We Need The Political Will

It presents the United Nations with a paradox though. As the violence decreases, the number of peacekeepers required is rising. Wars don’t just stop, they slowly wind down. In the modern world that is partially facilitated by the presence of peacekeepers in blue helmets trying to keep things from flaring up again. We also send peacekeepers to attempt to keep wars from starting in the first place and, since the, Brahimi report the establishment of ways to rapidly deploy peacekeepers are being sought. The success of these missions is questionable, once the shooting has started the UN has already largely failed, but to not try would be even more of a failure.

All this peace has left the UN a little short of manpower. There were about 50,000 United Nations Peacekeepers deployed on 15 missions around the world at the start of 2004 and it could rise to almost 80,000 by the end of this year as people are sent to places like Sudan. While the need for manpower has so far been managed mostly by developing nations, who fill the top ten of suppliers of peacekeepers, they lack the financial resources to do much more. Most of the developed world’s armies are already involved in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Resources are being strained to the limits all around.

Armed peacekeepers are not the only resources needed for a successful operation. More and more missions require UN agencies to restore basic services usually provided by governments. Depending on the specific needs of a nation where a peacekeeping mission is deployed; office workers, a police force and judicial system, elections, food security, and the rebuilding of infrastructure are all now recognised as being paramount to the long-term outcome of the peace process.

This can add considerable cost to a mission. In some cases even furniture for the office workers is required. Without the input of the necessary resources on any particular mission, the chances of success quickly dwindle though.

The increasing complexity of peacekeeping is a challenge that Canada is uniquely equipped to meet. As a nation with a history of peacekeeping and multi-lateralism, a wealthy nation with resources, we are capable of providing everything from the people in the blue helmets to policing to training to helping countries develop a transparent and effective electoral system.

There is a general consensus that we need to rebuild our armed forces, the question is which direction that rebuilding should take. The most obvious direction, given our history and the present needs of the world community, is to develop a force that concentrates on peacekeeping. It should be equipped, trained and prepared for all of the facets of a modern peacekeeping mission.

The UN is far from perfect, but Kofi Annan has called for reforms and we can use our reputation and history to push for changes within the UN.

One of the areas where the need for change is most pressing is in peacekeeping. Currently for a peacekeeping mission to be started, nine of the fifteen members of the Security Council must vote for it. Even if there are 14 votes for a proposal, if any of the five permanent members vote against a mission, then the mission cannot go ahead. The same process is needed to change the mandate of a mission. Reluctance by the permanent members of the Security Council to send additional resources led to the genocide in Rwanda. The small force that was there could not stop the violence and calls for additional support from Romeo Dallaire, the mission leader, were ignored because the United States and France were against such measures.

Attempts to correct the situation are ongoing and opposition is powerful, especially in the United States. There are signs that things may be looking up though. In June the G-8 met on Sea Island. During that meeting they put forth a proposal for the G-8 to train peacekeepers for the United Nations. Initially that would entail training about 50,000 people in Africa.

While the US is a major player in this initiative, and a bill was introduced to Congress on June 9, Paul Martin made little mention of it at the summit and the Canadian press seemed more concerned with the election going on at home.

The Liberal government has yet to take a strong stand on reforming the UN as Annan requested during his address to the Canadian Parliament in March of this year, and seems less interested in cooperating with the UN than developing an even closer relationship with the Bush government in the United States.

This is troubling considering Canada’s lacklustre response to the ongoing genocide in Darfur and the ongoing problems in Africa. It would seem that now is the time we should be drastically increasing our involvement in peacekeeping and the United Nations as a whole. Instead we seem to be drawing back from our international obligations. The Martin government seems willing to write cheques and offer small contributions, but there is little indication of a real long-term commitment or a vision of Canada as a leader in peacekeeping. Instead we have been playing it safe and depending on past glories. We are not critical of the permanent members of the Security Council when they drag their feet on declaring a genocide in Darfur. We have few soldiers to offer and those that we do have are all too often exhausted and ill-equipped.

We know what equipment they need to fulfill a peacekeeping role. We understand what is required. The Canadian people have indicated again and again the role we want our military to play is that of peacekeeper. Our government has at least given lip-service to that role being an important one...one we can be a leader in, one that will be good for Canada and the world. So why is nothing happening? A lack of political will seems to be the main cause.

It is Canada’s turn to take the spotlight and lead by example. The Martin government may show little interest in becoming an independent actor on the world stage, preferring instead a supporting role, but we are at least as capable as the leads in this particular play because it requires the talents of a working character actor, not the self-interested grandstanding of the prima donnas on the Security Council.