Point: Canada Should Participate in U.N. Peacekeeping Initiatives. By: Pulsifer, Andrew, Canadian Points of View: United Nations, 2009 Database: Canadian Points of View Reference Centre by EBSCO Point: Canada Should Participate in U.N. Peacekeeping Initiatives.
Related Items
The United Nations: An Overview. Counterpoint: The United Nations is Irrelevant. United Nations: Guide to Critical Analysis.
Choose a Topic. Writing a Thesis Statement. Judging Fact vs. Opinion. Evaluate a Website. Writing a Topic Sentence. Editorial Process
Thesis: Given Canada's history with the United Nations (UN), we have an obligation to maintain a traditional peacekeeping role, as opposed to that of a peace-support operation such as the one being conducted in Afghanistan.
Summary: Critics of the UN state that the international organization has become obsolete, a needlessly bureaucratic body that cannot function in a time when immediate action is required. This cannot be further from the truth, as UN activities are only becoming less useful as a result of countries, such as the United States and Canada, refusing to take an active role in their peacekeeping operations. Given Canada's history of peacekeeping, it's surprising that it has faltered, particularly since Canadian Lester B. Pearson is considered the father of the peacekeeping force of the UN. This role as a peacekeeper, as opposed to that of a peacemaker, must be maintained, as it has become a defining feature of our national identity.
Peacekeeping and National Identity
The notion that Canada's military is a peacekeeping force continues to be a defining point of our national character. Ever since Lester B. Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957 for developing the idea of a peacekeeping force, Canadians have been proud of their role as international mediators. Many people wrongfully assume that the current operation in Afghanistan is a peacekeeping one, as opposed to a broader peace making undertaking. Rather than mediating between two parties and ensuring peace, Canadian troops are instead fighting on the front lines when necessary, and actively engaging in combat.
Peacekeeping is an idea that is considered an engrained part of our national identity, yet we have allowed our peacekeeping force to falter. Until the early part of the twenty-first century, Canada was considered among the UN's top ten contributors to peacekeeping operations. We have since fallen off of that list—dropping to number fifty—due to the involvement and need of our military resources elsewhere. Canadian Forces no longer try to prevent conflict; instead, they are fighting alongside other North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) coalition troops to force a peaceful resolution and to participate in "nation building" exercises.
While the mission in Afghanistan does have lofty and humanitarian ambitions, such as ending the injustices of the Taliban regime, we cannot justify ignoring similar peacekeeping operations like those in the African Congo or in the Darfur region of Sudan. Furthermore, In March 2006, Canada pulled its remaining peacekeeping forces from Golan Heights, a region in southwestern Syria, ending a thirty-two year Canadian presence there; this was the breaking point that dropped Canada to number fifty on the UN's list of nations contributing to peacekeeping efforts.
Opinion polls conducted on the activities of the Department of National Defense (DND) revealed that the majority of Canadians still view the Canadian military as a peacekeeping force. Both the federal government and the DND have made many attempts to change this definition, attempting to make the public view the forces as more of an active force which can play a decisive role in combat situations. This is a grave error on the part of the federal government, as Canadians take an immense amount of pride in being something other than a military machine. Many feel it is in our nature to play the role of a mediator, as we are not warmongers, and only deploy our military to defend countries and individuals that are in need. This has been the case for over fifty years, and the Canadian government should not seek to change that.
The Relevance of the United Nations
The US-led invasion of Iraq was a direct consequence of the American sentiment that the UN had become an obsolete organization. This idea seems to be shared with the Canadian government, although waning support for peacekeeping operations go as far back as the Chrétien administration (1993-2003). The sentiment is that the UN cannot act on potential terrorist threats and thus, do not care about the safety and security of their joined countries. There are five major powers that sit on the UN Security Council, and they all have to agree on what countries merit UN interference. What the five countries can come to an agreement on however, are hundreds of humanitarian issues in other countries that merit action. Due to Canada's participation in Afghanistan, which was sanctioned by the UN, coupled with the government's reluctance to be an active member of the organization, Canada's participation has become limited in such missions.
One such example of thinly spread resources is the UN's activities in the Congo. As of 2006, the UN had 16,000 peacekeeping troops in the country; of those, nine were Canadian. When the UN requested that Canada send four more, the federal government declined, saying that those resources were needed elsewhere. This refusal to cooperate shows a blatant disregard for UN missions and their overall mandate. If Canada is so committed to nation building and bringing democracy to Afghanistan, it seems logical that our ambition would also go towards equally corrupt states, such as the Congo. The relevance of the UN in a post 9-11 world is more pertinent, not less. The idea is to stop the cultivation of terrorism by not allowing corrupt governments to create disenfranchised citizens who will take their anger out on Western nations.
Conclusion
Canada's participation in peacekeeping missions in the late twentieth century and the early part of the twenty-first century has dwindled almost to the point of non-existence, a trend that is not in keeping with the perceived national identity many citizens associate with our national forces. There have been declarations since the US terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 that the UN is an obsolete organization that cannot keep up with the growing demands for security and safety in most countries. This could not be further from the truth, as UN activities prevent corrupt nations from cultivating their own disenfranchised citizens that could potentially become terrorists. Canada must reestablish its good standing with the UN, and focus on international mediation, not policing.
Ponder This
1. Does the author provide enough evidence in their argument that Canada should maintain the peacekeeping policies of the UN? Why or why not? 2. Do you agree with the assessment that the UN is not an obsolete organization? Explain using examples from the article. 3. Is peacekeeping more important than maintaining the security of one's nation? Are Canada's activities in Afghanistan directly related to that goal? 4. There have been claims that by having developed nations take part in peacekeeping missions they are initiating a new form of imperialism. Does that argument refute the thesis of the article?
Bibliography
Newspapers
Mayeda, Andrew, and Richard Foot. "Pressure Lands on Harper, Dion; Positions Must Dovetail or We Vote. PM Urged to Step Up, While Liberals Draw Ridicule for Peacekeeping Proposal." The Gazette 23 Jan. 2008, Final ed., sec. A: 4.
O'Neil, Peter. "Canadian Pullout From Afghanistan Won't Harm NATO." CanWest News 30 Jan. 2008. O'Neill, Terry. "Siding with the Bully: The UN's Human Rights Mandarin Defends the Offence and Offends the Defence." Western Standard 16 Jan. 2007, Final ed.: 37.
Pearson, Michael. "Lester Pearson's Four Faces of Peace." The Globe and Mail 11 Dec. 2007, sec. A: 23.
Ward, Olivia. "Is Pearson Legacy Still Alive and Well?; Diplomats, Former PMs to Debate At Conference." Toronto Star 11 Dec. 2007, Final ed., sec. AA: 5.
Periodicals ..FT Bruner, Thomas J. "The UN kicks at Canada's closet." Windspeaker 26.12 (Mar2009): 11.
"Canada Out of Afghanistan and Haiti!" Canadian Dimension 40.3 (May-June 2006): 5(1).
Chapnick, Adam. "UN Security Council Reform and Canadian Foreign Policy: Then and Now." Canadian Foreign Policy 13.1 (2006): 81-109.
Granatstein, Jack. "Opposition Should Be Reminded Afghanistan War is UN-Approved; While the U.S. Pushed for the War, Canada is Involved Because of NATO." The Gazette 12 Jan. 2008, Final ed., sec. B: 7.
Hanley, David A. "Canadians of the Shire - Like The Kind, Simple, and Hearty Hobbits Created by Tolkien, Canadians Display a Sense of Peacefulness That is Not Affected by Great Events--Such as 9/11 and Iraq." World and I 18.5 (May 2003): 32.
"Is Peacekeeping a Relic? Once Known as Peacekeepers, Canada's Military Has Changed Quite Dramatically into a More Robust Force Capable of Fighting. The Transition is Not Complete and There Appears to be Some Disagreement as to Which Way to Go Now." Canada and the World Backgrounder 71.6 (May 2006): 12(5).
Petrou, Michael. "HAITI ARE WE HELPING?." Maclean's 121.14 (14 Apr. 2008): 16. Canadian Points of View Reference Centre. EBSCO. 4 Sep. 2009
Pugliese, David. "Pearson's Peacekeeping Legacy." The Beaver 86 (2006): 14-16.
Sarigiannidis, Miltiadis. "Legal Discourses on Peacemaking/Peacekeeping/Peacebuilding." International Journal 62 (2007): 519-538.
• These essays and any opinions, information or representations contained therein are the creation of the particular author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of EBSCO Publishing.
~~~~~~~~
By Andrew Pulsifer
Copyright of Canadian Points of View: United Nations is the property of Great Neck Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.