By: Ian J. Keddie, Macleans Magazine
General Jonathan Vance, Canada’s chief of defence staff, has a confident and relaxed way about him. But when he opened the second day of the Conference of Defence Association in Ottawa last week, and then answered questions from reporters on the country’s peacekeeping operations, the tone seemed wrong for the moment. “The UN has spaces available for nations to contribute to, should they wish. We understand what those spaces available are,” said Gen. Vance, adding that the government is in preliminary stages of planning such a deployment “We are in what I would call the planning stages to deploy forces. We’re trying to match best fit to best missions with the capability that we have. So it’s a work in progress, but it’s going well.”
The optimism of that tone came in stark contrast to the many speakers who highlighted the government’s failure to carry through with a 2016 pledge to deploy up to 750 personnel on international peacekeeping missions in addition to the 112 which were deployed at the time of the announcement. The most recent figures from the United Nations show that Canada’s commitment has reached an all-time low, and now stands at just 43 peacekeeping personnel at present. This represents the lowest number of uniformed personnel and lowest global military contribution for Canada since 1956.
The Liberal government maintains that it is merely awaiting the right opportunity to deliver on 2016’s promises. Gen. Vance’s suggestion that Canada is in the “the planning stages to deploy forces” maintains the idea that the government is still searching for deployments that Canadian forces can support and the Prime Minister’s own speech at the UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial in Vancouver in November 2017 outlined the need for Canada to deliver more. “We are making these pledges today, because we believe in the United Nations and we believe in peacekeeping,” the Prime Minister said at the time, as he called for a new era in peacekeeping.
But rather than delivering a reinvigorated peacekeeping effort, two years of handwringing by the Trudeau administration has seen Canada revert to a pre-Pearson era level of deployment. Experts agree that decision-making has become paralyzed and that the Liberal government seems reluctant to follow through on its promises. “Canada has let the UN down,” said Dr. Walter Dorn of the Canadian Forces College. “If you actually look at the pledges we would have more than 750 uniformed personnel and we’re down at an all-time low. It’s a disappointment and at this point, you could say it’s a broken promise.” Dorn puts the blame at desks of the most senior figures in the current administration: “I think it’s at the cabinet level: the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister and the Foreign Minister just haven’t got their act together.”
Even more disappointing is that the original troop pledge was sold as a sign of Canada’s commitment to the international community. “This government came to power with the promise of doing real peacekeeping and then has repeatedly told the UN and lots of countries that might want to vote for Canada for the next security council seat,” said Stephen M. Saideman, the Paterson Chair in International Affairs at Carleton University.
While many of the conference attendees condemned the low number of peacekeeping personnel being deployed, there was disagreement over how Canada should move forward. Dorn suggested that operations in Africa could be more palatable, pointing that peacekeeping operations in Mali are less dangerous and less expensive than most people perceive. “The fatality rate is a factor of five less in Mali (when compared to Afghanistan), and the type of equipment you need is less expensive and the UN pays back a substantial portion of your costs,” he said. But Saideman thinks that missions in Africa would prove challenging for Canadian forces. “As far as I understand it, most of the places that Canada would be asked to go in Africa are actually quite risky. The Japanese have pulled out of the South Sudan because it’s falling apart. The DRC—600 troops would be a drop in the bucket. The people that I know that have gone to Mali suggest that it’s a counterinsurgency war, it’s not a peacekeeping campaign.” Saideman added that Canada already missed an ideal opportunity: “If I was advising the government I would’ve told them to go to Colombia last year, because I think that would’ve been a far less risky endeavour, but that would have made a contribution.”
If the government is going to continue to wait for a less risky peacekeeping opportunity, then there might not be any decision in the near future. If Colombia was the ideal deployment, as Saideman suggests, then it is unlikely Canada will find something suitable in the current trouble spots of the world. Trudeau and his cabinet have made numerous pledges of peacekeeping to the international community but those promises will fall on deaf ears, particularly to countries such as India, Pakistan, and Ethiopia who contribute thousands of troops to UN missions. It will likely come down to voters at home as to whether or not the government should take its pledges more seriously though.
With such a low number of peacekeeping personnel on operations, it is hard to believe the government can ignore the glaring contradiction in rhetoric versus action for much longer. If Canada truly wants to contribute to peace operations on a meaningful scale once again, it comes with an inherent risk. While there may be some missions that are better suited for Canadian expertise and equipment, it’s clear that the government has given every option some consideration over the last couple of years—but any further delay clearly rests on the desks of the Foreign, Defence, and Prime Ministers.
Showing posts with label Liberal Peacekeeping Mission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal Peacekeeping Mission. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 7, 2018
Thursday, October 26, 2017
Canada’s Contribution to UN Peacekeeping Reaches New Low
By: Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA—The Trudeau Liberals may have promised to ramp up Canada’s role in peacekeeping, but new UN figures show there were fewer Canadian peacekeepers in the field last month than at any point in recent memory.
The revelation comes as Canada prepares to host a major peacekeeping summit in Vancouver next month, raising fears the country will be badly embarrassed unless the numbers start rising — and fast.
The Liberals promised last summer to make up to 600 soldiers and 150 police officers available to the UN for future peacekeeping missions, but have yet to make any concrete commitments.
The intervening year has instead seen a steady decrease in the number of Canadian blue helmets and blue berets deployed around the world, from 112 peacekeepers in August 2016 to 68 last month.
The decline is largely attributed to 44 fewer Canadian police officers being deployed to Haiti, where the UN is closing down its 13-year stabilization mission in favour of a much smaller effort.
Walter Dorn, an expert on peacekeeping at the Canadian Forces College in Toronto who has studied the numbers, says the result is the smallest Canadian contribution to peacekeeping since at least 1990.
By comparison, Canada’s smallest contribution to peacekeeping under Stephen Harper, who made no secret of his dislike for the UN, was 88 soldiers and police officers in October 2014.
“The government is at an all-time low while saying that it wants to re-engage in peacekeeping,” Dorn said. “Its numbers are lower than the Conservatives ever were.”
Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland’s spokesperson, Adam Austen, said the government remains convinced that Canada has an important role to play in peacekeeping and that it is committed to do more.
Defence Department officials have drawn up a list of possible missions for the government to review, sources have told The Canadian Press, one of which would involve sending transport helicopters to Mali.
While the Liberals reportedly hope to make a decision before the upcoming peacekeeping summit in Vancouver on Nov. 14-15, there is no certainty they will.
The government has repeatedly said it will not be rushed into a mission, which Austen repeated on Monday, saying in an email: “We are doing this carefully and thoughtfully, as Canadians expect.”
But the UN expected last year when it agreed to let Canada host the peacekeeping meeting that Canadian troops would already be on the ground.
The summit, to be hosted by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, is only supposed to be open to officials from countries that have made concrete pledges to peacekeeping missions.
UN officials and foreign diplomats have expressed varying degrees of frustration and disappointment with the Liberal indecision over the last year, which Dorn echoed on Monday.
“Not only has Canada not lived up to its promises, it has actually decreased its contribution,” he said. “Canada is setting a poor example as the host for a pledging conference.”
The fact there are any Canadian peacekeepers in the field may come as a surprise to many people.
While the Liberals promised a return to peacekeeping during the last election campaign and again last year Canada has, in fact, continued to contribute soldiers and police officers to UN missions for decades.
But last month’s numbers continue a trend of declining participation that has seen Canada move from being one of the largest contributors to peacekeeping in the 1990s to the bottom half of the pack today.
There has also been a gradual shift from deploying Canadian military personnel to police officers; of the 68 Canadian peacekeepers in the field last month, 40 were police.
OTTAWA—The Trudeau Liberals may have promised to ramp up Canada’s role in peacekeeping, but new UN figures show there were fewer Canadian peacekeepers in the field last month than at any point in recent memory.
The revelation comes as Canada prepares to host a major peacekeeping summit in Vancouver next month, raising fears the country will be badly embarrassed unless the numbers start rising — and fast.
The Liberals promised last summer to make up to 600 soldiers and 150 police officers available to the UN for future peacekeeping missions, but have yet to make any concrete commitments.
The intervening year has instead seen a steady decrease in the number of Canadian blue helmets and blue berets deployed around the world, from 112 peacekeepers in August 2016 to 68 last month.
The decline is largely attributed to 44 fewer Canadian police officers being deployed to Haiti, where the UN is closing down its 13-year stabilization mission in favour of a much smaller effort.
Walter Dorn, an expert on peacekeeping at the Canadian Forces College in Toronto who has studied the numbers, says the result is the smallest Canadian contribution to peacekeeping since at least 1990.
By comparison, Canada’s smallest contribution to peacekeeping under Stephen Harper, who made no secret of his dislike for the UN, was 88 soldiers and police officers in October 2014.
“The government is at an all-time low while saying that it wants to re-engage in peacekeeping,” Dorn said. “Its numbers are lower than the Conservatives ever were.”
Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland’s spokesperson, Adam Austen, said the government remains convinced that Canada has an important role to play in peacekeeping and that it is committed to do more.
Defence Department officials have drawn up a list of possible missions for the government to review, sources have told The Canadian Press, one of which would involve sending transport helicopters to Mali.
While the Liberals reportedly hope to make a decision before the upcoming peacekeeping summit in Vancouver on Nov. 14-15, there is no certainty they will.
The government has repeatedly said it will not be rushed into a mission, which Austen repeated on Monday, saying in an email: “We are doing this carefully and thoughtfully, as Canadians expect.”
But the UN expected last year when it agreed to let Canada host the peacekeeping meeting that Canadian troops would already be on the ground.
The summit, to be hosted by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, is only supposed to be open to officials from countries that have made concrete pledges to peacekeeping missions.
UN officials and foreign diplomats have expressed varying degrees of frustration and disappointment with the Liberal indecision over the last year, which Dorn echoed on Monday.
“Not only has Canada not lived up to its promises, it has actually decreased its contribution,” he said. “Canada is setting a poor example as the host for a pledging conference.”
The fact there are any Canadian peacekeepers in the field may come as a surprise to many people.
While the Liberals promised a return to peacekeeping during the last election campaign and again last year Canada has, in fact, continued to contribute soldiers and police officers to UN missions for decades.
But last month’s numbers continue a trend of declining participation that has seen Canada move from being one of the largest contributors to peacekeeping in the 1990s to the bottom half of the pack today.
There has also been a gradual shift from deploying Canadian military personnel to police officers; of the 68 Canadian peacekeepers in the field last month, 40 were police.
Tuesday, January 3, 2017
Liberals courting risk with upcoming peace mission
By: Bruce Champion-Smith, Toronto Star
OTTAWA—The stark monument, titled “Reconciliation,” features the statues of two men and a woman on a parapet, their gazes fixed in the distance.
This depiction of three peacekeepers is unique in the world, the federal government says. Set near Ottawa’s ByWard Market, the monument is meant to honour the more than 110,000 Canadian soldiers who have served on peace missions since 1948.
A short walk away stands the National War Memorial, which pays tribute to Canadian soldiers killed in conflicts dating back to the Boer War. This site serves as the heart of the country’s commemoration on Remembrance Day.
The fact there are two monuments suggests that peacekeeping is not combat, that the two roles are distinct and easily separated. Except that’s not reality. Not today. Not, in fact, for many decades.
And not, one expert says, in Mali, where Canadian soldiers could soon be headed, deployed by a Liberal government keen to underscore its claim that Canada is back on the world stage.
The looming deployment promises to stir debate not only on the merits of the mission but how the operation should be even characterized.
“What’s clear is that peacekeeping is no longer the appropriate term,” said noted military historian Jack Granatstein.
Yet he cautions that deep-seated nostalgia for the blue beret peacekeeping role risks blinding Canadians to the real dangers of peace deployments.
“That’s the problem. You have a public that believes that you put on a blue beret and you go out and everybody sings ‘hallelujah’ and it’s all fine,” Granatstein, a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said in an interview.
“These are really wars we are getting into and we’re pretending it’s peacekeeping. That’s a bad mindset for the public. Soldiers know what they are doing. . . . They know it’s dangerous but the public is still 40 years in the past in its thinking.”
There’s good reason for the nostalgia. The notion of peacekeeping is deeply ingrained in Canadians’ sense of country and their place in the world, said Walter Dorn, a professor of defence studies at the Royal Military College of Canada and the Canadian Forces College.
“The image of the peacekeeper is key to the Canadian identity. . . . . It’s not just rose-coloured. It speaks to a reality about this country,” Dorn said.
It is a concept that Canada helped pioneer, thanks to Lester B. Pearson, who served as external affairs minister and prime minister. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957 for his efforts to persuade the UN to deploy a large force to defuse the Suez crisis the previous year.
“That was a major achievement, one of Canada’s greatest achievements in its foreign affairs history,” Dorn said.
Canada remained a significant contributor to UN peacekeeping forces, with upward of 2,000 soldiers deployed overseas. But in recent decades under both Liberal and Conservative governments, Canada’s presence on UN peace operations has declined. Today, Canada has just 112 personnel serving with the UN, including 84 police officers and 19 troops.
The Liberals pledged in the 2015 election to “recommit” to supporting UN peace operations and make specialized capabilities, such as medical teams and aircraft, available on a “case-by-case basis.”
Now the Liberal government is weighing the deployment of up to 600 soldiers and 150 police officers to make good on that pledge.
The Star has reported that the mission is probably headed to Mali, where a multinational force of 10,579 troops currently serves under a UN umbrella to help stabilize the country threatened by militants with links to Al Qaeda.
The Canadian contingent could be split up and dispatched to more than one location. The government is expected to make a decision at a cabinet retreat in January.
Yet Granatstein said there are no good locales for a Canadian mission in Africa.
“The reality is if we’re going to Mali, we’re going into what is effectively a war zone against a well-armed Islamist group of rebels,” he said.
The Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan are also in the midst of civil wars. “Wherever we go in Africa is not where we should be going and is dangerous. We will have dead Canadians and frankly achieve nothing,” he said.
Granatstein said a peace mission requires a “credible” chance of success, a firm end date, the ability for people to get in and out easily, right weapons for the job and “orders that let us use them.”
Yet the conflicts across Africa are “jumbled, messy, confusing” and Canada’s contribution will not “matter a damn,” he said.
But Dorn argues that Mali is exactly the kind of place where Canadian troops need to be. “It’s these places in the world that require attention so they don’t blow up and become big problems for us,” he said.
“These so-called forgotten areas of the world are key to establishing longer-term peace. I would also add that we deploy troops not just for national interest but also for our national values and peacekeepers can make a big difference in showing that Canada has national values that aren’t purely selfish.
“What’s our identity and what could be more important to a nation’s identity, it’s what we are on a world stage. Are we a selfish nation or are we a generous one?”
He said a mission to Mali would fulfil a number of objectives for the government, helping the United Nations, Africa and Mali itself, a place where he said “there is some peace to keep.
“It’s a place where there is a terrorist threat, where the French are trying to fight and the Americans are trying to fight the terrorist threat in the Sahel region and this will make a major contribution,” Dorn said.
Dorn makes a distinction between a peace mission and combat operation. A peace mission implies that soldiers use force only in a defensive role, not offensive, he said. He cited the “trinity” of peacekeeping principles — consent for the deployment, impartiality in their actions, and defensive use of force.
“It implies that you don’t have enemies but that like a police officer you use force when there is an imminent threat,” Dorn said.
But he, too, acknowledges that peace missions carry real risks.
More than 3,500 soldiers have been killed on UN missions over the years, including 122 Canadians.
Pollster Frank Graves expects there will be public backing for the mission, partly because of that nostalgia Canadians have for peace missions and a desire to see Canada play a role in the world.
But he said Canadians are wary about military deployments in the wake of the long mission in Afghanistan, where doubts linger whether it produced lasting differences.
OTTAWA—The stark monument, titled “Reconciliation,” features the statues of two men and a woman on a parapet, their gazes fixed in the distance.
This depiction of three peacekeepers is unique in the world, the federal government says. Set near Ottawa’s ByWard Market, the monument is meant to honour the more than 110,000 Canadian soldiers who have served on peace missions since 1948.
A short walk away stands the National War Memorial, which pays tribute to Canadian soldiers killed in conflicts dating back to the Boer War. This site serves as the heart of the country’s commemoration on Remembrance Day.
The fact there are two monuments suggests that peacekeeping is not combat, that the two roles are distinct and easily separated. Except that’s not reality. Not today. Not, in fact, for many decades.
And not, one expert says, in Mali, where Canadian soldiers could soon be headed, deployed by a Liberal government keen to underscore its claim that Canada is back on the world stage.
The looming deployment promises to stir debate not only on the merits of the mission but how the operation should be even characterized.
“What’s clear is that peacekeeping is no longer the appropriate term,” said noted military historian Jack Granatstein.
Yet he cautions that deep-seated nostalgia for the blue beret peacekeeping role risks blinding Canadians to the real dangers of peace deployments.
“That’s the problem. You have a public that believes that you put on a blue beret and you go out and everybody sings ‘hallelujah’ and it’s all fine,” Granatstein, a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said in an interview.
“These are really wars we are getting into and we’re pretending it’s peacekeeping. That’s a bad mindset for the public. Soldiers know what they are doing. . . . They know it’s dangerous but the public is still 40 years in the past in its thinking.”
There’s good reason for the nostalgia. The notion of peacekeeping is deeply ingrained in Canadians’ sense of country and their place in the world, said Walter Dorn, a professor of defence studies at the Royal Military College of Canada and the Canadian Forces College.
“The image of the peacekeeper is key to the Canadian identity. . . . . It’s not just rose-coloured. It speaks to a reality about this country,” Dorn said.
It is a concept that Canada helped pioneer, thanks to Lester B. Pearson, who served as external affairs minister and prime minister. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957 for his efforts to persuade the UN to deploy a large force to defuse the Suez crisis the previous year.
“That was a major achievement, one of Canada’s greatest achievements in its foreign affairs history,” Dorn said.
Canada remained a significant contributor to UN peacekeeping forces, with upward of 2,000 soldiers deployed overseas. But in recent decades under both Liberal and Conservative governments, Canada’s presence on UN peace operations has declined. Today, Canada has just 112 personnel serving with the UN, including 84 police officers and 19 troops.
The Liberals pledged in the 2015 election to “recommit” to supporting UN peace operations and make specialized capabilities, such as medical teams and aircraft, available on a “case-by-case basis.”
Now the Liberal government is weighing the deployment of up to 600 soldiers and 150 police officers to make good on that pledge.
The Star has reported that the mission is probably headed to Mali, where a multinational force of 10,579 troops currently serves under a UN umbrella to help stabilize the country threatened by militants with links to Al Qaeda.
The Canadian contingent could be split up and dispatched to more than one location. The government is expected to make a decision at a cabinet retreat in January.
Yet Granatstein said there are no good locales for a Canadian mission in Africa.
“The reality is if we’re going to Mali, we’re going into what is effectively a war zone against a well-armed Islamist group of rebels,” he said.
The Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan are also in the midst of civil wars. “Wherever we go in Africa is not where we should be going and is dangerous. We will have dead Canadians and frankly achieve nothing,” he said.
Granatstein said a peace mission requires a “credible” chance of success, a firm end date, the ability for people to get in and out easily, right weapons for the job and “orders that let us use them.”
Yet the conflicts across Africa are “jumbled, messy, confusing” and Canada’s contribution will not “matter a damn,” he said.
But Dorn argues that Mali is exactly the kind of place where Canadian troops need to be. “It’s these places in the world that require attention so they don’t blow up and become big problems for us,” he said.
“These so-called forgotten areas of the world are key to establishing longer-term peace. I would also add that we deploy troops not just for national interest but also for our national values and peacekeepers can make a big difference in showing that Canada has national values that aren’t purely selfish.
“What’s our identity and what could be more important to a nation’s identity, it’s what we are on a world stage. Are we a selfish nation or are we a generous one?”
He said a mission to Mali would fulfil a number of objectives for the government, helping the United Nations, Africa and Mali itself, a place where he said “there is some peace to keep.
“It’s a place where there is a terrorist threat, where the French are trying to fight and the Americans are trying to fight the terrorist threat in the Sahel region and this will make a major contribution,” Dorn said.
Dorn makes a distinction between a peace mission and combat operation. A peace mission implies that soldiers use force only in a defensive role, not offensive, he said. He cited the “trinity” of peacekeeping principles — consent for the deployment, impartiality in their actions, and defensive use of force.
“It implies that you don’t have enemies but that like a police officer you use force when there is an imminent threat,” Dorn said.
But he, too, acknowledges that peace missions carry real risks.
More than 3,500 soldiers have been killed on UN missions over the years, including 122 Canadians.
Pollster Frank Graves expects there will be public backing for the mission, partly because of that nostalgia Canadians have for peace missions and a desire to see Canada play a role in the world.
But he said Canadians are wary about military deployments in the wake of the long mission in Afghanistan, where doubts linger whether it produced lasting differences.
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.”
Sajjan to visit West Africa as Liberals weigh Peacekeeping Mission
By: Bruce Champion-Smith, Toronto Star
Sajjan’s five-day visit comes after an August trip to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, all against the backdrop of the Liberal pledge to commit troops to an African mission.
“We need to go into this eyes wide open, making sure that … we look at the complexities of how (peace) operations have been done in the past and what we need to do,” Sajjan told reporters in Ottawa.
Sajjan offered no timeline of when a decision on the deployment could be made.
“I have not set a deadline,” he said. “I want to make sure that we have all the right information, so that we can have a comprehensive plan, a whole-of-government approach to peace operations that are going to bring added value to the United Nations and how they operate now,” Sajjan said.
As with his previous trip, officials in Sajjan’s office cautioned that his itinerary should not be taken as a signal of where the Canadian force may wind up.
“He’d like to get a better sense of the situation in West Africa,” Jordan Owens told the Star. “Don’t read too much into the location.”
Still, Mali — home to one of the deadliest peace missions in Africa — has emerged as one of the possible locations where Canada could dispatch soldiers.
SHOULD CANADA GO TO AFRICA?
Harjit Sajjan’s trip to Mali and Senegal next week comes as a senator warns of long-term risks posed by a planned peacekeeping mission to Africa.The Star examines our return to peacekeeping in a continuing series.
OTTAWA—Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan is headed to Mali and Senegal on a fact-finding mission next week as the federal government continues to make plans to deploy a military mission to Africa.Sajjan’s five-day visit comes after an August trip to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, all against the backdrop of the Liberal pledge to commit troops to an African mission.
“We need to go into this eyes wide open, making sure that … we look at the complexities of how (peace) operations have been done in the past and what we need to do,” Sajjan told reporters in Ottawa.
“I have not set a deadline,” he said. “I want to make sure that we have all the right information, so that we can have a comprehensive plan, a whole-of-government approach to peace operations that are going to bring added value to the United Nations and how they operate now,” Sajjan said.
As with his previous trip, officials in Sajjan’s office cautioned that his itinerary should not be taken as a signal of where the Canadian force may wind up.
“He’d like to get a better sense of the situation in West Africa,” Jordan Owens told the Star. “Don’t read too much into the location.”
Still, Mali — home to one of the deadliest peace missions in Africa — has emerged as one of the possible locations where Canada could dispatch soldiers.
Sen. Daniel Lang, chair of the Senate committee on national security and defence, said discussions at UN headquarters last week provided a sobering overview of the challenges that are certain to confront a Canadian peace mission in Africa.
In late August, the government sent a reconnaissance team of officials to scout the situation on the ground.
Sajjan’s trip comes as Sen. Daniel Lang, chair of the Senate committee on national security and defence, warns that the military mission to Africa could be risky and could ensnare Canada for the long term.
Lang said discussions at UN headquarters last week provided a sobering overview of the challenges that are certain to confront a Canadian peace mission.
And he said any commitment to dispatch troops on an African mission must involve a clear-eyed appraisal of the risks, the length of the deployment and how it serves the national interest.
“Canadians should be fully aware of what we’re getting involved with,” Lang said Monday.
The Liberal government is weighing options to deploy as many as 600 soldiers and 160 police officers somewhere in Africa on a peace mission.
Lang praised Sajjan for taking time to carefully consider the deployment, given the risks.
He said there is good reason such missions are known as “peace support” operations, rather than “peacekeeping,” in many of the locales where Canadians could wind up.
“There is no peace to keep. You are there to try and maintain some social order and stability and protect the civilian population because you have all these warring factions,” Lang said.
He cited Mali as one example of the dangerous terrain that might await Canadian troops. A UN peacekeeper from Chad was killed there and four others wounded in May when their vehicle struck a mine.
“It’s been described as one of the deadliest missions to be involved in,” Lang told the Star during an interview in his office across from Parliament Hill.
“Canada has to be clear, if they’re going into anything like this, what the rules of engagement will be for any of our troops … that we have the ability to ensure their security,” he said.
During their visit to the UN, Lang and several other members of the Senate committee met with representatives of a number of African nations as well as European countries, such as the Netherlands, that have troops deployed to Africa.
He said there was an “overwhelming” call for Canada to focus on training local soldiers, likely from the African Union, to better enable them to take on the duties of serving in a conflict zone.
“Canadians can bring a fair amount of expertise to the table,” he said. “That was definitely an area that was said over and over again.”
Equipment, such as armoured vehicles, helicopters and other airlift capabilities, was also cited as another area where Canada could help.
Yet the discussions at the UN also underscored the challenge that lies ahead and the fact that the scale of conflict demands long-term intervention.
“It was clearly put to us that these countries and these regions that are undergoing such terrible devastation and political turmoil and violence, (it’s) a 10- to 20-year commitment,” Lang said.
“Not that Canada would necessarily stay there that long, but the fact is these are not a situation for quick fixes,” he said.
But he said Canada must learn from its time in Afghanistan, a costly conflict that began as a short-term deployment and turned into the country’s longest military engagement, stretching to 12 years.
Some have charged that the Liberal government is keen to send troops to Africa as part of its campaign to win a seat on the UN Security Council.
But Lang said the driving consideration must be the “public security of Canada.”
“At the end of the day, we have to know why we are going to deploy to any parts of the world, and that includes Africa. Why is it in our national interest? I think that has to be fully explained to us as Canadians,” he said.
Lang said the rationale is clearer for Europeans and their struggle against extremist terrorism, since Africa is in their “backyard.”
Lang said he came away from the visit “a bit overwhelmed” at the magnitude of the challenges confronting some of the nations.
“But I also came away knowing that Canada has been pulling its weight,” he said. “We’re not taking a back seat to anyone.”
In late August, the government sent a reconnaissance team of officials to scout the situation on the ground.
Sajjan’s trip comes as Sen. Daniel Lang, chair of the Senate committee on national security and defence, warns that the military mission to Africa could be risky and could ensnare Canada for the long term.
Lang said discussions at UN headquarters last week provided a sobering overview of the challenges that are certain to confront a Canadian peace mission.
And he said any commitment to dispatch troops on an African mission must involve a clear-eyed appraisal of the risks, the length of the deployment and how it serves the national interest.
“Canadians should be fully aware of what we’re getting involved with,” Lang said Monday.
The Liberal government is weighing options to deploy as many as 600 soldiers and 160 police officers somewhere in Africa on a peace mission.
Lang praised Sajjan for taking time to carefully consider the deployment, given the risks.
He said there is good reason such missions are known as “peace support” operations, rather than “peacekeeping,” in many of the locales where Canadians could wind up.
“There is no peace to keep. You are there to try and maintain some social order and stability and protect the civilian population because you have all these warring factions,” Lang said.
He cited Mali as one example of the dangerous terrain that might await Canadian troops. A UN peacekeeper from Chad was killed there and four others wounded in May when their vehicle struck a mine.
“It’s been described as one of the deadliest missions to be involved in,” Lang told the Star during an interview in his office across from Parliament Hill.
“Canada has to be clear, if they’re going into anything like this, what the rules of engagement will be for any of our troops … that we have the ability to ensure their security,” he said.
During their visit to the UN, Lang and several other members of the Senate committee met with representatives of a number of African nations as well as European countries, such as the Netherlands, that have troops deployed to Africa.
He said there was an “overwhelming” call for Canada to focus on training local soldiers, likely from the African Union, to better enable them to take on the duties of serving in a conflict zone.
“Canadians can bring a fair amount of expertise to the table,” he said. “That was definitely an area that was said over and over again.”
Equipment, such as armoured vehicles, helicopters and other airlift capabilities, was also cited as another area where Canada could help.
Yet the discussions at the UN also underscored the challenge that lies ahead and the fact that the scale of conflict demands long-term intervention.
“It was clearly put to us that these countries and these regions that are undergoing such terrible devastation and political turmoil and violence, (it’s) a 10- to 20-year commitment,” Lang said.
“Not that Canada would necessarily stay there that long, but the fact is these are not a situation for quick fixes,” he said.
But he said Canada must learn from its time in Afghanistan, a costly conflict that began as a short-term deployment and turned into the country’s longest military engagement, stretching to 12 years.
Some have charged that the Liberal government is keen to send troops to Africa as part of its campaign to win a seat on the UN Security Council.
But Lang said the driving consideration must be the “public security of Canada.”
“At the end of the day, we have to know why we are going to deploy to any parts of the world, and that includes Africa. Why is it in our national interest? I think that has to be fully explained to us as Canadians,” he said.
Lang said the rationale is clearer for Europeans and their struggle against extremist terrorism, since Africa is in their “backyard.”
Lang said he came away from the visit “a bit overwhelmed” at the magnitude of the challenges confronting some of the nations.
“But I also came away knowing that Canada has been pulling its weight,” he said. “We’re not taking a back seat to anyone.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)