November 7, 2011 – Get a sneak preview of our upcoming History Wars debate today! Historian Jack Granatstein writes an op-ed in iPolitics on the debate resolution: “After Afghanistan the Canadian Forces should keep the peace rather than wage war.” The op-ed was also published in The Hill Times. An excerpt below:
So peacekeeping, yes, of course. But only if there is a firm UN mandate, full UN financial support, a desire for peace by all the warring parties, and a role that the Canadian Forces can play effectively. And unfortunately none of those criteria can be met in Darfur or Congo. The best Canada can do, the most Canada should do, is to provide money, training, and equipment for African peacekeepers, much as we have already been doing. And if we foolishly lose our heads and do pick up an African peace mission, we simply cannot forget that only fully equipped and war-trained soldiers can do the job.
What next for the Canadian Forces?
By Jack Granatstein, iPolitics, November 7, 2011
There seems no doubt that the Canadian public continues to believe that Canada is uniquely gifted in peacekeeping. Lester Pearson’s Nobel Peace Prize, the 60-year-long record of service in United Nations and other peace missions, and the popular sense that doing good is what the Canadian Forces should be all about—all this makes peacekeeping hugely popular. And with the Canadian Forces in the final stages of getting out of their brief combat role in Libya and the much longer effort in Afghanistan, an unpopular commitment (even though UN-authorized) because it involved killing and being killed and supporting the United States, what better way to re-establish the national bonafides than by participating in a major way once more in peace missions? Recent opinion polls found popular support for the CF to become a military that does only peacekeeping. The New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois, large elements of the Liberal Party, and the peace movement speak as one on this: Peacekeeping good, war-fighting bad.
But wait one moment. The countries in chaos that still receive most mention as likely candidates for Canadian peacekeeping participation, though less so than a few years back, are the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a basket case example of a failed state ruled for the benefit of a corrupt leadership and the corporations that loot it, and Darfur, a region of Sudan whose people have been killed, raped, or terrorized by government forces for religious and ethnic reasons. Before we jump in, we need to remember a few things, the first being that the government of the Congo wants the present UN forces out, and the UN is gradually complying. In Darfur, the African Union peacekeepers there tend to be underfunded, ill-equipped, and largely ineffectual. Canada has tried to help by providing money, trainers, and armoured vehicles, but the task is huge.
So why shouldn’t the Canadian Forces go in to one or both of these countries and sort out the situation? For a start, the UN’s willingness to finance and support peacekeeping forces is shaky at best, and while its leadership of military missions is better than it was ten years ago, it is still not up to par. Then there are the peculiarly Canadian factors that suggest participation in Africa would not be wise. The first is that the Canadian Army fought for a decade in Afghanistan and its soldiers and equipment have suffered in consequence. A period of rest and recuperation, a year or two of training and re equipment, is in order for our tiny army of twenty thousand. Good sense suggests that some time off is needed.
Moreover, the members of the Canadian Forces are still overwhelmingly Caucasian, and that’s never a plus in the Congo or Darfur where whites recall past colonial oppression. The CF is also a Western force that needs roads and mobility to operate effectively, requires a high standard of logistical support, and has small numbers at its disposal. Both countries are huge, and in the eastern regions of Congo where much of the killing goes on, there is no infrastructure, no roads that are passable in the rainy season. Darfur is largely desert, again a territory without many roads and little to support a First World military. In Afghanistan, Canadians piggybacked on American resources, but that would not be possible in Darfur or Congo.
What this means is that if the CF is to go into Africa, it will need a squadron or two of helicopters, its own reliable supplies of potable water, and secure bases and a solid logistical chain so that troops and supplies can be brought in—or evacuated as needed. Where are such things to be found in the jungles and the deserts? Worse than these largely insoluble problems, the local armies operating across Darfur and Congo, some well-supplied and by now experienced fighters, all know the terrain better than white guys from Come by Chance or Moosonee. They will fight to protect their access to the spoils and their ability to strike at their enemies. In other words, these missions will probably be more akin to war than peacekeeping and will likely involve combat. In such circumstances, our soldiers will need to be equipped with a full suite of weapons and dedicated air resources to meet worst-case situations. Peacekeepers in blue berets simply won’t cut it, and Canadian troops will need to be trained to fight in terrain every bit as challenging as that they have just left in Afghanistan. After a decade of service there, our Light Armoured Vehicles are worn out (the government has just signed a $1.1 billion contract to refurbish them), and we will lack sufficient heavy-lift helicopters to meet our needs until new Chinooks on order come into service some years in the future.
So peacekeeping, yes, of course. But only if there is a firm UN mandate, full UN financial support, a desire for peace by all the warring parties, and a role that the Canadian Forces can play effectively. And unfortunately none of those criteria can be met in Darfur or Congo. The best Canada can do, the most Canada should do, is to provide money, training, and equipment for African peacekeepers, much as we have already been doing. And if we foolishly lose our heads and do pick up an African peace mission, we simply cannot forget that only fully equipped and war-trained soldiers can do the job.
Historian J.L. Granatstein has published extensively on military and diplomatic history and was Director and CEO of the Canadian War Museum. He will be debating UBC’s Michael Byers on the topic: “After Afghanistan the Canadian Forces Should Keep the Peace rather than Wage War.” The debate, sponsored by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and the Free Thinking Film Society, will be held at the Bronson Centre in Ottawa at 6:30 pm on November 11. For more information and to register for the event, click here.
