No longer Boy Scouts: Canada's new military vocation.

"There are limits to being a Boy Scout" - Jean Chrétien

ESLaPorte -September 21, 2008

---

Menu

 Introduction

Theoretical Framework

Just what is meant by "peacekeeping?"

Origins of the Canada First policy

Analysis

Conclusions

Endnotes

Introduction. The peacekeeping of the Cold War era is what can be referred to as "traditional peacekeeping." The traditional peacekeeping methodology involves lightly armed, United Nations' monitors to monitor a cease-fire that had been agreed to by the parties of the conflict. However, peace support missions have gotten messier and more dangerous, especially in areas where the peacekeepers are not always welcome by the conflicting parties. The tasks often include the interdiction of arms smuggling, drug trafficking and preventing terrorist violence, such as in Afghanistan. Many nations are not willing to risk their blood and treasure in such messy and dangerous peacekeeping missions.

The globalizing world order is loaded with instability, failed nations, religious and ethnic conflicts, international criminality, which can spawn security threats. The threat that emerged after the Cold War and the end of the bipolar system was the al-Qaeda terrorist network that perpetrated the attacks of September 11, 2001. The al-Qaeda network has a global reach and is believed to be plotting more attacks in Western countries, including Canada, and the dangerous global security environment is also viewed as one that is dangerous for Canada and Canadians.

The Canada First Defense Strategy is touted as a major milestone in the Canadian government's commitment to rebuild the country's military forces, with long term, predictable funding. The 20 year plan is intended to enhance the place of Canada on the world stage and "project leadership abroad." Also part of the Strategy is to connect the civilian personnel and the defense industry, and develop a strong relationship with the government. The Strategy calls for a partnership with the United States in the defense of North America and collaboration with the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD).

While the Strategy is a chiefly a plan to fund and modernize the Canadian Forces, it also is lacking the word "peacekeeping." What "peacekeeping" appears to have been replaced with is "stability operations" that are focused on the more complex and dangerous deployments that require more than a military solution. While the operations are understood to be usually placed under the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), projecting leadership on such operations includes incorporating the lessons of the peace operations of Afghanistan. Still, some are asking where the Canadian peacekeeping has gone. Prime Minister Steven Harper still states that Canadians invented peacekeeping, are enthusiastic leaders of such operations, and that is why the world needs a strong and vigorous Canada. It appears as if "peacekeeping" has been replaced by hard power and war-fighting.

The question is just what factors in the recent past, other than "Liberal funding neglect," lead to the "major milestone" of the Canada First policy? Part of the reasoning could include gaining Canada a "voice" in the international arena, as well as to meet the global security threats perceived to also be threats to Canada. By becoming a partner with its larger neighbor, the United States, Canada can also hope to gain a voice in Washington too, as well as in NATO. So, as a "middle power" is the intent of the Canada First Defense Strategy also to give Canada military power to gain clout and a "voice" in the United States, NATO and perhaps the United Nations?

 Theoretical Framework Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow (1999), in their study of the Cuban missile crisis, defined the "hard core" of classical realism as two basic tenets. The first is that states are unitary actors that are the key actors in international affairs and that states act rationally that best maximize their interests in the jungle of the international environment. The dominant goals of rational-acting states are security and power, threats and opportunities.

The Allison and Zelikow model for their Rational Actor paradigm has three organizing concepts. The first is that the nation or government is the actor, a unitary actor, and treated as if "it" was a person with one set of preferences and one set of perceived choices. For the purposes of this paper, only the governmental decisions that gave rise to the Canada First policy are considered. Why "Canada" created the military doctrine and what "Canada" hopes to achieve in the way of international influence and national security is the perspective. Second, threats and opportunities in the international "marketplace" move the nation to act for its preferences and third, the actor makes a value maximizing choice the maximizes national goals and interests 1.

The choice must be value maximizing and take into account relevant values and objectives. The analyst, according to Allison and Zelikow, needs to place himself/herself in the place of the government or nation. The rational action of the government is viewed by examination of the strategic environment and the statements, papers and speeches (taken together) of government officials that are charged with making value-maximizing choices for their nation.

The basic assumptions are that the actor, the nation, makes a choice that can increase preferred outcomes or decrease an undesired outcome. The two most common reasons why Canada chooses peacekeeping in the past, according to Kimberly Marten (2006), is that is that the niche of peacekeeping enabled Canada, as a middle power, to be able to gain much more influence and authority than the nation could otherwise have 2. What are looked at in this paper will be gathered from the Canada First policy, past papers and reports of actors that help make decisions and the actions of actors that make decisions for the nation.

Data will be gathered using the process-tracing method, with theory-in-hand, or "theory-oriented process-tracing," and rational actor model as described by Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow above. Alexander George and Andrew Bennett (2005) describe process tracing as "indispensable for theory testing" the method can be used for narrow the list of possible causes and allows for the mapping out one or more causal explanations for the outcome under investigation. Process tracing can be used to generate a general explanation, because of lack of data (or time constraints) or "selectively focusing on what are thought to be "important parts of an adequate or parsimonious explanation" 3.

To investigate the "disappearance of Canadian peacekeeping," especially after the Cold War and the September 11, 2001, attacks requires tracing some of the casual factors and independent variables that gave rise to the dependent variable, the Canada First strategy and the modern, new" Canadian national security paradigm and an increase of national defense spending.

Just what is meant by "peacekeeping?" It is important to work with a definition to understand how the new Canada First strategy differs from "traditional peacekeeping" or how the new strategy is similar. The first definition of "peacekeeping" is offered by Paul Diehl (1994) in that:

Peacekeeping is therefore the imposition of neutral and lightly armed interposition forces...;and with the permission of the state on whose territory these forces are deployed, in order to discourage a renewal of military conflict and promise an environment under which the underlying dispute can be resolved. Peacekeeping functions including observation, interposition, maintaining law and order, and humanitarian activity 4.

Dennis C. Jett (2001) offers some additional definitions for other types of actions-other-than war which are of use in this paper. Jett additionally defines "peacekeeping" as the deployment of a UN presence in the field, with the consent of the parties, involving UN military personnel, but also civilian and police personnel - and restricted rules of engagement. Also Jett offers other definitions of actions other than war missions. One such definition is "peace enforcement," which is "military combat operations conducted by UN authorized forces in which combat power or threat of combat power is used to compel compliance with UN sanctions or resolution." "Peace building" is "rebuilding institutions and infrastructure to create conditions of peace." "Protective engagement" is the "employing of military means to provide safe havens or a security environment for humanitarian operations" 5. However, "peace operations" is defined on the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada website as "a simple label for a huge range of connected military, diplomatic and humanitarian tasks, as diverse as reforming justice and security systems, disarming and demobilizing troops, reintegrating them into peaceful pursuits, and supporting humanitarian assistance" 6.

Origins of the Canada First policy -"Where's the peacekeeping?" Canada's 2004 National Security Strategy states that Canada's "diplomatic pursuit of international peace and security is driven... by Canada's national security interests." This pursuit of Canadian security is the rationale for the country's activism in both NATO and the UN and its arms control and reduction policies that were begun during the Cold War. This reflects the country's integrated approach to its security policy in the "area of the 3Ds" of diplomacy, defense and development. The national security document linked threats to Canada after September 11, 2001 to an open society and that an integrated approach is required to contribute to international security 7.

The February 2005 report, Meeting our Global Responsibilities, stated that "Canadians have a sense beyond their boarders" and that the Canadian Government's wants to "strengthen Canada's contribution to peace, prosperity and security in the world." The 2005 budget, which calls for a $12 billion for the Canadian Forces over the next five years is intended to "better meet international security challenges." Among these challenges for Canadian Forces were the War on Terrorism and establishing peace and security in Haiti, engineering, medical and basic support and relief to tsunami victims in Sri Lanka, and responses to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as Hurricane Juan in Halifax. The strains, according to the finance department, had placed strains on Canadian Forces personal and resources and that as the world changes, the challenges of the military need to change with it 8.

In the May 2008, Canada First Defense Policy, Canadian Forces must not only be a strong partner with the United States on North American defense, but must also be capable of "projecting leadership abroad by making meaningful contributions to international security" and promises for the future that the Canadian Forces will be able to conduct and lead major international operations. The era of globalization means the Canada's prosperity and security depend upon stability abroad. The international community grapples with security challenges that Canada must also help address, and these security challenges also effect Canadian national security:

Providing international leadership is vital if Canada is to continue to be a credible player on the world stage. This will require the Canadian Forces to have the necessary capabilities to make a meaningful contribution across the full spectrum of international operations, from humanitarian assistance to stabilization operations to combat 9.

Canada will continue to undertake missions under the auspices of the UN and NATO, and at the same time, Canada First acknowledges that today's humanitarian operations are dangerous. The idea of "projecting leadership" is defined as Canada leading a navel operation or taking a role in a large international campaign, such as in Afghanistan. The "lessons learned" from the Afghanistan mission for projecting leadership abroad, countering asymmetrical threats and post-conflict reconstruction efforts in support of civilian authorities, as well maintain readiness for conflicts anywhere in the world.

Time and again, failed and fragile states-and governments that betray responsibilities to protect their own citizens-jeopardize international order and test the strength of our convictions. These are times for capable countries to take a stand. Far from breaching its responsibility to its citizens, the Afghan government has invited international help. An effective international response can serve Canadian interests and give practical force to our shared values. Reasserting Canada's international reputation for reliability in Afghanistan can enhance Canada's own influence in resolving crises in the future 10.

The "Manley Report", the report from an independent panel on Canada's role in Afghanistan, states that "Afghanistan is at war, and Canadians are combatants." The view is that a stable and better governed Afghanistan contributes to international security, which also includes the security of Canada. While violence and destruction are a problem in one of the world's poorest countries, there is progress in the social and economic areas. The Manly Report declares that outcomes in Afghanistan and Canada's role in the outcomes "will directly affect Canada's security, our reputation in the world, and our future ability to engage the international community in achieving objectives of peace, security and shared prosperity" 11.

Sean Manley in December 2001 wrote that the analysts of Canadian national security policy are in two camps. The first camp is the "soft power" that is in line with "Canadian values" promoted by Lloyd Axworthy. The proponents of the Lloyd Axworthy camp believe that the prime motivator of Canada's international military involvement is to project these ill-defined Canadian values into troubled regions of the world. Manley writes that Canada's three main interests are "economic prosperity, protection of that prosperity and the physical safety of Canadians as home and abroad. Manley believes that the basis of Canadian values were those expressed by St. Laurent government in 1948, and that these values are relevant Canadian interests today: military security, economic strength and "national unity at home," and a willingness to play a creative role in international affairs 12.

Manley also writes that the second camp believes that Canada's reputation overseas is not that Canadians are "kinder, gentler Americans," but is remembered for 100 years of military strength. Manley writes that Europeans especially remember the Canadian role in the liberation of the Dutch, Italians and Germans in the World Wars and the Balkans peoples remember the Canadian willingness to deploy Leopard tanks against them in Croatia and Kosovo. Manley writes that the contact that most people in other lands, especially the "Third World," have with Canadian peacekeepers are as "nice," easily duped, with ill-defined values, poorly equipped and fettered by overly legalistic rules of engagement 13.

On Peacekeepers' Day, August 8, 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper gave tribute to Canada's peacekeepers and peacekeeping as part of Canada's military tradition and the country's commitment to "build a safe and secure world." Harper pointed out that Canadian Forces "have been the most enthusiastic participants in," and the "experienced leaders of peacekeeping operations around the world":

Peacekeeping is one of the examples why the world needs a strong and vigorous Canada. Today, with our investments in a modern military, Canada is better able to contribute to international operations that bring security and stability to those who need it the most 14.

The declaration by PM Harper that Canada's interest in "strong and vigorous" peacekeeping for the "what the world needs" is the reason why Canadian activism of an international character is focused on the abolition of anti-personnel landmines. The most vigorous activism appears to be from the Canadian Landmine Foundation, founded in June 1999 by Lloyd Axworthy and other prominent Canadians. The mission, according to the foundations website, is to build partnerships for action against landmines and to "remind Canadians of the international leadership provided by the Government of Canada" 15.

Defense Minister Peter MacKay (2007) argued in his article for Diplomat that the successes of the role Canada is playing in the Afghanistan mission is a good example of how Canada now has taken a more robust approach to stand up for democracy, liberty and the rule of law in the international community and help foster global stability. Canada intends to play a role in partnership with the United States to meet threats against North America and to work with NATO allies on issues of global security 16.

In a 2006 speech on the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, General Hillier highlighted Canada's interests in Afghanistan's stability and eradicating the al-Qaeda elements there. Also, General Hillier described the Canadian efforts in reconstructing the country, the creation of safe schools, and the combat courage against Taliban terrorist elements that also pose a threat to Canadians, as well as international security. General Hillier described as a "transition" the leaving behind the idea of "traditional Canadian peacekeeping" and the "traditional inter-positioning of troops between two belligerents who just need some help in implementing a peace accord is no more." General Hillier hints that Canada will be more selective in the missions it undertakes, and that the missions Canada undertakes will not only be in Canada's interests, but "help the less fortunate." General Hillier was described as having achieved the "return" of the Canadian Forces from the "shame of the Somalia" and "reconnected the Defense Department to the Canadian public" 17.

General Hillier, according to Steven Staples (2006), was on the front lines in the idea that the Canadian Forces are a war fighting force and that peacekeeping is a "quaint anachronism." The decision to give General Hillier the keys to revamp the Canadian Forces was made by the Liberal Paul Martin government, which gave the General a blank check to upgrade the Canadian Forces. Then, in a 21 March 2005 meeting, the decision was made to increase Canadian combat involvement in Afghanistan:

General Hillier arrived at the meeting with something much bigger in mind. He wanted to send a 1,000-strong battle group to Kandahar. The mission would change Canada's role at the time from conducting NATO peace support roles in the north, to a combat, counter-insurgency role in the south. Such a large combat role for Canada would impress the Americans, who had been suffering heavy losses, and wanted to rotate out 4,000 troops from Afghanistan for duty in Iraq 18.

Staples argues that General Hillier's push to revamp the Canadian Forces, especially for a transformed peace support role to combat role in Afghanistan, was mainly to impress the United States, but also to return Canadian Forces back to its war-fighting capability. Some military experts believe that Canada's war-fighting capability has suffered as a result of the overemphasis on peacekeeping and that the images of the Canadian Forces as "boy scout peacekeepers" had to be broken to return the Forces back to its main purposes, which is to defend Canada and fight wars 19.

In further reconciling the "changing face of peacekeeping" the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada website as of 13 June 2008 further explains that the change of peace operations has taken place as a result of the end of the Cold War. The conflicts that required "traditional peacekeeping" are unsuitable for internal conflicts and require civil organizations and non-governmental actors to implement humanitarian efforts where conflict resolution is no longer the exclusive domain of the United Nations 20.

The Canada First Defense policy is mainly a list of needed military hardware and infrastructure and the amount of dollars expected to be spent to make up for years of "Liberal neglect." The main purpose is to protect Canada and Canadians, but also to "bolster our ability to defend our values and interests abroad" as well as to be a strong and reliable partner in North American security. While likening the Canada First strategy to "managing your mortgage, electricity bill and cost of groceries," Defense Minister MacKay argued that the strategy is an innovative approach the rebuilding of Canada's military in order to protect Canadian security and sovereignty and "to fulfill a leadership role abroad." The Canada First strategy is about the acquisition of the right equipment and training of personnel, that is predictable, to help defend Canada, but to garnish leadership abroad:

The Government has established a level of ambition for the Canadian Forces that will enable them to meet the country's defence needs, enhance the safety and security of Canadians and support the Government's foreign policy and national security objectives. To fulfill these commitments, the Canadian Forces must be able to deliver excellence at home, be a strong and reliable partner in the defence of North America, and project leadership abroad by making meaningful contributions to international security 21.

The Canadian Forces will be capable of carrying out, according to the Canada First strategy, the "six core missions" of daily continental operations with NORAD, responding to a major terrorist attack, supporting Canadian civil authorities in time of natural disaster, supporting major events, like the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, and have the ability to deploy anywhere in the world and conduct and lead an international operation for an extended period. The Strategy commits Canadian Forces to maintain interoperability with American forces and to be a "strong and reliable partner in North American defense, especially in collaborating with NORAD and bilateral military exercises" 22.

The Strategy also commits Canada to "projecting leadership abroad" to make Canada a "credible player on the world stage." This requires that Canadian Forces have the military capabilities to undertake missions that involve combat, to stability operations, to humanitarian assistance. "Projecting leadership" can take a variety of forms, such as leading a navel task group, to a taking part in large international missions, conducted under the auspices of the United Nations or NATO. "Leadership," according to the Strategy, requires the ability to be well equipped and capable of deploying "boots on the ground." The Strategy declares that Canada has learned to project leadership through the lessons in operational planning and training in Afghanistan. These lessons include the maintenance of combat capable forces, access to the right type of equipment to do a myriad of tasks, and working closely with other partners 23.

Analysis. In the early 1990's Canadian peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia suffered from various, at times, humiliating setbacks. In December 1993, Canadian peacekeepers were disarmed and assaulted by Bosnian Serbs. The Liberal government of Jean Chrétien was upset, but opposed NATO strikes on the emboldened Bosnian Serbs. The Chrétien government expressed to NATO the growing dissatisfaction of the ill-defined UN mission where Canadian troops were increasingly vulnerable in the war zones. "There are limits to being a Boy Scout" Chrétien once remarked 24.

Kimberly Martin (2006) states that public opinion regarding the Canadian military and its peacekeepers declined after the March 1993 beating and torture death of a Somali boy who broke into the Canadian Airborne Regiment camp. This scandalous and criminal behavior tarnished the entire Canadian Forces in the minds of the public. The incident also caused a stinging look at Canadian peacekeeper training, discipline and leadership. The disbanding of the airborne unit was seen by some in the military as an overreaction and an unfair tarnishing of the Forces because of the actions of a criminal few 25.

This new era, world order reality, the view has shifted away from the away from the peacekeeping of the Cold War argues Douglas Bland and Sean Maloney (2003). In their chapter on defense reconstruction and transformation of Canadian Forces the authors argue that "robustness" is needed to meet commitments to stability campaigns and world order operations. The authors argue that the stability campaigns of this new era are much different from the old peacekeeping. In former times, peacekeeping of the Cold War, military forces were deployed in areas where the use of significant military forces was not anticipated. Today, modern stability operations from the Balkans, to the Congo, to Afghanistan, require fully armed infantry, backed up by tanks and with "robust rules of engagement," able to bring enough force to defeat national armies, militias, gangs and impose order and stability on local leaders or governments 26.

The hypothesis that peacekeeping as the "Canadian way" has been replaced by more "hard" security issues, can be said to be true, but replaced by stability missions and missions that are more of a peace enforcement and peace building character. While the term "peacekeeping" appears to have disappeared from policy papers and documents, the need for robust forces, or, in the words of Prime Minister Harper, "peacekeeping needs a strong and vigorous Canada" in order to "bring security and stability to those who need it the most." The Manley Report touts the successes in Canada's role in Afghanistan as in the best interests of Canadian security and this success can be seen through civil projects, as well, and is reflective of Defense Minister MacKay's idea of "helping the less fortunate." While at war with real Taliban combatants, the Canadian role includes stability building aimed to enhance stability and curb the global reach of al-Qaeda.

General Hillier, as Defense Chief of Staff, not only advocated for transformations to make Canadian forces more effective, but the ability to engage in tough "no fail" missions. General Hillier transformed the Canadian mission from one of peace support in the north to the combat operations in the south of Afghanistan. At the same time, General Hillier broke the "Boy Scout" image of the Canadian peacekeeper that some experts believe was eroding the war fighting capabilities of the Canadian Forces. The main mission of the Canadian Forces, argues General Hillier, is to defend Canada, Canadian interests and "to kill people" in the course of these two main missions.

Although the word "peacekeeping" has disappeared from Canadian defense discourse, the Canadian role in Afghanistan, which includes civil projects, such as the building of schools and training of police, as well as combat against the "noncompliant" Taliban forces, can be described as having elements of Jett's "peace building" and the continued use of force against the Taliban can be viewed as "peace operations." Taken together, these can be viewed as the robust stability missions described by Douglas Bland and Sean Maloney (2003) rather than the "lightly armed imposition forces" and the "restricted" rules of engagement of peacekeeping defined by Paul Diehel (1994). The Canadian role in Afghanistan can be described as a "peace operation" as defined on the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada website.

Jennifer Cambell (2008) writes, "Blue berets and Lester Pearson; good Boy Scouts and honest brokers. If you were thinking about Canada on the international stage even just 20 years ago, those were apt symbols and metaphors. That said, it's clear Canada's role as a peacekeeping nation is shifting" 27 . Actually, what have shifted are the definitions of "peacekeeping," as opposed to "peace operations" and "stability operations." David Pugliese (2008) writes that the aggressive and proactive approach in military power has gained Canada new clout on the world stage, especially related to the Afghanistan mission. The robust policy of the Canada First defense strategy, begun under the Prime Minster Paul Martin, has replaced peacekeeping, largely due to less peacekeeping missions, but also because senior military officers, especially Defense Chief of Staff , General Rick Hillier, have shifted away from peacekeeping missions to more quick response, combat-oriented missions 28.

Both Prime Minister Harper and Defense Minister MacKay have argued that a strong and vigorous Canada is needed to contribute to international security, which is viewed as also enhancing the security of Canada. On the August 9, 2008 observance of Canada's first National Peacekeepers' Day, Prime Minister Harper noted that one of the reasons for the new investments in the modern military by Canada is to "help the less fortunate" and is better able to contribute to international operations that bring security and stability to those who need it most" 29. There is a realization that the globalizing world is a dangerous place and that the failure of a nation or manifestation of terrorism in one nation on the opposite end of the globe can threaten the peace and security of Canada. Part of the rational for the Canadian desire to increase military capabilities is to not only be successful in stability missions, but to avoid the upsetting and humiliating incidents that Canadian peacekeepers suffered during at least some of the Bosnian conflicts. Unlike the argument that is offered by Steven Staples (2006) above, Canadian peacekeeping can be said to have changed to face new realities of the new era, a fact also stated in the Canada First Strategy - and that Canadian "peacekeeping" has not been lost out to the interests of the United States' War on Terrorism 30.

One of the achievements of Canadian diplomacy was the creation of the anti-landmine treaty, the Ottawa Treaty, of December 1997, of which 122 countries have joined. On the 10th anniversary of the convention, there were "celebrations" by Canadian embassies all over the world, especially Latin American countries, which noted Canada's international leadership on the issue of landmines. As stated above, the Canadian Landmine Foundation, founded by prominent Canadians, has a strong history of building significant partnerships for mine action and of reminding Canadians of the international leadership provided by the Government of Canada. The group is connected to the Canadian Association of Veterans in UN Peacekeeping and worked together to get legislation to recognize National Peacekeepers' Day in Canada on 9 August 31.

On August 9 observance of 2008, about the only occasion that a Canadian official used the word "peacekeeping," Prime Minster Harper stated that Canada "invented peacekeeping" and that "peacekeeping is a part of Canadian military tradition" and "Canada's commitment to build a more safe and secure world. Harper also stated that Canadians are, as mentioned above, experienced leaders and enthusiastic participants in global peacekeeping activities 32. John Manley wrote that the world, especially in Europe, know the Canadians as liberators in the World Wars and for 100 years of military strength, as well as the peacekeeping past 33.

A concern of Steven Staples (2006), along with the loss of Canadian "peacekeeping" is that General Hillier transformed the Canadian mission from one of peace support in the north to the combat operations in the south to relieve the force of 4,000 Americans. This policy started the process of transformation by General Hiller of the Canadian Forces from "peacekeeping" to "war fighting only" in an effort to please Washington, according to Staples. The stated aims of the Canada First policy are to be a strong and reliable partner with the United States in mainly North America defense 34.

The successes of the "projection of leadership" and the Canadian efforts in Afghanistan may have already earned Canada clout in Washington and in NATO. In a March 2006 meeting between President Bush and Prime minster Harper in Mexico, President Bush expressed his respect for Canada and that "the people in my country who respect Canada and have great relations with Canadians, and we intend to keep it that way." Both leaders acknowledged that their countries shared the same values, such as the respect for the rule of law, democracy and human rights, but admitted that both countries often disagree on how to defend and advance their shared values. President Bush further expressed his appreciation of the Canadian efforts in Afghanistan, in combating the Taliban tyrants there, helping with schools and civil society and the helping the suffering of the Afghanis with their fledgling democracy 35.

In January 2008, an independent panel recommended that Canada end the mission in Afghanistan unless NATO send an additional 1,000 troops and equipment to Kandahar. The Harper administration, fed up that other NATO nations were not sending additional troops, then issued an "ultimatum" to Washington that Canada would end its mission in Afghanistan will not be extended beyond the February 2009 deadline 36. A NATO spokesman stated that "Canada has played and continues to play a very important role in a strategically important part of Afghanistan and we would like to see that role continue" and the Alliance said that it agreed with Canada's assessment. About a month later, President Bush agreed to provide an additional 1,000 troops to Canada's request and in the background was the prospect that France would also send hundreds of additional troops to eastern Afghanistan to help NATO-led forces 37. In this instance, the Canadian "request" for more troops was listen to, eventually, when there was the threat to not renewing the mission beyond February 2009 - and part of honoring the "request" was expressed in the respect for Canada's success in the "strategically important part of Afghanistan." The Canada First strategy of May 2008 is not only intended to enhance Canadian national security, but to give the country a direction toward being taken more seriously in international forums such as NATO, the UN and the United States through the "successes" in Afghanistan.

Conclusion. It appears that the United States and NATO took the Canadian "ultimatum" of withdrawal from the Afghanistan mission seriously and Washington responded with the addition of 1,000 more American troops to Kandahar. There was also a plea from NATO to continue in the Kandahar role. This indicates that Canada has gained some clout and a voice in the forums that it wants to be heard from its successful role and mission in Afghanistan. Also, Canada is demonstrating that it is a strong and reliable partner with the United States in North American defense. This defense partnership will only project the Canadian voice even stronger in Washington in the future. So far, the "projection of leadership" appears to have had some effect.

  The Canada First strategy is an evolution from the post-Cold War, post September 11 terrorist attacks that acknowledges a new reality that failing nations and instability can be viewed a threat to the security and safety of Canada and Canadians. The ability to "bring stability" to enhance national security requires, in this new order and globalizing age, more than just the lightly armed and rule restricted peacekeepers of traditional peacekeeping. Today's stability missions require the ability to defeat national armies, well trained insurgences, as well as criminal gangs. In his speech of the first observance of National Peacekeepers' Day, Prime Minister Harper declared that the world needs as strong Canada. The prime minster's statements indicate that peacekeeping has not been replaced by hard power, but updated and expanded to make Canadian peacekeepers tougher, better equipped and better trained to do the job, if asked, and if it's in Canada's national interests, including "projecting leadership abroad."

TOP

Endnotes

1. Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow. Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. (New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers), 1999. 24.

 2. Kimberly Marten. "Lending Forces: Canada's Military Peacekeeping" in Handbook of Canadian Foreign Policy, eds. Partick James, Nelson Michaud and Marc J. O'Reilly (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books), 2006. 165-188. 167

3. Alexander L. George and Andrew Bennett. Case Studies and Theory Devolpment in the Social Sciences. (Cambridge, MA: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs), 2005.

4. Paul F. Diehl. 1994. International Peacekeeping. (Baltimore, MD : The John Hopkins University Press), 1994.

5. Dennis C. Jett. Why Peacekeeping Fails.( New York, NY: Palgrave, 2001).

6. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. "Canada and peace operations." 2008. June 13, 2008, http://www.international.gc.ca/peace-paix/index.aspx?menu_id=109&menu=R, (accessed on September 20, 2008).

7. Canada Privy Office. "Securing and Open Society: Canada's National Security Policy." April 2004. http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/docs/information/Publications/natsec-secnat/natsec-secnat_e.pdf, (accessed on September 8, 2008).

8. Department of Finance. 2005. Meeting our Global Responsibilities. February 23, 2005. http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget05/pdf/parespe.pdf, (accessed one September 9, 2008).

9. National Defense and Canadian Forces. "Canada First Defense Strategy." June 18, 2008. http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/first/June18_0910_CFDS_english_low-res.pdf [accessed on 8 July 2008].

10. John Manley, et al. "Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan." January, 2008. Government of Canada. [http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2008/dfait-maeci/FR5-20-1-2008E.pdf, (accessed on September 8, 2008).

11. Ibid., 11.

12. Ibid., 45,47-48.

13. Ibid., 49.

14. Prime Minster of Canada. "PM Statement on National Peacekeepers' Day." 8 August, 2008, http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=3&id=2215 (accessed on September 6, 2008).

15. Canadian Landmine Foundation. "August 9th is National Peacekeepers Day." http://www.canadianlandmine.org/peacekeepershome.cfm (accessed on September 20, 2008).

16. Peter MacKay. "Tough Love." Diplomat and International Canada. Vol. 18, No. 5., (November-December 2007): 11-13. http://www.diplomatonline.com/pdf_files/ Diplomat%20Nov%2007%20web.pdf (accessed July, 8 2008).

17. John Ward. "Hillier reconnected Canadians with the Forces." June 29, 2008. CNEWS. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2008/06/29/6020261-cp.html (accessed September 8, 2008).

18. Steven Staples. "Marching Orders: How Canada abandoned peacekeeping and why the UN needs us now more than ever." October, 2006. The Council of Canadians, http://www.canadians.org/peace/issues/Marching_Orders/perception.html (accessed on September 14, 2008).

19. Ibid.

20. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. "The changing face of peace operations." June 13, 2008. [http://www.international.gc.ca/peace-paix/change.aspx?lang=en] Accessed on September 20, 2008.

21. Prime Minster of Canada. "PM unveils Canada First Defence Strategy." May 12, 2008, http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&id=2095 (accessed on July 29, 2008).

22. National Defense and Canadian Forces, 22 June 2008

23. Ibid., 9.

24. Nicholas Gammer 2001. From Peacekeeping to Peacemaking: Canada's Response to the Yugoslav Crisis. (Ithaca, NY: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2001), 175-176

25. Martin 2006:171.

26. Douglas L. Bland and Sean M. Maloney. Campaigns for International Security: Canada's defense policy at the turn of the century. (Ithaca, NY: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2004), 226.

27. Jennifer Cambell. 2008. "The fight for peace." Diplomat and International Canada. Vol. 18, No. 5., (November-December 2007): 2, http://www.diplomatonline.com/pdf_files/Diplomat%20Nov%2007%20web.pdf (accessed July, 8 2008).

28. Prime Minster of Canada, August 8, 2008.

29. David Pugliese. "Canada's military: Limits to Growth." Diplomat and International Canada. Vol. 18, No. 5., (November-December 2007): 13-17. http://www.diplomatonline.com/pdf_files/Diplomat%20Nov%2007%20web.pdf (accessed July, 8 2008).

30. Staples 2006, 14.

31. Canadian Landmine Foundation. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. "Canadians abroad celebrate the Ottawa Convention's 10th Anniversary." July 7, 2008, http://www.international.gc.ca/start-gtsr/abroad-ottawa-convention-etranger.aspx (accessed on September 8, 2008).

32. Prime Minster of Canada, August 8, 2008.

33. John Manley, et al., 2008, 40.

34. Staples 2006, 20.

35. The Whitehouse. "President Bush and Prime Minister Harper of Canada Deliver Remarks in Mexico." March 30, 2006, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060330-8.html] accessed on September 20, 2008.

36. Reuters Canada. "Ready to quit Afghanistan, PM tells Bush." January 31, 2008, http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idCAN3022978220080131. (accessed on September 20, 2008).

37. BBC news. "Canada PM issues Afghan ultimatum." January 31, 2008, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7219415.stm] accessed on September 20, 2008. CTV. 2008 "Bush to Harper: I'll provide troops for Afghanistan." February 26. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080226/france_afghanistan_080225/20080226?hub=World. (accessed on September 20, 2008).

TOP