17 June 2020 - UNSC Vote

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

I remember us campaigning hard for it. In fact, I remember it being a bigger to do then than the campaign this time around.

Colour me somewhat corrected, reading the old papers it sounds like a bit of hubris on the GoC part, minority government domestic focus over international affairs, and Canada's overt support of Israel over other Arabic nations objections.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

A lot of effort being expended for a LPC vanity project.
Canada lost a lot of cred when it sat on its ass trying to find a safe Peacekeeping area, and then only stuck around Mali for a year.

For all the cheering we do about 'peacekeeping', we sure don't have many troops out in the field today.

I also don't think there's really much appetite among Canadians for a big peacekeeping mission. It's window dressing to make us feel good. We'd rather stay home and tut-tut from afar.

We continue to withdraw from the world. Aside from having a seat at some of the big-boys' table (except this one apparently) because of Canada's legacy, we continue to deviate back to the mean for a country of our population size and economic impact in the world.

We're the old athlete trading on the glory days.

[esquire]

^ I would argue that we really don't hear much about peacekeeping anymore these days. It's certainly a far cry from the 90s when so much of what we heard about the military had to do with peacekeeping, and the Molson I Am Canadian guy ranted about how we're a nation of peacekeepers.

Canada is barely present anymore on that front... we're #59 according to this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...N_peacekeepers

[wave46]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I would argue that we really don't hear much about peacekeeping anymore these days. It's certainly a far cry from the 90s when so much of what we heard about the military had to do with peacekeeping, and the Molson I Am Canadian guy ranted about how we're a nation of peacekeepers.

Canada is barely present anymore on that front... we're #59 according to this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...N_peacekeepers

The places that really need peacekeepers just aren't on Canada's radar, politically and culturally speaking.

Ever since Somalia there's been a definite shift away from peacekeeping.

The last time we flexed our muscles was Afghanistan and now we're a non-entity there.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I would argue that we really don't hear much about peacekeeping anymore these days. It's certainly a far cry from the 90s when so much of what we heard about the military had to do with peacekeeping, and the Molson I Am Canadian guy ranted about how we're a nation of peacekeepers

Peacekeeping isn't as effective as it used to be in the old days.

When Pearson first conceived the idea in the 1950s, through to the 1990s, most conflicts were between nation states, or at least well defined belligerent groups that could be negotiated with, and agreements could be reached that a certain line on a map could be drawn dividing the two warring parties. Peacekeepers then could be stationed along this imaginary line to keep the combatants apart. It worked pretty well.

Nowadays, conflicts generally involve terrorist groups who have no interest in following the rules, and the governments they are warring against also have little interest in the "rules" because their opponents are so furtive and difficult to root out. In a battlefield with no rules, there is no way a peacekeeper can conduct his role in a reasonably safe manner, hence the reluctance for countries like Canada to get involved.

Traditional peacekeeping is essentially dead (except in the few remaining more traditional conflicts). In most hotspots, actual military intervention is the more effective means now. You have to kill the terrorists. You can't negotiate with them.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I would argue that we really don't hear much about peacekeeping anymore these days. It's certainly a far cry from the 90s when so much of what we heard about the military had to do with peacekeeping, and the Molson I Am Canadian guy ranted about how we're a nation of peacekeepers.

Canada is barely present anymore on that front... we're #59 according to this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...N_peacekeepers

As much as I rail about the absolute uselessness of Peacekeeping in this day and age, numbers of boots on the ground is not an indication of usefulness.
Providing Air/Logistic/Communication/Command and Control are a far better use of our capabilities than deploying a battalion from the PPCLI to a far off place to interact with the locals and keep them from killing each other. Having 4 Chinook Helicopters providing logistic support to 500 Bangladeshi troops is a much better use of our capabilities.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

As much as I rail about the absolute uselessness of Peacekeeping in this day and age, numbers of boots on the ground is not an indication of usefulness.
Providing Air/Logistic/Communication/Command and Control are a far better use of our capabilities than deploying a battalion from the PPCLI to a far off place to interact with the locals and keep them from killing each other. Having 4 Chinook Helicopters providing logistic support to 500 Bangladeshi troops is a much better use of our capabilities.

I take your point but either way it still represents a reduced commitment. When you're running neck and neck with Portugal and Kenya in total deployment size you can't really consider yourself a peacekeeping force...can you?

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by esquire

I take your point but either way it still represents a reduced commitment. When you're running neck and neck with Portugal and Kenya in total deployment size you can't really consider yourself a peacekeeping force...can you?

We are not a peacekeeping force. We are a deployable combat capable military. Peacekeeping is what we do on the side.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by esquire

When you're running neck and neck with Portugal and Kenya in total deployment size you can't really consider yourself a peacekeeping force...can you?

What makes these countries inherently weaker (or worse) peacekeepers than Canada? At least Kenya has a dog in the fight when it comes to the need for peacekeeping.

I'd take peacekeepers from Palau if they were any good.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by JHikka

What makes these countries inherently weaker (or worse) peacekeepers than Canada? At least Kenya has a dog in the fight when it comes to the need for peacekeeping.

I'd take peacekeepers from Palau if they were any good.

It has nothing to do with any country being inherently better or worse. It's simply that for years so much of the rhetoric surrounding the Canadian Forces was that it was a major heavyweight contributor to international peacekeeping efforts. If that was the case before, it is no longer the case when the contributions of less powerful countries outweigh our own. We are a bit player these days.

Anyway, this is not a criticism of what the Canadian Forces are doing... it's simply a matter of recognizing the reality of the situation.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

We are not a peacekeeping force. We are a deployable combat capable military. Peacekeeping is what we do on the side.

From a reality on the ground point-of-view, yes.

The political optics in this country find a hard sale with that reality. Hence, peacekeeping is a much more benign justification for military spending. However, we don't 'peacekeep' much any more.

So, we have a military without a defined mission in our upper political echelons.

I'm not sure of your take on this, but I'm of the opinion that we need a mission for our military. We had one for many years that evolved as times changed. Now, seemingly, we don't have one aside from "Defend Canada", which is very nebulous.

Where does the future of our military lie?

Alternately, why is our government so excited to take on a international role when we use our position for seemingly no gain?

One wonders at the questions.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by wave46

So, we have a military without a defined mission in our upper political echelons.

The mission for our armed forces should be to defend Canada's interests militarily both at home and abroad. Period. Full stop.

For the army this should mean three combat brigades capable of rapid deployment either at home or abroad, either for traditional combat operations or for humanitarian relief. This includes the ability to defend Canada's interests in the north.

For the Air Force, this means having enough capable fighters to fulfill our commitments to NATO and to NORAD, and to defend Canadian sovereignty, especially offshore and in the north. As for the latter, this includes long range patrol aircraft on both coasts, as well as appropriate patrol and anti submarine helicopters capable of operating off our frigates. We also need logistical support aircraft to assist our deployed assets overseas.

For the navy, this entails coastal defence, and blue water operational capabilities in the Arctic and in both the Atlantic and Pacific as well. The navy seems to be heading in the right direction, although we need to update our submarine fleet, and I still seriously think we need to look at a couple of aircraft carriers (or at least Mistral type support ships) for force projection and humanitarian relief efforts.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The mission for our armed forces should be to defend Canada's interests militarily both at home and abroad. Period. Full stop.

I agree, but I'm trying to see the optics of it for a political sale point-of-view to Canadians.

Canadians don't really care much about our military except when crises happen - it withered and atrophied between WWI and WWII. At least post-WWII, it had a series of defined missions:

- defend Europe from Soviet invasion (ended in the 1990s)
- peacekeeping (we were actively involved in that until Somalia)
- Afghanistan (until we finished in 2014)
- now (???)

I think the lack of an active threat or mission means it fades from mind. Which is a shame, because the lead times required to get it back up to speed lengthen in the modern era.

[kwoldtimer]

I wonder if Ireland and Norway have seen the sort of partisanship/dissension that Canada has wrt their bids for Security Council seats?

[WarrenC12]

What time is the vote?

[MolsonExport]

why not give it to Qatar? Hell, they were awarded the World Cup, despite being a runt of a country and having only a fraction of its population as citizens.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What time is the vote?

Apparently it can go on for hours. Each delegation votes in turn.

[svlt]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

why not give it to Qatar? Hell, they were awarded the World Cup, despite being a runt of a country and having only a fraction of its population as citizens.

It's common to rag on international organizations for their shortcomings but FIFA is really on a whole different tier of corruption compared to the UN. Hell they can even make the IOC look pristine by comparison.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by svlt

It's common to rag on international organizations for their shortcomings but FIFA is really on a whole different tier of corruption compared to the UN. Hell they can even make the IOC look pristine by comparison.

The UN feels more like a bureaucratic quagmire compared to criminal corruption of FIFA.

[thurmas]

The UN has been a toothless entity for many years now this vote doesn't mean much and Canada has been such a non player on the international stage for decades now. Last time we had some influence in global affairs was when Joe Clark was external affairs minister and Mulroney was PM when they fought apartheid and acid rain and were able to keep Canada at the 2% of GDP NATO funding threshold for military spending which helped when we fought in the first gulf war in 1991.