Canada and Peacekeeping

The Greeks and the Romans had a culture of mythology that was fertile and imaginative. Who would have thought Canada does also? Speaking strictly in a modern context, we worship different gods in this country. Much less impressive than the ancient ones, but mythology nonetheless.

Maybe I am being a little harsh in arguing that the gods of peacekeeping in this country is mostly a myth. Our belief in it greatly exceeds our actual commitment. Canada has indeed taken part in many peacekeeping missions globally. Upon further scrutiny, however, the glaring reality of our military neglect becomes obvious. Since 1948, the number varies anywhere from 40 to 90 UN and non-UN missions.

Once upon a time Canada was considered a peacekeeping leader. A middle-power that spoke for all the rest. Spearheaded by Lester B. Pearson, who won the Nobel Peace prize in 1957, Canada was one of the first countries in the world to make it an official part of their defense policy to be committed to peace. Since then, many urban legends sprouted with statements like 'Canada has been part of every peacekeeping mission' and 'Canadians do not fight wars but keep the peace.'

Closer to reality, something that is often used as an example of a Canadian 'value' at work, Canada's role and actual commitment to it is not very impressive. According to a UN report in 2001, Canada ranked 38th in the world in actual civilian and military commitments. In 2004, the Conference of Defense Association in their scathing review of the state of the military, had Canada ranked 25th. Despite this, clearly Canada is no peacekeeping leader. So let us end the illusion now.

At present, Canada has roughly 4 500 Canadians forces and Reserves scattered across 18 major global conflicts. This number is expected to dwindle further as the Bercuson Report to the Minister of Defense recommends that Canada, among other things, cut drastically on peacekeeping commitments and design the Canadian military to be a small and flexible army ready to fight a limited conventional war with its allies. In other words, put an end to the peacekeeping misery. Indeed, when one examines the facts, Canada's present record on peacekeeping is embarrassing. Consider:

-Since 1948, Canada has rarely sent more than 1 000 troops anywhere.

-This figure went as low as 315 in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Compared to the
6 000 sent by Bangladesh, 2 800 by India, 2 600 by Ghana and 1 100 by Nepal!

-On a per capita level, the Scandinavian countries, among others, are vastly superiour in their commitment to peacekeeping.

-Our military budget, when compared to the NATO average, suggests that Canada, as a G7 country (in name only), is not pulling its weight. NATO allies spend $589 US per person or 2.2% on the military. Canada spends $265 US or 1.1%.

-Even if we factor in the size of the military relative to a population base, Canada (while among the highest in the America's) is clearly among the lowest in the world.

There is a typical Canadian logic at play when we discuss peacekeeping. Peacekeeping, for all intents and purposes, is part of the military domain. As such, its existence and effectiveness hinges on government support and funding as well as public support. Canadians, however, want nothing to do with the military but expect Canada to be a world leader in peacekeeping.

Since the Second World War, Canada has allowed its proud military to dwindle into obscurity. Not that any Canadians will ever overtly admit (some do not even realize it) but this hypocritical behaviour is a result of knowing the United States will defend us. It is the same with our semi-diversified branch plant economy. Increasingly, the United States is putting pressure on Canada to stop acting like a teenager. Of course, this stokes the anti-American fire that still persists in the halls of Parliament. A parent, in the end, must do what it needs to do, and the U.S. is no longer in any mood to humour Canadian teenaged angst.

Another possible reason for this inexplicable decision is the cold hard fact that Canada does not like to make hard decisions when it comes to war. We do not spend on the military not because we are so peace loving (though we are more civil and passive than most nations) but because it has caused us so much heart aches in the past.

In Canada, everything is measured by the vote. Politicians skillfully make decisions on what will get them elected here. Within this context, Quebec has always been key. By virtue of its history and circumstances, Quebec is rarely on the same footing with the rest of Canada. As a result, it has always been a balancing act for leaders to please all parts of the country. In the end, ironically given Quebec's romantic and dubious (practically speaking) aspirations, the federal government usually sides with Quebec on major issues with the notable exception of the Conscription crisis during the second world war which was anything but a crisis. It was so in the minds who hated the very logic of it. Thanks to Mackenzie King's political dancing (which came at a price as world leaders simply came to ignore Canada by not returning our calls....sound familiar?), he was spared of making the decision when it could have truly been a cultural disaster.

In any event, since 1899, Canada has been caught in the middle of two powerful entities, one an imperialistic one and another an empire light , when it came to the military. During the Boer War, it was understood, much to the amazement of French-Canada, that Canada must side with British Empire and send its sons into battle.

It was the same thing during the First World War where shameless acts of incompetence at the leadership (with the exception of a few) level (both politically and militarily) were masked by the sheer brilliance and bravery of Canadian soldiers that won them admiration from the enemy. When the second war rolled around, Canada was hopelessly ill-prepared. While appeasement gripped all major players, Canada was in a state of self-denial. They shuttered at the very thought of having to make a military decision. Once again, Canadians knew that this war had nothing to do with them, but the light of the Empire was calling. Rationally speaking, we did not belong there. Emotionally and subjectively, the tides of history deemed it that we did the right thing. Canada went, very much like the First World War, its ineptness was staggering but its soldiers, once again, saved Canadian honor.

The Cold War traded Britain for the United States. Whether the Americans were paranoid players is not the point (though recent declassified Soviet documents seem to suggest the Amercians were closer to the truth than most give them credit for). This time, its ally was on its borders and whatever decisions Canada made had much more immediate consequences. It has always been hard for Canada to operate independently betwixt two great powers but this is where leadership evolves into statesmanship and too often Canada, knowing better, tried to sweep things under a rug when it came to massive decisions whenever it involved the Americans. Always mindful of the potential wrath of the Quebec vote. Not only were they trapped internationally but internally as well!

Canada sent a small force into Korea. Even after the government neglected the military, it still made the decision to send soldiers who were yet to be battled hardened. Their foolhardy actions were reminiscent of World War Two. Once again, against all odds, Canadians soldiers distinguished themselves.

In the Second World War, Canada had some of the best fighter pilots on earth. In the First World War, the allies marveled at Canadian resilience. In the Second World War, it was the turn of the Germans to be in awe. In Korea, skirmishes with the Chinese made them realize their own admiration for Canadian toughness. All this in spite of our dithering and poor ability to prepare for war. It was a travesty and a disservice to our soldiers. For this, all Canadians should be ashamed. Our soldiers did more for the Canadian identity than most Canadian exports.

By the time the 60's came around, Canada finally made a decision and did not take part officially. The 60s, we all know about the 60s - part fact part myth. For Canada it was a coming of age of sorts. Canada was country in full control of itself finally. Its diplomats were skillful and its leaders talented. Canada punched above its weight during this decade and well into the 70s. Peacekeeping was to be a symbol and a gift from Canada to the world of our commitment to freedom and peace. Idealism never looked so good and it never stank so bad for posterity.

Our proud talk of peacekeeping does not match our commitment to it in cold hard cash. According to a CGD report - Commitment to Development Index- published by Foreign Affairs Magazine Canada ranked 17th out of 21 industrialized nations in financial and personnel terms. Canada is easily outstripped by the likes of India and Greece. My problem with this is that Canadians use this as a symbol of Canadian values yet there is nothing instinctively Canadian in it. All countries are committed to such a noble endeavour.

We can throw figures all we want and indeed they can be interpreted in any way. There is, however, a clear pattern here. Canada is not living up to its rhetoric.

In the end, we do not even lead by example hence the myth. Conclusion: Canada is not committed to war nor to peace.