Today is the UN declared International Peacekeepers Day.

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/2006/05/20/1589327-sun.html (2006)
"The thing that Canadians have to understand about Afghanistan is that we are well past the era of Pearsonian peacekeeping," he said.

www.therecord.com/pdfs/2006May23/A03.PDF (2006)
(behind subscription wall)
Michael Ignatieff says he’s taken a stand on Afghanistan, "and the reality is peacekeeping, as we’ve known it,is dead.”

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060517/nato_afghan_060517/20060517?hub=CTVNewsAt11 (2006)
Ignatieff argued that Canada must shift from a "peace-keeping paradigm" to one that "combines military, reconstruction and humanitarian efforts together."

I am slightly disappointed about all the major political parties in Canada tonight; as today was the International Day of the Peacekeeper and none of political parties have not made any mention of this day, or honouring those that have given their lives in the name of great Canadian invention of the 1950s.

Yet all these political parties remember about the Canadian Peacekeeping tradition when it suits their own party’s needs, such the constantly mentioning problems in Sudan or the declaring the great work the CF is doing in Afghanistan.

Once again the Canadian Military Tradition is being used by political parties to bashing other political groups in Canada in order to gain a few points in public opinion arena.

And UN peacekeeping is far from dead, with 18 active operations underway on 5 continents.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/index.asp

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
A little rant, I want to get this off my chest.

I am slightly disappointed about all the major political parties in Canada tonight; as today was the International Day of the Peacekeeper and none of political parties have not made any mention of this day, or honouring those that have given their lives in the name of great Canadian invention of the 1950s.

Yet all these political parties remember about the Canadian Peacekeeping tradition when it suits their own party’s needs, such the constantly mentioning problems in Sudan or the declaring the great work the CF is doing in Afghanistan.

Once again the Canadian Military Tradition is being used by political parties to bashing other political groups in Canada in order to gain a few points in public opinion arena.

Thanks for your time.

---

Well, Webgear, I think you make a good point about the collective failure adequately to acknowledge the sacrifice made by those who've engaged in peacekeeping missions over the years.

A bit of a digression of my own on the 'military history' question: right now, Canada's record of 'peacekeeping' is a bit of a political football, if I can use that term without being disrespectful to the soldiers involved. On one side, we see politicians and analysts who decry our departure from a peacekeeping tradition for something else (sometimes called 'peacemaking' or a '3-D approach' defended as being more suited to today's realities); on another side, we see some others argue that focusing too much on the 'peacekeeping' tradition as the core of Canada's 'military identity' (again, if I can put it that way) is itself a mistake, since to do so downplays Canada's non-peackeeping efforts in WWI, WWII, Korea, etc.

One of these has been historian Jack Granatstein (who is actually the one who's called traditional peacekeeping dead, I think).

My quarrel with this latter group is that their own account seems to me ahistorical: Canada's participation in a variety of military efforts throughout the 20th century and into the present one has been occurring in the midst of important historical developments in humankind's attitudes to war, such that it becomes a mistake to haul past Canadian military efforts (e.g. WW I or WW II) out of their historical context in order to justify or explain some current military effort, occurring in a quite different historical context.

So, for example, we had Peter MacKay unfairly (in my view) accuse the NDP of being modern 'Neville Chamberlains' for asking questions about the Afghanistan mission recently, as though the realities of the 1930s provided some kind of authoritative guide to the present circumstance.

In fact, I'd argue that they don't provide much of a guide at all, and that the 1950s-era origins of peacekeeping you mention point towards a good explanation of why.

Throughout the 20th century (and in fact, before that), humankind (aka 'the international community') imperfectly moved towards greater and greater restrictions on the use of armed force by states. We had the League of Nations, the Kellogg-Briand pact, the Atlantic Charter, the UN Charter, etc. I'm not saying these were perfect efforts, nor am I crediting all of their authors with true good faith, but I do think they represent a real trend in human affairs towards a growing global realization that the resort to armed force must be increasingly limited (even if only, in this nuclear age, for the simple sake of survival).

Peacekeeping, it seems to me, forms part of that overall trend (e.g. its reliance on minimum necessary force), and so I would see an emphasis on that kind of activity as a positive sign that the trend is alive and well, perhaps even strengthening.

Realistically speaking, of course, we're a long way from what I think we'd all hope the end-state of that trend would be, but what worries me about the current crop of peacekeeping skeptics who say either 1) peacekeeping's not 'realistic' today, we need a 'paradigm shift'; or 2) that was never what Canada was really about anyway, historically speaking, is that their skeptical arguments mask a desire to reverse the trend towards limiting the use of armed force, or at least serve the ends of those who would like to see such trends reversed.

My response to 1) is that they really haven't provided enough evidence to make their case that, in a 'post 9/11 world,' we need to do something very different; while to 2) I would say that the fact that Canada engaged in robust war-making in, say, 1914 doesn't tell us much about how Canada should behave in a post-UN charter world, where there exist generally accepted restrictions on the use of armed force that didn't exist in 1914.

Anyway, those are some of my digressive, rambling thoughts.

Oh, the 'paradigm shift' quotation is from Ignatieff, by the way, during the recent Afghanistan debate/vote.

Firstly, I want to thank you for the excellent post.

Secondly, I am going to reply to both Boom Boom’s and your post with a single reply to reduce the duplication of effort on my part.

Traditional peacekeeping missions are not dead; these missions have evolved into present peacemaking missions. I believe this change in difference styles between traditional and modern peacekeeping missions occurred shortly after the cold war ended, with such events such as Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

As with all techniques and procedures in the military, change is bound to occur every decade as the world changes due to educational levels of soldiers to development high tech weapon systems. These advancements are never really witness outside the military for various reasons ranging from political motives to general lack of public awareness or interest.

I believe in the “3D Approach” and the “3 Block War” tactics which are now being applied to the current peacekeeping/peacemaking missions. A current soldier now has to apply many levels of training styles (war fighter, diplomat, protector, and builder) and in a very short amount of time compare to a peacekeeper of the 1950s, 60s, 70s or 80s.

I believe the public has to be made aware of past peacekeeping experiences (positive and negative) and how the military actually works (the differences between army, navy and air elements), and understanding what the military consists of (actually numbers and trade descriptions).

I believe that peacekeeping and war fighting roles has to be maintained within the CF. If the Canadian public wants to have a military that can be deployed to several countries at once, this will take a great amount of resources and money, the defence budget will have to be increased and a clear defence/foreign policy has to be made cleared. I do not believe the military can handle any more “lets send the troops there because that will get us some votes during the next election”.

The use of peacekeeping forces to prevent conflicts from re-starting through misunderstandings or the actions of individual soldiers was a useful tool, although I'm not sure if it was as successful as we like to think.

The collapse of the Soviet Union brought about a bit of a power vacuum in much of the world. Suddenly the West could go and "help" in areas that fell apart such as Somalia and the former Yugoslavia. The only problem was that in most cases they went in as "peacekeepers" without any peace to keep. If you don't have the consent of all parties then you are actually going to war. The UN peacekeeping forces of the 90s were pretty much unprepared to actually go to war to establish peace (on both the moral and physical planes). Rwanda was, perhaps, the extreme example of the impotence of a classical blue-beret or blue-helmet approach.

Bosnia was finally sorted out for good or for bad by a coalition of Croatians and Bosnians backed by US airpower. The peace that resulted with with Dayton accords was enforced by NATO troops with robust equipment and rules of engagement. Peace was brough to Rwanda by the Tutsi forces that swept through immediately after the massacres.

That being said, there have been some recent "peacekeeping" successes such as Eritria. That was a classic blue-helmet operation were both sides had ceased-fire and consented to a peacekeeping force.

I beleive that the future holds more warfighting and less peacekeeping. The warfighting will usually be "low-intensity" or "asymetric", and some may mislabel these forces as peacekeepers. Going to a war-torn country without the consent of all parties is going to war, not peacekeeping. It is an important decision, and it is wise to call it what it is up front rather than dress it up as peacekeeping.

Cheers,

Sgm

Something that we had talked about earlier.

Thanks for your posts, too. They are informative.

A couple of points for now:

1) What, in your view, has brought about this shift from peacekeeping to peacemaking? Is it the geopolitical shifts TK421 is talking about, or something else? Also, have all countries made this transition, or are there still nations focusing primarily on the 'traditional' kind of peacekeeping? (Obviously, different missions will have different mandates, I understand that, and a nation may contribute to two or more different missions, but I'm wondering if there are any patterns to national participation, as you see it.) Finally, does a nation's military capabilities (e.g. thermal imaging, LAVs, satellite-guided munitions) have anything to do with the kind of missions it's likely to sign up for?

2) What would be your response to the concerns of certain NGOs that modern-day 'peacemaking's' blurring of the lines between military action and humanitarian aid can cause serious problems? I know not all NGOs express this concern, and I understand the arguments of those who say you can't have aid or development without security, but I have heard concerns raised by groups I respect (e.g. the Mennonite Central Committee, most recently--a group that has been working in Afghanistan to help schoolchildren and others since 1996) that it can be counterproductive to blur such lines, both for the current work in Afghanistan and for work elsewhere, where organization X might be seen as 'biased' for having cooperated with country Y's military in Afghanistan:

quote:

---

"The military is trained to provide security—that's their job, that's their training," he explained. "In extreme circumstances it may be necessary for a foreign military to combine active combat and humanitarian assistance but as a general rule it is best to separate the activities of the army and humanitarian agencies.

---

Thanks in advance for any responses you might have.

[ 30 May 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]

Counter-insurgence and urban warfare is becoming the model of fighting wars now, large armour battles of World War Two are almost out of date and very unlikely to happen ever again.

A national pattern of peacekeeping participation comes down to one issue in my view, that issue is money. For each soldier a nation provides to a UN peacekeeping mission, that nation receives a certain amount of dollars for participating in a mission. This is why so many poor countries give their soldier’s service to the UN. The UN says that the soldiers are suppose to receive the money on their pay however this rarely happens, the money is just put into the governments coffers. These countries that provide soldiers are never able to provide support for the soldiers while that are deployed, I have seen countries deploy troops that have no have no winter kit into the Yugoslavia during the winter months, and these troops were station in the mountains.

A nation's military capabilities (e.g. thermal imaging, LAVs, satellite-guided munitions) does relate to the success for a missions. A lot of nations do not even provide vehicles or radios to their soldiers when they are deployed for a UN mission.

Here is a thread that talks about the NGO/military issue. In short this is concept is just starting out and does have growing pains. I think the major problem of this issue is “personality drive” between leaders on both sides. These people are trying to build empires and will not except change or listen to another person’s experience about a certain situation in a certain country.

quote:

---

Webgear: Counter-insurgence and urban warfare is becoming the model of fighting wars now, large armour battles of World War Two are almost out of date and very unlikely to happen ever again.

---

This seems to blur the lines between civilians and combatants. The USA had a lot to do with counter-insurgency (C-I) approaches in Latin America, for example. "Strategic hamlets", the invention of the "death squad" and other aspects of C-I are two examples of US influence.

Perhaps, now that there is not the same counter-weight in international affairs that the Soviets provided means that theoreticians of warfare, especially US ones, look forward to an uninterrupted period of defending their empire. I dunno. But I think it is a mistake for people on the left to focus on the "toys" or weapons of warfare, or even on the structure of organization of the 21st century military, or such things, and ignore who the military is fighting. Who is the enemy? Civilians?

First and foremost should be that there is a genuine peace to keep between two or more former belligerents. These belligerents should all consent to the presence and mandate of the UN peacekeepers. These "mission-based" parameters were rarely if ever met during the 90s. If these conditions are not met then what you are embarking on is really war, and you must be prepared to follow-through on your good intentions and best wishes with the infliction and sustainment of casualties.

Equipment can certainly play a factor, but not as much as one would think. A peacekeeping force could have all sorts of whiz-bang technology and firepower at its disposal, but if it is not willing or allowed to use it then it is not much use. Conversely, a "poorly" equipped army can do well in a war if it has the training and will (both as an army and a nation) to win. That being said, I'd much rather have the good equipment than not!

Classic "peacekeeping" worked when it came it to support what diplomacy had already sorted out. When "peacekeeping" tries to become part of diplomacy then it is straying into warfighting. This kind of creep can lead to problems on the ground, as seen in a variety of 90s missions.

If we (the West) are watching a nation tear it self apart on TV and want to help, then "peacekeepers" are probably not the best option. If we decide that it is in our national interest to intervene then we should also realize that we are engaging in warfighting unless the various belligerents have agreed to stop fighting.

Cheers,

quote:

---

TK 421: If we (the West) are watching a nation tear it self apart on TV and want to help, then "peacekeepers" are probably not the best option.

---

If we're making decisions based on what we watch on TV, then we're probably not going to make very wise choices no matter what sort of mission is decided upon. Every country has a history and, in the world we live in, most of that history involves the colonial division of the world and now the neo-colonial economic dominance of a few countries.

In Afghanistan, for example, Pushtus, Tajiks, Turkmens, Uzbeks and others all have a "mother" country where they constitute a majority or at least have a much larger grouping to rely upon for political strength. It is only the colonial history of central Asia that pushes all these dissimilar people together in a country called "Afghanistan". The carving up of Africa by the dominant economic and political powers has created more than one war. Divide and rule. That philosophy and practice is far from buried on Planet Earth.

quote:

---

If we decide that it is in our national interest to intervene then we should also realize that we are engaging in warfighting unless the various belligerents have agreed to stop fighting.

---

There is nothing wrong with having a robust military presence in a peacekeeping mission when the circumstances on the ground dictate it.

No, I think you are correct. Just because you have the greater weapons does not make you the better armed force in a conflict.

On another note I think we need a military definitions and terminology thread. We need a website that can be used as a term of reference while describing military words and theories. This way we are all on the same page and not losing focus on the message we are trying to pass on.

I cited the experience of Latin America because, although the USA has been content, for many years, to support military juntas and such, many of those regimes collapsed. Perhaps, like the old East Germany, they collapsed because the infrastructure of spying on everyone cost too much. Perhaps, likely, there were other factors. If democracy is cheaper it will prevail.

Somalia, perhaps, was an example of a TV-inspired intervention that lacked clear purpose. Once there then what? Who was the good guy? Once casualties were sustained the whole enterprise collapsed. The will was not there, as there were no vital national interests at stake.

Bosnia and Rwanda were examples of the classic UN peacekeeping mission's impotence in the face of people who had the will to enact their evil. Hand-wringing and condemnation do little in the face of force. "Stop, or I'll say Stop again." That is why we have and always will have armies.

Cheers,

........................

Edited to add:

quote:

---

TK 421: ...but the reason that the West went to Afghanistan was the terrorist attacks of 9/11, not our watching Afghanistan's civil war on TV.

---

It would be more apt to write that the US invaded Afghanistan over 9-11 as seen on TV. The USA demanded that the Taliban regime hand over ObL but refused to provide any evidence of his involvement. They invaded anyway and the horrific consequences are well enumerated elsewhere. It resembled an act of revenge or something like that. I remember General Myers saying publicly during the bombing campaign that "there is no limit to our bombing."

They never caught ObL and still haven't. So the events of 9-11 seem more like an excuse than a reason to invade and bomb and occupy Afghanistan. I would look to a "happy coincidence" for the planners that certain economic interests (oil, for example) coincide with the political interests (catch ObL, etc.) of invading that country. Again, what politicians and public figures say about their actions should be distinguished from a careful analysis of those actions.

[ 31 May 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]