What does peacekeeping mean?

The Daily Gleaner (Fredericton)
Wed Mar 16 2011
Page: C7, Section: Opinion

^{Photo: REUTERS PHOTO
A protester, with the colours of the Kingdom of Libya flag painted on her fingers, gestures during an anti‐Gaddafi demonstration in Benghazi on March 11. Libya is one of many world hotspots Canadian soldiers could be involved in should the international community be asked to send troops.}

Peacekeeping is something this country has become synonymous with in the eyes of many over the last 20 years.

During that time frame, we've sent troops to fulfill that role in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Haiti.

Our soldiers performed well and made a huge difference in the end.

And then there was Afghanistan.

With close to a decade of combat action under the belts of our soldiers in Afghanistan, can we really be described as a peacekeeping nation any more?
That topic, under the heading "Is Canadian peacekeeping dead?" is the subject of an interesting lecture set for today at 7 p.m. in the Tilley 102 auditorium on the UNB campus.

It will be delivered by Lee Windsor, the deputy director of UNB's Gregg Centre for the Study of War and Society. The lecture is part of the Ideas that Matter series that features UNB speakers focusing on a variety of topics.

"The purpose of this whole lecture series is to get important ideas that bubble away inside the walls of UNB ... and get them out into the light of public discussion," the deputy director said.

Mr. Windsor said the one thing we, as Canadians, know about the future of peacekeeping is that it's changed.

"It has evolved fundamentally as the world has evolved," he said. "It's become more difficult and it's become more dangerous. But I think there is a tremendous amount of potential. The nature of international crisis, that peacekeeping forces have been deployed to over the last 20 years, has evolved from being the traditional story of interposing a neutral force between two nations. It's become the problem of trying to restore order in a nation that's fallen apart."

That is an inherently dangerous task to perform, said the expert. Over the last couple of decades, Canada has developed a lot of expertise on peacekeeping and how it should be done, Mr. Windsor said.

That expertise still exists in the all disciplines within the military, as well as in civilian groups, such as the Canadian International Development Agency. While there are a number of people who would not view Afghanistan as a peacekeeping or peace-building mission, it's another element in a series of failed state rescue operations Canada has been involved in over the last 20 years, Mr. Windsor said.

"Whatever happens next, we are going to take that body of experience, those lessons learned over the past 20 years and apply it to whatever the Canadian government, the United Nations Security Council and the NATO council decides is the next mission the international community wants to take on," Mr. Windsor said. "We've got an excellent body of experience and know how and real military capability to do the job. The kinds of vehicles and equipment the Canadian Forces has purchased over the years - the last 15 to 20 years in particular - are well suited to these types of missions."

The new reality, however, Mr. Windsor said, is that future deployments will rarely ever be UN blue beret peacekeeping missions.
While they have a place in the world, they are increasingly rare, he said, and can be done by countries that have less capability, professionalism and experience than Canada.

"The world needs more Canada, but it tends to need it on the front end of missions," Mr. Windsor said.

With many hotspots around the world, Canada could end up in any one of a number of places.

"With so many states that are failing or fragile around the world, the whole international community needs to think carefully about where it wants to and can invest its blood, sweat and tears in trying to make a difference, in trying to help," Mr. Windsor said.

"The underlying question in that is whether or not interventions actually make a difference. That's an important debate that people are having inside the academic world, as well as in the halls of the United Nations security council."

There are some missions that cause more harm than good to intervene in, Mr. Windsor said, while others dictate an immediate response.
Michael Staples covers the military for The Daily Gleaner. He can be reached at staples.michael@dailygleaner.com.

© 2011 The Daily Gleaner (Fredericton)