Mackenzie: Make Mali about peacekeeping, not politics

By: Lewis Mackenzie - Special to the Globe and Mail 

Lewis MacKenzie, a retired major-general, was the first commander of UN peacekeeping forces in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. 

So, the United Nations has officially requested Canada provide helicopter support to its floundering “peacekeeping” mission in Mali. Okay, but that is not the full story – far from it. You see, the UN never makes a formal public request for support from a country that is turned down. This would be too embarrassing for both parties.

In this case, Canada spent an enormous amount of time and effort to study, research, liaise, travel and debate internally before it publicly promised to contribute a modest force of some 600 souls to help out somewhere in the multitude of possibilities in Africa. The UN was pleased with the expectation that a small battalion of our highly capable soldiers would be sent to one of the three major UN missions to augment the Third World contingents currently doing the dirty work on the ground. After months of inexplicable foot dragging, the private negotiations with the UN resulted in Canada agreeing to a formal request for some helicopters. The UN was disappointed, but at least it was an actual commitment somewhere on the horizon.

Once the modest pledge had finally been announced, the subsequent public political pronouncements contributed even more to embarrassing our country at home and abroad. Having taken more than a year to come up with the commitment, we were told ad nauseam that while Mali was the most dangerous of the UN missions in Africa, our folks would be safe by avoiding the IED threat and ambushes by the insurgents.

Now I come to the crux of the matter: risk. In any sane planning process involving deployments into hostile territory, the first question that needs to be answered is, “What is the aim of the mission we are about to join?” The second question must be, “What is the chance of success?” When those two questions are answered in a positive, satisfactory manner, then planning for the Mali mission should continue. However, the misleading answer to the first question has been, “to contribute to the peace process,” which is ridiculous in the extreme, as there is no functioning peace process. With regard to the second question, the answer is “absolutely none.”

When the aim becomes clear and is determined to be in Canada’s best interests – including the ethical issue of protecting innocent victims who need our help – then proceed. Gaza, Sinai, Cyprus, Cambodia, Sierra Leone, Central America and Sarajevo are but a few examples of missions where risk was accepted as a given.

In the case of Mali, our government’s obsession with avoiding risk and actually advertising such is a clear indication that the decision makers do not believe the objective is achievable. Regarding the chance of success, the predicted end to the Canadian mission is our own self-declared end date of one year – no matter how serious the situation is on the ground or in the air at the time. Success has nothing to do with our departure.

Mali is a classic dog’s breakfast. In fact, it’s a dog’s breakfast discovered after he’s been sick. First, there is the on-again, off-again civil war that’s been raging since the coup born of NATO’s ill-founded attack on Moammar Gadhafi’s forces in 2011. Second, there are competing insurgencies and terrorist groups sometimes fighting each other and other times linking up to advance their own short-term self-interests. There are multiple international missions operating in the country with different aims, some of which are actually achievable: the mission of the effective French operation is to kill as many of the insurgents as possible. For others, it’s to protect some isolated communities vulnerable to attack. Some are not sure what the aim is, and hunker down in their base locations. The compelling and illustrative fact is that none of them want or will agree to operate under UN command and control, realizing that the UN is experiencing serious challenges in leading its own force of 16,000.

Before Canada deploys to Mali, let’s be told what the actual objective is. If it’s to support the so-called stalled peace process, that’s not good enough. If it was to be the protection of a small geographical populated area under threat, then fine, deploy Canadian boots on the ground to do so. If it’s to win some UN brownie points with a modest, low-risk contribution for future consideration when it comes time to seek a rotating seat on the Security Council, then stay home. Soldiers aren’t political pawns – at least they shouldn’t be.

Canada mobilizes campaign team for Security Council bid

By CHELSEA NASH, The Hill Times 

Global Affairs Canada has established a dedicated team to work on the government’s goal of winning a two-year seat on the United Nations Security Council beginning in 2021.

Eight people are working on Canada’s bid for the Security Council, with six at headquarters in Ottawa and two at Canada’s permanent mission to the UN in New York City, according to the foreign ministry.

Jocelyn Sweet, a spokesperson for Global Affairs, wrote in an email that the team is “tasked with co-ordinating at headquarters, at the UN in New York, and across our diplomatic network to support the international engagement of the prime minister, ministers, and diplomatic representatives.”

She said the team, which has been put together using existing resources, “provides senior officials advice on how Canada can most effectively strengthen its international engagement, particularly with respect to this important multilateral forum.” She added that “staffing requirements to support Canada’s engagement at the UN and resource allocations will evolve over time.”

Former Canadian diplomat Colin Robertson said he knows some of the senior advisers working on the campaign. He said he thinks it’s “smart” that the government has an organized team.

“I think you need, obviously, diversity covering different parts of the world, because this is a geographic election, at the end of the day.”

Tamara Mawhinney is the executive director of the campaign team and is based in Ottawa. According to her LinkedIn page, Ms. Mawhinney has a background in working with multilateral organizations, most recently with La Francophonie. Her deputy directors, all based in Ottawa, are Jeremy Adler and Brian Darling. Also working on the campaign in Ottawa are senior policy officer Lindsey MacKinnon, policy adviser Ashley Lefler, and adviser Jeffrey Heaton. The department wouldn’t give the names of those working for the team in New York who, like other diplomats posted abroad, are not listed on the government’s online staff directory.

Global Affairs declined a request to interview a member of the team, citing timing.



The top diplomat on the file is Canada’s permanent representative to the UN in New York City, Marc-André Blanchard.

One of his predecessors, Paul Heinbecker, said the team is likely working on keeping track of which countries Canada has received a commitment from, which votes it has committed to other countries in exchange for their support, and who has pledged support to its competitors. Compiling these lists and forming strategy to lobby certain countries whose support has not yet been committed is a big part of the job, he said.

Canada is competing for one of two available seats against Ireland and Norway, which Mr. Heinbecker said is strong competition.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Que.) announced Canada’s intention to vie for the coveted seat during a March 2016 visit to the UN headquarters in New York.



“We’re Canadian, and we’re here to help,” the PM told the UN General Assembly in a speech in September.

Mr. Trudeau’s predecessor, Conservative Stephen Harper, was criticized for his perceived disengagement from multilateral fora, including the United Nations. Mr. Harper’s government lost its bid for the Security Council in 2010, the first loss of an election to the UN’s most powerful body in Canadian history.

“The last time around, the backing wasn’t there, it was indifferent,” Mr. Robertson said, referring to Mr. Harper’s unsuccessful bid. Now, he said, “This is a government priority. I know that every visit abroad by a minister, one of the tick boxes is a Security Council seat,” meaning it’s a talking point to pitch to foreign colleagues.

“Working through the UN allows Canada to have greater impact and to amplify our voice by shaping international programs, policies, and practices on a range of issues, from security and development to climate change and human rights,” Ms. Sweet said via email.

She emphasized Canada’s work with the UN and its agencies on human rights, aid, gender equity, respect for diversity, and inclusion.

Some observers blamed the 2010 loss at least in part on Mr. Harper’s strong support for Israel, his stance on climate change, as well as what was seen as disengagement from Africa, including through aid.

The Trudeau government has indicated it wants to pursue a more “balanced” position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Though it has restored funding cut by Mr. Harper to the UN agency providing relief to Palestinian refugees, the Trudeau government has continued the Canadian practice of voting with Israel on sensitive resolutions on the conflict at the UN.

Mr. Trudeau has also sought to emphasize Canada’s ties with Africa, visiting Liberia and Madagascar last fall, though the Liberal government has long delayed announcing where it plans to focus a proposed Canadian peacekeeping mission or missions to Africa. The Trudeau government has also been keen to tout its support for multilateral moves against climate change.

Mr. Robertson said working on the UNSC campaign is like any other posting, and that it’s more than likely those working on it now will be rotated out by the time the election for the seat actually rolls around.

cnash@hilltimes.com

@chels_nash