Plan to send Canadian Peacekeepers to Colombia Fizzled

By: Murray Brewster, CBC News 

Canada had a small military team on standby to take part in a high-profile United Nations peacekeeping mission in Colombia, but foot-dragging on Ottawa's part saw other countries fill up the mission's ranks instead, newly released documents reveal.

The army "identified, screened and trained" 19 Spanish-speaking soldiers to act as ceasefire observers in the South American country, which is emerging from five decades of guerrilla war.

The troops were, according to a briefing note prepared for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, ready to go by October 2016 — just weeks after the Liberal government committed itself to deploying 600 troops and 150 police officers in support of UN-led peace operations.Play

The soldiers remained on standby for months.

A decision to deploy them, however, remained in limbo — until it was too late.

"No [Canadian Armed Forces] nominations were submitted to the UN and, as of March 2017, the mission is currently fully manned with no foreseen additional requirements from Canada," said the March 30, 2017 briefing note, obtained by CBC News under access to information legislation.
Worries about troop security

Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance, the country's top military commander, said the mission was considered — but he had concerns about how well protected the troops would be in the event of trouble.

He said concerns about force security are "a good reason for everything as to why we do, and do not, do everything the UN asks of us."

Chief of Defence Staff General Jonathan Vance. (Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)

Canada did end up deploying two police officers to support the special political mission in that country.

Ultimately, it would have been up to the federal cabinet to decide whether to participate in the mission.

The UN mission in Colombia was one of the more benign deployments available to Canada in terms of mandate and risk.
A lower-risk mission

Over 450 unarmed soldiers, in 40 locations, acted as observers supervising the disarming of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) — a mission that is more in line with the Canadian public's perception of peacekeeping.

The mission certainly presents a lower risk to peacekeepers than the tribal, jihadist-fuelled bloodshed in Mali, or the civil war in the corruption-tainted Democratic Republic of Congo — both sites of current UN peacekeeping operations.

"It is startling that we had the personnel trained and we didn't deploy them," said Walter Dorn, a professor at the Canadian Forces Staff College.

He said Canada's failure to send soldiers to the one of the most auspicious missions on the UN's plate throws into doubt the Liberals' election pledge to return to peacekeeping in a meaningful way.

Since the 2015 election of the Liberal government and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's declaration that "Canada is back" on the world stage, the UN has offered Canada a number of marquee posts and opportunities.
Multiple missions rejected

According to documents uncovered last summer by CBC News, Canada was: offered command of the mission in Mali; asked to deploy troops to replace the Dutch contingent in the same country; bombarded with multiple requests for helicopter support and; asked to establish a police training mission in the volatile Central African Republic.

All of the requests were turned down, much to the frustration of UN officials and diplomats with the European Union who were courting Canada on separate, but complementary peace deployments and training in the region.

"The cabinet is just not able to make up its mind about where it wants to deploy," said Dorn. "It seems there is eagerness at some levels of the Canadian government, but not others."

Last fall, Trudeau laid out the Liberal government's roadmap for rejoining peacekeeping, which includes phased deployments of transport planes, helicopters, military trainers and a 200-strong rapid reaction force over a five-year period.

Where they'll go, and when, is still the subject of discussions.

The federal government also made an important social commitment to deploy more women peacekeepers and to end the exploitation of child soldiers.

Dorn said Canada's contribution to UN missions is at an all-time low.

At the end of December, Canada had only 43 peacekeepers deployed on various missions.

DND Refuses to Discuss Combat status of Canadian Exchange Officers

By: Murray Brewster, CBC News 

New figures show there are 104 members of the Canadian military serving with other nations on exchange programs, but National Defence has refused to say how many of them are deployed in front line operations.

Officials are withholding the information even though internal government documents show at sometime in 2015 several Canadian fighter pilots — flying with an unidentified allied nation -—were engaged in combat against the so-called Islamic State.

The heavily redacted records, obtained by CBC News under access to information legislation, are dated April 15, 2015, and asked permission of former defence minister Jason Kenney to deploy a non-commissioned officer with a partner nation.

The Department of National Defence refused to discuss that case, but it was likely a dangerous assignment as a spokesperson said asking for ministerial approval was an "infrequent" occurrence.

When asked for up-to-date information about current exchange deployments, the department refused to provide any detail, citing a blanket of operational security.

"Due to force protection and operational security considerations, we cannot provide identifying information of our members who might be deployed while on exchange," said spokesperson Dan LeBouthillier.

The documents show the vast majority of Canadian exchange troops — 66 — are embedded with U.S. forces.

There are also more than two dozen attached to the British military, and a handful of others occupy positions with Australian, New Zealand, French and Dutch forces.

The exchanges, which are a long-standing practice meant to give Canadians practical experience with other countries, involve all branches of the military — the army, special forces, the air force and the navy.
Combat vs. non-combat

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair says it's unacceptable that the Liberal government, which promised transparency, is refusing to answer the pertinent question of how many Canadians are in harm's way in the service of other nations.

U.S. Army Sgt. LeRoy Bierfreund works with a Canadian instructor during an exchange program and live-fire training exercise at the Canadian Forces School of Military Engineering at CFB Gagetown, N.B. (U.S. Military Photo/Master Sgt. Benari Poulten)

"If Canadians are involved in the military missions of other countries, Canadians have to know that," said Mulcair. "We know what the Americans are doing there. We know what the British are doing there."

Mulcair said if Canada is sending troops to be embedded with those forces "how can Mr. Trudeau continue to pretend this is not a combat mission?"

Canada has up to 850 troops in Iraq, including 200 special forces operators, on its own mission in Iraq. The Liberal government recently extended the deployment until the end of March 2019.

Both the current Liberal government and the previous Conservative government have said the elite soldiers on the ground are advising and assisting Iraq's forces, and open fire on extremists only to protect civilians and allies.

The NDP say that constitutes a combat mission.

Steve Day, a former special forces commander, says he doesn't understand why the government simply doesn't come out and say the country is involved in a "low-intensity conflict" alongside its allies.

"Politicians do not give the Canadian public enough credit on why we have to do certain things," said Day, a retired lieutenant-colonel and head of the private security firm Reticle Ventures Canada.

"I think if they gave the Canadian public a bit more credit, they wouldn't be afraid to say combat. They don't have this debate in any other leading Western democracy."

Washington, under former president Barak Obama, parsed its words carefully when it came to military operations in Iraq, sending in special forces and using similar language about advising and assisting local forces.

Since the election of U.S. President Donald Trump that rhetoric has largely been jettisoned and the U.S. has openly acknowledged deploying troops in Syria to aid in the campaign to unseat ISIS from its de facto capital in Raqqa.

National Defence acknowledges Canadian special forces are eligible to serve "where opportunities exist" with other militaries on exchange, but refused to disclose how many, if any, are involved in U.S. operations in Syria.

And spokesperson Dan LeBouthillier, who declined to offer specifics about the current exchanges, recently drew a sharp distinction between the activities of Canada and its allies.

"Canadian Armed Forces personnel on exchange with other allied countries staff may be deployed by their host nation," he wrote in an email. "This can include a wide spectrum of activities, from humanitarian assistance to dynamic operations. In these instances, it is not a Canadian mission and Canada is not deploying these personnel. The host nation is."

The documents noted, however, that the federal government has discretion on whether to allow Canadians to serve in another nation's combat unit, noting "each situation is unique."
Political legacy

Mulcair argues the secrecy is more to do with politics than security.

"Justin Trudeau owes it to Canadians to come clean," Mulcair told CBC News. "For our troops to be in harm's way; Canadians have every right to know what's going on."

There was a political uproar in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq when it was discovered Canadians were serving in an exchange capacity, even though the government of former prime minister Jean Chrétien had decided to sit out the war.

During that time as many as 100 Canadians served in Iraq with U.S. and British forces.

Former chief of the defence staff, retired general Walter Natynczyzk, served as a brigadier-general commanding 35,000 U.S., British and Australian troops in Baghdad.

Retired lieutenant-general Peter Devlin, who later commanded the Canadian Army, also served in Iraq.

Internal government documents from 2008 show as many two dozen Canadians soldiers worked in the plans division of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in the run-up to the invasion and a further 35 were under U.S. command in an exchange capacity participating in the 2003 ground campaign.

The former Conservative government, with little fanfare, chose to acknowledge Canadians who fought in those campaign when it approved modifications to the existing General Campaign Star medal. The change meant campaign bars, which used to be attached to the medal, were replaced with theatre or service specific ribbons.

The Battle to get More Women into the Military

This article was originally published on The Conversation, an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. Disclosure information is available on the original site.
——

The Trudeau government released a new defence policy in early June, after months of speculation about the size of the defence budget, purchase of major equipment and Canada’s future role in military operations.

The election of Donald Trump in the U.S. no doubt threw the process off course and forced certain revisions to the policy, which was initially due in January. The policy offers guidelines on the types of operations the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) might undertake and promises a steady increase in funding over the next decade. But its main focus is on people — the women and men who dedicate their life to military service.


Highlighting the importance of diversity, the policy pays special attention to female service members and aims “to further increase the representation of women in the military by one per cent annually towards a goal of 25 per cent in 10 years.” Driving this shift is the assumption the CAF is in need of culture change — and that more women and the use of gender perspectives will improve the effectiveness of the armed forces.

Reflecting the community it serves

Why are women now seen as critical to the military enterprise?

First, greater diversity in the CAF is key to maintaining a healthy connection between the military and the rest of society. The CAF Diversity Strategy recognizes this and envisions an armed force representative of the community it serves to ensure public legitimacy and keep support for the military strong.

How can the CAF attract more women? There are formal commitments to recognize the importance of retaining diverse personnel, but informal barriers remain. The CAF already has some of the longest parental-leave policies in the world. But single parents and women still face professional setbacks.

The CAF must quickly recognize and address the pressures of military careers on families, which includes frequent moves and prolonged absences from loved ones during deployments. Counting parental leave toward promotion will also be necessary for the professional advancement of women, who disproportionately take on the role of primary caregiver.

Women are also less likely than men to consider a military career in the first place.

To address these well-known challenges, the CAF’s new recruitment strategy will aim to showcase the wide variety of occupations it offers, in an attempt to make the military more attractive to women. The Women in Force Program will also allow for a “try it before you buy it” program for women interested in joining but not ready to commit.

Seeking buy-in among the ranks

Second, a more diverse CAF is good for the entire organization, men included. Although adding more women will not result in immediate and transformative changes in the way the CAF does business, research has shown that diverse teams work better.

Military leaders will have to constantly promote these initiatives, but will also have to assuage fears about the maintenance of physical and performance standards. All members of the armed forces must trust that standards will be enforced fairly if the diversity strategy is to have buy-in at all levels.

This kind of broad-based buy-in has proven elusive in the past. Even if no formal professional barriers remain, there is still organizational resistance to women’s presence in non-traditional roles, such as combat. And women are still disproportionately affected by sexual misconduct, as a recent survey showed. Discriminatory and sexist attitudes, thus, persist.

‘Hop on Her’ controversy

These common narratives can be tempered with dedicated leadership. In the military context, these challenges need a commitment to addressing hard-to-answer questions.

For example, the Chief of the Defence Staff issued Operation Honour, an order meant to eradicate harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour in the CAF’s ranks. This was a leadership decision that addressed a difficult and pervasive challenge for the military. But some members of the armed forces started undermining the initiative by calling it “Hop on Her.”.

This is where leaders in the military — who are mostly men — must be included in the discussion of promoting gender perspectives and women’s participation in the armed forces. For these reasons, the burden of change cannot rest on women’s shoulders, but must be spread evenly across the entire organization.

Education and training are key. Including feminist texts in the military curriculum or challenging the warrior ethos might lead to greater gender awareness amongst the upper cadre of military leaders, but most operators will only pay attention if they see how gender matters on the battlefield.

To this end, highlighting the link between gender (as opposed to women) and operational effectiveness is necessary. When soldiers are on the ground, accounting for the roles played by women and men — and their unique needs and power differences — is critical to operational planning and securing lasting outcomes. Understanding how gender intersects with social and cultural factors leads to greater situational awareness. Gender roles in Afghanistan and in Iraq, for example, had clear operational implications.

Promoting the operational and social benefits of women in the CAF is just the first step toward increasing their numbers in the military. To move beyond commitments and toward organizational change and buy-in, the CAF must go beyond women’s representation in the ranks and become aware of how gender relations are constructed, at home and on the battlefield.

----

Authors: Stefanie von Hlatky, Assistant Professor of Political Studies and Director of the Centre for International and Defence Policy, Queen’s University, Ontario and Meaghan Shoemaker, PhD Student, International Relations and Gender and Politics, Queen’s University, Ontario