armored vehicles, upgraded to withstand IEDs. But its Chinooks are not at full operational capability, nor are its tactical armored patrol vehicles. Canada has only a limited number of low-flying drones, no armed helicopters like the Apaches used by many of our allies, and no medium altitude long-endurance drones. Again, what is necessary for a high-risk African mission is also in demand elsewhere.
The concurrency challenge goes beyond specific capabilities to include strategic command and control and logistics. If Canada goes into Africa it will be supporting three large geographically dispersed operations at once, placing significant demands on operational staffs in Ottawa.
The Trudeau government will have to prioritize. It will have to decide where it thinks Canada can have the greatest effect. And if it decides on a major mission in Africa, it will have to be ready for war.
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
U.S. prepares to send troops to Libya. Will Canada follow?
By: David Pugliese, Defence Watch
In 2011 the Canadian government and military joined with other nations to overthrow Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
The Canadian government and military played key roles in overthrowing Gadhafi and highlighted those efforts as a significant victory both for Libya and Canadians.
At the time then Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird reinforced Canada’s support for the rebel groups fighting Gadhafi, pointing out they had a well developed plan that would transform the country into a democracy. “The one thing we can say categorically is that they couldn’t be any worse than Col. Gadhafi,” said Baird.
But there was no plan. In fact, Canada and other nations who took part in the Libya war ignored intelligence that among the freedom-loving “rebels” were Islamic extremists.
The country promptly fell apart into a new civil war. The Islamic State has carved out portions of Libya for its staging and training areas. Other Islamic extremists have their portions of the country.
In September 2014, Prime Minister Stephen Harper defended Canada’s role in Libya, suggesting that neither it nor NATO can be held responsible for the chaos that has since engulfed that country.
Now it seems the U.S. military is getting ready to send troops back to Libya. The Canadian government has suggested it could follow.
Here is some background reading on the developing situation. The two articles below were written by the Associated Press:
The number of Islamic State militants in Libya has doubled in the last year or so to as many as 6,000 fighters, with aspirations to conduct attacks against the U.S. and other nations in the West, says the top U.S. commander for Africa.
Army Gen. David Rodriguez, head of U.S. Africa Command, said that local Libya militias have had some success in trying to stop the Islamic State from growing in Benghazi and are battling the group in Sabratha. But he said that decisions to provide more military assistance to the Libyans await a working national government.
The latest numbers for IS in Libya make it the largest Islamic State branch of eight that the militant group operates outside Iraq and Syria, according to U.S. defense officials. The officials were not authorized to provide details of the group and spoke only on condition of anonymity.
The U.S. has conducted two airstrikes in Libya in recent months targeting Islamic State fighters and leaders, but Rodriguez said that those are limited to militants that pose an “imminent” threat to U.S. interests. He said it’s possible the U.S. could do more as the government there takes shape.
The U.S. and its allies are hoping that a U.N.-brokered unity government will be able to bring the warring factions together and end the chaos there, which has helped fuel the growth of the Islamic State. The U.S. and European allies would like the new government to eventually work with them against IS.
The U.S., France and other European nations have sent special operations forces to work with Libyan officials and help the militias fight. In February, American airstrikes hit an Islamic State training camp in rural Libya near the Tunisian border, killing more than 40 militants. And last November, a U.S. airstrike killed top Islamic State leader Abu Nabil in Libya. He was a longtime al-Qaida operative and the senior Islamic State leader in Libya.
Rodriguez said, however, that it will be a challenge for the Islamic State to become as big a threat as it is in Iraq and Syria because of resistance from local Libyan fighters and the population, which is wary of outside groups.
He said the militias in Libya have fought Islamic State militants in Benghazi and Derna with some success, and fought hard in Sabratha with more limited gains. Efforts to battle the group in Sirte have not worked as well, he said. Their biggest problem, he said, is that often the militias fight among themselves.
“It’s uneven and it’s not consistent across the board,” Rodriguez told reporters at a Pentagon briefing. “We’ll have to see how the situation develops, but they are contesting the growth of ISIS in several areas across Libya, not all of it.”
Asked if waiting for the new government to form will allow the Islamic State more time to gather momentum, Rodriguez downplayed the risk.
“It’s going to be a challenge for them to get to that point because of the Libyan population, people and militias that are out there,” he said. “It could be a bigger fight and everything. But again, we’re watching that very carefully and taking action as we see those threats develop.”
SECOND ASSOCIATED PRESS ARTICLE
In a move fraught with risk, the United States and other world powers said they would supply Libya’s internationally recognized government with weapons to counter the Islamic State and other militant groups gaining footholds in the chaos-wracked country’s lawless regions.
Aiming at once to shore up the fragile government, and prevent Islamic State fighters and rival militias from further gains, the U.S., the four other permanent U.N. Security Council members and more than 15 other nations said they would approve exemptions to a United Nations arms embargo to allow military sales and aid to Libya’s so-called “Government of National Accord.”
In a joint communique, the nations said that while the broader embargo will remain in place, they are “ready to respond to the Libyan government’s requests for training and equipping” government forces.
“We will fully support these efforts while continuing to reinforce the UN arms embargo,” the communique said.
With support from all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the plan is unlikely to face significant opposition from any quarter.
The communique was issued at the end of the talks that gathered U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and top officials from more than 20 other nations to discuss ways to strengthen Libya’s fledgling government. The aim is to give the internationally recognized administration more muscle in fighting Islamic State radicals and end its rivalry with a group to the east claiming legitimacy.
The step will boost the government’s efforts to consolidate power and regain control over Libyan state institutions like the central bank and national oil company. However, it also comes with risks, not least of which is that the arms may be captured or otherwise taken by the Islamic State or other groups.
Kerry called the plan “a delicate balance.”
“But we are all of us here today supportive of the fact that if you have a legitimate government and that legitimate government is fighting terrorism, that legitimate government should not be victimized by (the embargo),” he told reporters.
Libyan Premier Fayez al-Sarraj said his government would soon submit a weapons wish list to the Security Council for approval.
“We have a major challenge ahead of us,” in fighting extremists, he said. “We urge the international community to assist us.”
Before the meeting, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier outlined the high stakes at hand.
“The key question is whether Libya remains a place where terrorism, criminal human smuggling and instability continue to expand, or if we are able, together with the government of national unity to recover stability,” he told reporters.
The challenges are daunting.
Libya descended into chaos after the toppling and death of Moammar Gaddafi five years ago and soon turned into a battleground of rival militias battling for powers. More recently, the power vacuum has allowed Islamic State radicals to expand their presence, giving them a potential base in a country separated from Europe only by a relatively small stretch of the Mediterranean Sea.
Also worrying for Europe is the potential threat of a mass influx of refugees amassing in Libya, now that the earlier route from Turkey into Greece has been essentially shut down. British Foreign Secretary David Hammond said his government had received a request from the Libyan government to bolster its Coast Guard — a project “which will address Libyan concerns about smuggling and insecurity on their border but will also address European concerns about illegal migration.”
In Libya, meanwhile, the U.N.-established presidency council on Monday effectively gave the go-ahead for 18 government ministers to start work, even though they have not received backing from the parliament.
The council was created under a U.N.-brokered unity deal struck in December to reconcile Libya’s many political divisions. It won the support of a former powerbase in the country’s capital, Tripoli, but failed to secure a vote of confidence by the country’s internationally recognized parliament, based in Tobruk, a city in eastern Libya.
The U.N. deal also created the internationally recognized government, through a de facto Cabinet to administer the country under Prime Minister-designate Fayez Serraj and the 18 ministers will answer to him.
Divisions in the Tobruk parliament between boycotters and supporters of the new government have prevented the house from reaching a quorum to endorse the council.
In 2011 the Canadian government and military joined with other nations to overthrow Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
 |
| (Then) Prime Minister Stephen Harper, middle, gets a tour of Canada's CF-18s by Lt.-Col. Daniel McLeod, left, and Gen. Charles Bouchard prior to delivering a speech at Camp Fortin on the Trapani-Birgi Air Force Base in Trapani, Italy. After seven months in the country, the Canadian Forces will be back in Canada Friday. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press) |
At the time then Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird reinforced Canada’s support for the rebel groups fighting Gadhafi, pointing out they had a well developed plan that would transform the country into a democracy. “The one thing we can say categorically is that they couldn’t be any worse than Col. Gadhafi,” said Baird.
But there was no plan. In fact, Canada and other nations who took part in the Libya war ignored intelligence that among the freedom-loving “rebels” were Islamic extremists.
The country promptly fell apart into a new civil war. The Islamic State has carved out portions of Libya for its staging and training areas. Other Islamic extremists have their portions of the country.
In September 2014, Prime Minister Stephen Harper defended Canada’s role in Libya, suggesting that neither it nor NATO can be held responsible for the chaos that has since engulfed that country.
Now it seems the U.S. military is getting ready to send troops back to Libya. The Canadian government has suggested it could follow.
Here is some background reading on the developing situation. The two articles below were written by the Associated Press:
The number of Islamic State militants in Libya has doubled in the last year or so to as many as 6,000 fighters, with aspirations to conduct attacks against the U.S. and other nations in the West, says the top U.S. commander for Africa.
Army Gen. David Rodriguez, head of U.S. Africa Command, said that local Libya militias have had some success in trying to stop the Islamic State from growing in Benghazi and are battling the group in Sabratha. But he said that decisions to provide more military assistance to the Libyans await a working national government.
The latest numbers for IS in Libya make it the largest Islamic State branch of eight that the militant group operates outside Iraq and Syria, according to U.S. defense officials. The officials were not authorized to provide details of the group and spoke only on condition of anonymity.
The U.S. has conducted two airstrikes in Libya in recent months targeting Islamic State fighters and leaders, but Rodriguez said that those are limited to militants that pose an “imminent” threat to U.S. interests. He said it’s possible the U.S. could do more as the government there takes shape.
The U.S. and its allies are hoping that a U.N.-brokered unity government will be able to bring the warring factions together and end the chaos there, which has helped fuel the growth of the Islamic State. The U.S. and European allies would like the new government to eventually work with them against IS.
The U.S., France and other European nations have sent special operations forces to work with Libyan officials and help the militias fight. In February, American airstrikes hit an Islamic State training camp in rural Libya near the Tunisian border, killing more than 40 militants. And last November, a U.S. airstrike killed top Islamic State leader Abu Nabil in Libya. He was a longtime al-Qaida operative and the senior Islamic State leader in Libya.
Rodriguez said, however, that it will be a challenge for the Islamic State to become as big a threat as it is in Iraq and Syria because of resistance from local Libyan fighters and the population, which is wary of outside groups.
He said the militias in Libya have fought Islamic State militants in Benghazi and Derna with some success, and fought hard in Sabratha with more limited gains. Efforts to battle the group in Sirte have not worked as well, he said. Their biggest problem, he said, is that often the militias fight among themselves.
“It’s uneven and it’s not consistent across the board,” Rodriguez told reporters at a Pentagon briefing. “We’ll have to see how the situation develops, but they are contesting the growth of ISIS in several areas across Libya, not all of it.”
Asked if waiting for the new government to form will allow the Islamic State more time to gather momentum, Rodriguez downplayed the risk.
“It’s going to be a challenge for them to get to that point because of the Libyan population, people and militias that are out there,” he said. “It could be a bigger fight and everything. But again, we’re watching that very carefully and taking action as we see those threats develop.”
SECOND ASSOCIATED PRESS ARTICLE
In a move fraught with risk, the United States and other world powers said they would supply Libya’s internationally recognized government with weapons to counter the Islamic State and other militant groups gaining footholds in the chaos-wracked country’s lawless regions.
Aiming at once to shore up the fragile government, and prevent Islamic State fighters and rival militias from further gains, the U.S., the four other permanent U.N. Security Council members and more than 15 other nations said they would approve exemptions to a United Nations arms embargo to allow military sales and aid to Libya’s so-called “Government of National Accord.”
In a joint communique, the nations said that while the broader embargo will remain in place, they are “ready to respond to the Libyan government’s requests for training and equipping” government forces.
“We will fully support these efforts while continuing to reinforce the UN arms embargo,” the communique said.
With support from all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the plan is unlikely to face significant opposition from any quarter.
The communique was issued at the end of the talks that gathered U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and top officials from more than 20 other nations to discuss ways to strengthen Libya’s fledgling government. The aim is to give the internationally recognized administration more muscle in fighting Islamic State radicals and end its rivalry with a group to the east claiming legitimacy.
The step will boost the government’s efforts to consolidate power and regain control over Libyan state institutions like the central bank and national oil company. However, it also comes with risks, not least of which is that the arms may be captured or otherwise taken by the Islamic State or other groups.
Kerry called the plan “a delicate balance.”
“But we are all of us here today supportive of the fact that if you have a legitimate government and that legitimate government is fighting terrorism, that legitimate government should not be victimized by (the embargo),” he told reporters.
Libyan Premier Fayez al-Sarraj said his government would soon submit a weapons wish list to the Security Council for approval.
“We have a major challenge ahead of us,” in fighting extremists, he said. “We urge the international community to assist us.”
Before the meeting, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier outlined the high stakes at hand.
“The key question is whether Libya remains a place where terrorism, criminal human smuggling and instability continue to expand, or if we are able, together with the government of national unity to recover stability,” he told reporters.
The challenges are daunting.
Libya descended into chaos after the toppling and death of Moammar Gaddafi five years ago and soon turned into a battleground of rival militias battling for powers. More recently, the power vacuum has allowed Islamic State radicals to expand their presence, giving them a potential base in a country separated from Europe only by a relatively small stretch of the Mediterranean Sea.
Also worrying for Europe is the potential threat of a mass influx of refugees amassing in Libya, now that the earlier route from Turkey into Greece has been essentially shut down. British Foreign Secretary David Hammond said his government had received a request from the Libyan government to bolster its Coast Guard — a project “which will address Libyan concerns about smuggling and insecurity on their border but will also address European concerns about illegal migration.”
In Libya, meanwhile, the U.N.-established presidency council on Monday effectively gave the go-ahead for 18 government ministers to start work, even though they have not received backing from the parliament.
The council was created under a U.N.-brokered unity deal struck in December to reconcile Libya’s many political divisions. It won the support of a former powerbase in the country’s capital, Tripoli, but failed to secure a vote of confidence by the country’s internationally recognized parliament, based in Tobruk, a city in eastern Libya.
The U.N. deal also created the internationally recognized government, through a de facto Cabinet to administer the country under Prime Minister-designate Fayez Serraj and the 18 ministers will answer to him.
Divisions in the Tobruk parliament between boycotters and supporters of the new government have prevented the house from reaching a quorum to endorse the council.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Petrolekas: Canada risks Global Irrelevance with smaller Military
By; George Petrolekas, The Globe and Mail
George Petrolekas served with the military in Bosnia, Afghanistan and NATO and is a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
Trial balloons being floated around the defence policy review make one believe that the ultimate goal is to justify a greatly reduced armed forces; reduced in size, reduced in roles and reduced in reach.
There is a certain twisted logic underpinning these goals. In short, Canada is a fundamentally secure country, geographically immune from conventional military threats: Russian expansionism is a European problem; Mideast instability can be contained by others; China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea doesn’t affect Canada; and a host of other irritants can be addressed by minimal investments or alliances.
Paradoxically, the result would achieve the opposite of the “Canada is back” mantra the Prime Minister has been so fond of saying. We might be back only to find that no one pays much attention.
There are three roles for the Canadian Forces from which its missions, structure and equipment are derived, these being the defence of Canada and the security of our citizens, the defence of North America, and contributions to international peace and security.
The defence of Canada overlaps significantly with the defence of North America, but it imposes bare minimums of capability on land, air and sea. We must be able to detect whatever floats or flies near our 11,000 kilometre border (excluding the U.S. border). It is not simply about military threats but about illegal fishing vessels, illegal migration, polluting vessels, errant aircraft – to not discount those with malign intent, search and rescue and disaster response. That means aircraft and even drones to monitor our territory. Detection is not enough, hence fighters that can be dispatched, ships sent out to sea and an army that has to move anywhere inside the country.
Fighters or ships deploying to the Arctic means refuelling aircraft and replenishment vessels. To move soldiers requires transport aircraft, deployable shelters and the like. When it comes to the defence of Canada and the sheer distances involved, there is no doing less with less.
In assisting Canadians during the ice storm of 1998, around 14,000 soldiers were deployed from all parts of the country to Ontario and Quebec. In the same year, to find Swissair Flight 111 off the coast of Nova Scotia required a submarine and several ships. To host the Vancouver Olympics required more than 5,000 soldiers to provide security plus naval and air assets. To halt illegal fishing or to seize narcotics vessels requires a Navy with ships capable of intercepting, boarding and seizing vessels.
Beyond Canada, the defence of North America, means we must carry our share in relation to the United States. Canada cannot be perceived as a freeloader or the weak back door. Over 70 per cent of our trade is with the U.S., and any apprehensions about not carrying our weight would have dramatic repercussions on more than just our southern border. A Canadian Forces that is not interoperable with the U.S. would negatively affect perceptions of Canada as a full partner in North American defence; that also means being cognizant of U.S. concerns with missile defence.
These are not conceptual abstracts. They are simple realities and realpolitik.
Doing less with less seem aimed at our contributions to international peace and security. Discussions of niche roles are illusory at best. Canada’s disaster-assistance niche capability is empowered by hard-power assets – ships, planes, helicopters and superbly trained troops. Without the latter, the former is window dressing.
Yes, Canada can return to peacekeeping – but traditional peacekeeping no longer exists. Any forces we send have to be combat capable at the very least to protect themselves. Regardless, any overseas mission requires a Navy even better outfitted than today and an air force that not only moves our soldiers but protects them from the air.
Sunny ways will not alter impressions that Canada does not matter much anymore if Canada strives to do less with less – no matter how many times we repeat the opposite to ourselves. Words count for little with friends and allies – only deeds.
George Petrolekas served with the military in Bosnia, Afghanistan and NATO and is a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
Trial balloons being floated around the defence policy review make one believe that the ultimate goal is to justify a greatly reduced armed forces; reduced in size, reduced in roles and reduced in reach.
There is a certain twisted logic underpinning these goals. In short, Canada is a fundamentally secure country, geographically immune from conventional military threats: Russian expansionism is a European problem; Mideast instability can be contained by others; China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea doesn’t affect Canada; and a host of other irritants can be addressed by minimal investments or alliances.
Paradoxically, the result would achieve the opposite of the “Canada is back” mantra the Prime Minister has been so fond of saying. We might be back only to find that no one pays much attention.
There are three roles for the Canadian Forces from which its missions, structure and equipment are derived, these being the defence of Canada and the security of our citizens, the defence of North America, and contributions to international peace and security.
The defence of Canada overlaps significantly with the defence of North America, but it imposes bare minimums of capability on land, air and sea. We must be able to detect whatever floats or flies near our 11,000 kilometre border (excluding the U.S. border). It is not simply about military threats but about illegal fishing vessels, illegal migration, polluting vessels, errant aircraft – to not discount those with malign intent, search and rescue and disaster response. That means aircraft and even drones to monitor our territory. Detection is not enough, hence fighters that can be dispatched, ships sent out to sea and an army that has to move anywhere inside the country.
Fighters or ships deploying to the Arctic means refuelling aircraft and replenishment vessels. To move soldiers requires transport aircraft, deployable shelters and the like. When it comes to the defence of Canada and the sheer distances involved, there is no doing less with less.
In assisting Canadians during the ice storm of 1998, around 14,000 soldiers were deployed from all parts of the country to Ontario and Quebec. In the same year, to find Swissair Flight 111 off the coast of Nova Scotia required a submarine and several ships. To host the Vancouver Olympics required more than 5,000 soldiers to provide security plus naval and air assets. To halt illegal fishing or to seize narcotics vessels requires a Navy with ships capable of intercepting, boarding and seizing vessels.
Beyond Canada, the defence of North America, means we must carry our share in relation to the United States. Canada cannot be perceived as a freeloader or the weak back door. Over 70 per cent of our trade is with the U.S., and any apprehensions about not carrying our weight would have dramatic repercussions on more than just our southern border. A Canadian Forces that is not interoperable with the U.S. would negatively affect perceptions of Canada as a full partner in North American defence; that also means being cognizant of U.S. concerns with missile defence.
These are not conceptual abstracts. They are simple realities and realpolitik.
Doing less with less seem aimed at our contributions to international peace and security. Discussions of niche roles are illusory at best. Canada’s disaster-assistance niche capability is empowered by hard-power assets – ships, planes, helicopters and superbly trained troops. Without the latter, the former is window dressing.
Yes, Canada can return to peacekeeping – but traditional peacekeeping no longer exists. Any forces we send have to be combat capable at the very least to protect themselves. Regardless, any overseas mission requires a Navy even better outfitted than today and an air force that not only moves our soldiers but protects them from the air.
Sunny ways will not alter impressions that Canada does not matter much anymore if Canada strives to do less with less – no matter how many times we repeat the opposite to ourselves. Words count for little with friends and allies – only deeds.
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
CAF Preparing for Possible UN Mission to Burundi, Mali, Niger, or Burkina Faso and NATO Mission in Libya
Published today in the National Post, Matthew Fisher outlines where the Canadian Forces could possibly be deployed next.
When the Trudeau Government was elected in November of 2015, they indicated that they would return Canada to a Peacekeeping role internationally; and while I will not debate the notion of Peacekeeping here, it seems that at some point in the near future (believed to be in the mid-late 2016 calendar year) the Liberals will announce that the Canadian Armed Forces will deploy on at least one UN Peacekeeping Mission in Africa; despite the regions high risk, and the budget cuts to DND that are expected in today's 2016 Budget.
Matthew Fisher writes that the CAF could possibly see itself in Burundi, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, or Libya. Is there a possibility that the CAF could end up in more than one of these positions? Yes it is highly likely. While Minister of Foreign Affairs Dion has said the CAF will not enter Libya unless there is one Government; Minister of Defence Sajjan has indicated that as long as NATO has a long-term plan in Libya he would consider a training mission to help stop ISIS' advance in the country. Especially as reports indicate support for the Government of National Accord (GNA), Libya's U.N.-backed unity government, is growing. However, opposition does still remain.
Here is Matthew Fisher's article:
There is no clear consensus in the military community about how the biggest spending ministry in the federal government — the Department of National Defence — will fare Tuesday when the Trudeau government unveils its first budget.
But there is agreement that Ottawa soon will commit the armed forces to a hazardous UN peacemaking mission in Africa. It is unlikely that funding for such an undertaking would be included in any calculations announced in the budget. If such a project is announced during the next 12 months, it probably will be taken, to use military parlance, “out of hide.” That is, from existing military spending.
The mission almost certainly will involve a country in French West Africa that many Canadians will never have had heard of, let alone know where it is on a map. It will be regarded in New York as the opening shot in Canada’s declared bid for a seat on the UN Security Council in 2021.
Many of those who serve reckon that after only five months in power it is too early for the Liberals to have figured out what military programs they intend to slash, delay, realign or cancel. But there may be news about spending on new navy ships and hints about creating what the government has described as a more agile force, which is widely regarded as code for downsizing.
The senior brass has been tightlipped about this. The official and unofficial line is that all is well between National Defence headquarters and the new leadership on Parliament Hill. That seems to be the case, notwithstanding disappointment over the withdrawal of RCAF warplanes from the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and the dubious declared logic behind it.
Conversations over the past few months with scores of soldiers outside the senior ranks and with those who served until recently indicate a widespread dread that serious cuts are likely in next year’s budget. And that by then, it will have become obvious that to pay for other government priorities, defence spending in Canada will be in retreat at a time when allies such as Britain and Australia — which face different but serious political and economic problems — have jacked up defence spending to deal with emerging threats to western security from Russia, China and ISIL.
The upshot, which will become known following a pending defence review, is a force intentionally designed to be less combat capable.
Of equal concern is how the government intends to pay for its pledge to return Canada to peacekeeping and establish closer relations with the UN. My experience with the UN in Africa, the Middle East and Asia is that it does a good (and thankless) job of providing food and humanitarian aid to those afflicted by war and natural calamities. But its peacekeeping operations have been a shambles.
Nowhere is this more true than in Africa. It is not only the rampant allegations of rape and corruption that have undermined UN peacekeeping operations there. It is that almost all of the troops are from Third World countries such as Bangladesh, Papua New Guinea, Togo, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Nepal, Thailand, Kenya, Lesotho, Namibia and Zimbabwe. They are ill-equipped and most of them are poorly led and woefully unprepared to fight wars.
UN troops in Africa have either tended to stay in their barracks while collecting what for them are princely UN wages or have gone out into hazardous situations with bravado but not much else.
More than 1,300 peacekeepers have died worldwide since 2002 with more than 100 a year since 2008. About 40 per cent of the deaths have been in Liberia, Congo, Sudan, Mali and the Ivory Coast.
A mission in Burundi has been touted by some peacekeeping advocates in Canada. But even the African Union has refused to contribute troops to such a UN mission because the regime still in power has said any blue berets would be regarded as an invasion force.
The preferred option, given the growing danger posed by Islamic extremists in North Africa, is to be part of a UN or UN-approved mission in Libya. But Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion, who seems to have the lead on defence decision-making for the government, has said Canada will not go unless Libya has only one government. Right now there are two and they detest each other.
A safer bet would be to fold Canadian troops into existing French missions in Mali, Niger or Burkina Faso. It is something France would heartily welcome.
With France committing more resources to fighting ISIL in the Middle East, the Germans, Belgians and Swedes are helping Paris out in Mali against ISIL’s new affiliate, al-Mourabitoun, and al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb.
Wherever the Trudeau government sends its troops in Africa, and however it eventually plans to pay for them, it will be a difficult, inevitably hazardous undertaking.
When the Trudeau Government was elected in November of 2015, they indicated that they would return Canada to a Peacekeeping role internationally; and while I will not debate the notion of Peacekeeping here, it seems that at some point in the near future (believed to be in the mid-late 2016 calendar year) the Liberals will announce that the Canadian Armed Forces will deploy on at least one UN Peacekeeping Mission in Africa; despite the regions high risk, and the budget cuts to DND that are expected in today's 2016 Budget.
Matthew Fisher writes that the CAF could possibly see itself in Burundi, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, or Libya. Is there a possibility that the CAF could end up in more than one of these positions? Yes it is highly likely. While Minister of Foreign Affairs Dion has said the CAF will not enter Libya unless there is one Government; Minister of Defence Sajjan has indicated that as long as NATO has a long-term plan in Libya he would consider a training mission to help stop ISIS' advance in the country. Especially as reports indicate support for the Government of National Accord (GNA), Libya's U.N.-backed unity government, is growing. However, opposition does still remain.
 |
| A Canadian Armed Forces Tactical Aircraft Security Officer provides a ring of security around a Canadian Armed Forces CC-177 Globemaster III aircraft at the airport in Bamako, Mali. (February 2013: CAF Combat Camera) |
Here is Matthew Fisher's article:
There is no clear consensus in the military community about how the biggest spending ministry in the federal government — the Department of National Defence — will fare Tuesday when the Trudeau government unveils its first budget.
But there is agreement that Ottawa soon will commit the armed forces to a hazardous UN peacemaking mission in Africa. It is unlikely that funding for such an undertaking would be included in any calculations announced in the budget. If such a project is announced during the next 12 months, it probably will be taken, to use military parlance, “out of hide.” That is, from existing military spending.
The mission almost certainly will involve a country in French West Africa that many Canadians will never have had heard of, let alone know where it is on a map. It will be regarded in New York as the opening shot in Canada’s declared bid for a seat on the UN Security Council in 2021.
Many of those who serve reckon that after only five months in power it is too early for the Liberals to have figured out what military programs they intend to slash, delay, realign or cancel. But there may be news about spending on new navy ships and hints about creating what the government has described as a more agile force, which is widely regarded as code for downsizing.
The senior brass has been tightlipped about this. The official and unofficial line is that all is well between National Defence headquarters and the new leadership on Parliament Hill. That seems to be the case, notwithstanding disappointment over the withdrawal of RCAF warplanes from the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and the dubious declared logic behind it.
Conversations over the past few months with scores of soldiers outside the senior ranks and with those who served until recently indicate a widespread dread that serious cuts are likely in next year’s budget. And that by then, it will have become obvious that to pay for other government priorities, defence spending in Canada will be in retreat at a time when allies such as Britain and Australia — which face different but serious political and economic problems — have jacked up defence spending to deal with emerging threats to western security from Russia, China and ISIL.
The upshot, which will become known following a pending defence review, is a force intentionally designed to be less combat capable.
Of equal concern is how the government intends to pay for its pledge to return Canada to peacekeeping and establish closer relations with the UN. My experience with the UN in Africa, the Middle East and Asia is that it does a good (and thankless) job of providing food and humanitarian aid to those afflicted by war and natural calamities. But its peacekeeping operations have been a shambles.
Nowhere is this more true than in Africa. It is not only the rampant allegations of rape and corruption that have undermined UN peacekeeping operations there. It is that almost all of the troops are from Third World countries such as Bangladesh, Papua New Guinea, Togo, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Nepal, Thailand, Kenya, Lesotho, Namibia and Zimbabwe. They are ill-equipped and most of them are poorly led and woefully unprepared to fight wars.
UN troops in Africa have either tended to stay in their barracks while collecting what for them are princely UN wages or have gone out into hazardous situations with bravado but not much else.
More than 1,300 peacekeepers have died worldwide since 2002 with more than 100 a year since 2008. About 40 per cent of the deaths have been in Liberia, Congo, Sudan, Mali and the Ivory Coast.
A mission in Burundi has been touted by some peacekeeping advocates in Canada. But even the African Union has refused to contribute troops to such a UN mission because the regime still in power has said any blue berets would be regarded as an invasion force.
The preferred option, given the growing danger posed by Islamic extremists in North Africa, is to be part of a UN or UN-approved mission in Libya. But Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion, who seems to have the lead on defence decision-making for the government, has said Canada will not go unless Libya has only one government. Right now there are two and they detest each other.
A safer bet would be to fold Canadian troops into existing French missions in Mali, Niger or Burkina Faso. It is something France would heartily welcome.
With France committing more resources to fighting ISIL in the Middle East, the Germans, Belgians and Swedes are helping Paris out in Mali against ISIL’s new affiliate, al-Mourabitoun, and al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb.
Wherever the Trudeau government sends its troops in Africa, and however it eventually plans to pay for them, it will be a difficult, inevitably hazardous undertaking.
Monday, February 1, 2016
Ottawa Pushes Military Deal with Kuwait despite UN
STEVEN CHASE
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Jan. 31, 2016 9:42PM EST
Last updated Sunday, Jan. 31, 2016 9:48PM EST
The Canadian government is busy promoting Canada’s defence industry in Kuwait even as a United Nations report accuses a Saudi-led coalition, which includes Kuwait, of “widespread and systematic” bombing of civilians in Yemen.
Ottawa’s efforts to secure military contracts for Canada’s defence industry are coming under increasing scrutiny as controversy grows over the federal government’s commanding role in a $15-billion sale of weaponized armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, a country notorious for human-rights abuses.
Kuwait is among a group of Arab states conducting air strikes in Yemen and has supported this effort with its air force, which includes fighter jets and KC-130J tanker aircraft that can supply warplanes with fuel while in the air.
Montreal-based CAE recently built a flight simulator for the Kuwait Air Force that trains military pilots on the KC-130J tanker aircraft. It was contracted to supply the simulator to the air force’s Al Mubarak air base near Kuwait International Airport.
Canadian officials paid a visit to the simulator last week, talking up the Canada-Kuwait business deal on the same day the UN report on Yemen air strikes made international headlines.
The delegation included a top executive from the Canadian Commercial Corp., Ottawa’s defence and security export sales outfit, as well as Martine Moreau, Canada’s ambassador to Kuwait.
“Great visit to @CAE_Defence’s impressive new KC-130J flight sim[ulator] & facility with @CanadaKuwait CDN Ambassador Moreau,” Cameron Mackenzie, vice-president of business development and sales at Canadian Commercial Corp., wrote on Twitter this past Wednesday.
A leaked UN panel report last week attributed 60 per cent, or 2,682, civilian deaths and injuries in the Yemen conflict to air-launched explosive weapons and said the Saudi-led coalition’s actions are a “grave violation of the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution” and violate international law.
Saudis and their Arab allies launched a military intervention in Yemen last year in support of President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi who was under threat from Houthi forces aligned with Iran.
Kuwait, a Persian Gulf state of 3.4 million, is heavily dependent on oil exports. According to Amnesty International, even peaceful criticism of Islam and the emir, the ruling head of state, remains criminalized. The rights watchdog says human-rights activists and political reformers are among those targeted for arrest, detention and prosecution. Authorities have prosecuted and imprisoned critics who express dissent through social media and they have curtailed the right to public assembly, Amnesty says.
Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion’s department did not immediately respond when asked Friday to explain why the government is promoting military sales in Kuwait while the Mideast country is part of a Saudi-led coalition that is carrying out air attacks in Yemen.
Targets in Yemen, the UN report found, have included refugee camps; weddings; civilian vehicles, such as buses; homes; medical facilities; schools; mosques; factories and civilian infrastructure.
Canadian military sales to regions such as the Mideast have risen significantly in the past decade as the former Harper government worked to build up this country’s role as an international arms dealer. Pentagon budget cuts drove the Canadian Commercial Corp. to look further abroad for arms buyers. In 2009 it created a new line of business, Global Defence and Security Sales, to seek new customers. This move into “non-traditional defence and security markets will require an increased vigilance for responsible and ethical business conduct,” the agency says in its latest published corporate plan.
Critics say Ottawa’s policing of arms exports is in dire need of an overhaul.
“The credibility of Canadian export controls is severely strained. It is high time the government address persistent, legitimate questions about the process by which military export authorizations are granted,” said Cesar Jaramillo, executive director of Project Ploughshares, based in Waterloo, Ont.
He said the UN report “left little doubt about the systematic targeting of civilians and the violation of international humanitarian law by the Saudi-led coalition that Kuwait is a part of. Canada should proceed with utmost care when pursuing or entering into military exports deals” with these countries.
Mr. Jaramillo said the Canadian government is in a conflict of interest when it comes to military exports. “There is a clear tension in Ottawa between the sometimes conflicting objectives of facilitating trade deals for private Canadian companies and ensuring that Canadian-made goods do not contribute to the violation of human rights or serve to exacerbate conflict situations.”
Asked whether CAE would cease doing business with Kuwait in light of the UN panel report, a CAE spokesman said the company is complying with all Canadian government rules on exports.
Pascale Alpha, director of global communications at CAE, said the simulator deal with Kuwait was arranged through the U.S. military.
“We follow Canada’s export regulations as well as NATO regulations, and the export regulations of the countries we operate in. In this case, our contract was to supply a simulator to the U.S. Navy. Through Foreign Military Sales, the U.S. Navy supplies the aircraft and training equipment to foreign nations, including the Kuwaiti air force,” Mr. Alpha said.
Follow Steven Chase on Twitter: @stevenchase
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Jan. 31, 2016 9:42PM EST
Last updated Sunday, Jan. 31, 2016 9:48PM EST
The Canadian government is busy promoting Canada’s defence industry in Kuwait even as a United Nations report accuses a Saudi-led coalition, which includes Kuwait, of “widespread and systematic” bombing of civilians in Yemen.
Ottawa’s efforts to secure military contracts for Canada’s defence industry are coming under increasing scrutiny as controversy grows over the federal government’s commanding role in a $15-billion sale of weaponized armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, a country notorious for human-rights abuses.
Kuwait is among a group of Arab states conducting air strikes in Yemen and has supported this effort with its air force, which includes fighter jets and KC-130J tanker aircraft that can supply warplanes with fuel while in the air.
Montreal-based CAE recently built a flight simulator for the Kuwait Air Force that trains military pilots on the KC-130J tanker aircraft. It was contracted to supply the simulator to the air force’s Al Mubarak air base near Kuwait International Airport.
Canadian officials paid a visit to the simulator last week, talking up the Canada-Kuwait business deal on the same day the UN report on Yemen air strikes made international headlines.
The delegation included a top executive from the Canadian Commercial Corp., Ottawa’s defence and security export sales outfit, as well as Martine Moreau, Canada’s ambassador to Kuwait.
“Great visit to @CAE_Defence’s impressive new KC-130J flight sim[ulator] & facility with @CanadaKuwait CDN Ambassador Moreau,” Cameron Mackenzie, vice-president of business development and sales at Canadian Commercial Corp., wrote on Twitter this past Wednesday.
A leaked UN panel report last week attributed 60 per cent, or 2,682, civilian deaths and injuries in the Yemen conflict to air-launched explosive weapons and said the Saudi-led coalition’s actions are a “grave violation of the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution” and violate international law.
Saudis and their Arab allies launched a military intervention in Yemen last year in support of President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi who was under threat from Houthi forces aligned with Iran.
Kuwait, a Persian Gulf state of 3.4 million, is heavily dependent on oil exports. According to Amnesty International, even peaceful criticism of Islam and the emir, the ruling head of state, remains criminalized. The rights watchdog says human-rights activists and political reformers are among those targeted for arrest, detention and prosecution. Authorities have prosecuted and imprisoned critics who express dissent through social media and they have curtailed the right to public assembly, Amnesty says.
Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion’s department did not immediately respond when asked Friday to explain why the government is promoting military sales in Kuwait while the Mideast country is part of a Saudi-led coalition that is carrying out air attacks in Yemen.
Targets in Yemen, the UN report found, have included refugee camps; weddings; civilian vehicles, such as buses; homes; medical facilities; schools; mosques; factories and civilian infrastructure.
Canadian military sales to regions such as the Mideast have risen significantly in the past decade as the former Harper government worked to build up this country’s role as an international arms dealer. Pentagon budget cuts drove the Canadian Commercial Corp. to look further abroad for arms buyers. In 2009 it created a new line of business, Global Defence and Security Sales, to seek new customers. This move into “non-traditional defence and security markets will require an increased vigilance for responsible and ethical business conduct,” the agency says in its latest published corporate plan.
Critics say Ottawa’s policing of arms exports is in dire need of an overhaul.
“The credibility of Canadian export controls is severely strained. It is high time the government address persistent, legitimate questions about the process by which military export authorizations are granted,” said Cesar Jaramillo, executive director of Project Ploughshares, based in Waterloo, Ont.
He said the UN report “left little doubt about the systematic targeting of civilians and the violation of international humanitarian law by the Saudi-led coalition that Kuwait is a part of. Canada should proceed with utmost care when pursuing or entering into military exports deals” with these countries.
Mr. Jaramillo said the Canadian government is in a conflict of interest when it comes to military exports. “There is a clear tension in Ottawa between the sometimes conflicting objectives of facilitating trade deals for private Canadian companies and ensuring that Canadian-made goods do not contribute to the violation of human rights or serve to exacerbate conflict situations.”
Asked whether CAE would cease doing business with Kuwait in light of the UN panel report, a CAE spokesman said the company is complying with all Canadian government rules on exports.
Pascale Alpha, director of global communications at CAE, said the simulator deal with Kuwait was arranged through the U.S. military.
“We follow Canada’s export regulations as well as NATO regulations, and the export regulations of the countries we operate in. In this case, our contract was to supply a simulator to the U.S. Navy. Through Foreign Military Sales, the U.S. Navy supplies the aircraft and training equipment to foreign nations, including the Kuwaiti air force,” Mr. Alpha said.
Follow Steven Chase on Twitter: @stevenchase
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)