The UN's Congo mission is not superior to Canada's Afstan mission
The Canadian Defence Attaché in Israel takes on Prof. Walter Dorn in a letter to the Globe (full text not online).
By R. G. ST. JOHN
COLONEL, Canadian defence attaché to Israel, Canadian embassy
Tel Aviv -- Walter Dorn is laudably clear in his article Canada Pulls Out Of Peacekeeping (March 27); he believes Canada should be involved in more United Nations peacekeeping operations with more troops. What are not so laudable are some of his assertions he uses to make his case. First, the Canadian Forces' peacekeeping record is second to none, and Canada has nothing to apologize for because our UN numbers are currently low. To imply that only the UN conducts peacekeeping missions is misleading. Second, Canada continues to contribute to no less than four peacekeeping missions in the Middle East, two of them UN missions.
Third, Prof. Dorn's wish to distance Canada from "search-and-destroy missions" overlooks the fact that some UN "peacekeeping" operations, such as the one in the Congo [see the linked post for the equal UN basis of both the Congo and Afstan missions], include searching out and destroying armed gangs. Given his evident horror of offensive operations, he should have argued against Canadian participation in UN missions that involve such aggressive operations, but he doesn't; nor does he condemn the UN for conducting them.
Fourth, he says "the Canadian Forces have decided on an almost exclusive focus on Afghanistan." The Canadian Forces "decided" no such thing. The decision to deploy to Afghanistan was one taken by the prime minister, defence minister and foreign affairs minister of the day.
Fifth, Prof. Dorn plays the well-worn anti-American card. Our troops are under the command of U.S. generals and U.S. senior officials, he says. No, they are not. They are under the command of the Canadian Chief of the Defence Staff via the Canadian Forces chain of command. The degree of control that the Americans have over our troops there is limited to the extent that the Government of Canada decides, just as will be the degree of control exercised by the Canadian general in Kandahar over any American troops in the Canadian-led brigade.
If there is going to be a constructive debate on the merits of more Canadian involvement in UN peacekeeping operations, then we need more objective input than that of Prof. Dorn.
The Globe, in the typically light and objective fashion of its Letters section, gives Col. St. John's letter the title: Hear the cannon roar.
Cross-posted to Daimnation!
By R. G. ST. JOHN
COLONEL, Canadian defence attaché to Israel, Canadian embassy
Tel Aviv -- Walter Dorn is laudably clear in his article Canada Pulls Out Of Peacekeeping (March 27); he believes Canada should be involved in more United Nations peacekeeping operations with more troops. What are not so laudable are some of his assertions he uses to make his case. First, the Canadian Forces' peacekeeping record is second to none, and Canada has nothing to apologize for because our UN numbers are currently low. To imply that only the UN conducts peacekeeping missions is misleading. Second, Canada continues to contribute to no less than four peacekeeping missions in the Middle East, two of them UN missions.
Third, Prof. Dorn's wish to distance Canada from "search-and-destroy missions" overlooks the fact that some UN "peacekeeping" operations, such as the one in the Congo [see the linked post for the equal UN basis of both the Congo and Afstan missions], include searching out and destroying armed gangs. Given his evident horror of offensive operations, he should have argued against Canadian participation in UN missions that involve such aggressive operations, but he doesn't; nor does he condemn the UN for conducting them.
Fourth, he says "the Canadian Forces have decided on an almost exclusive focus on Afghanistan." The Canadian Forces "decided" no such thing. The decision to deploy to Afghanistan was one taken by the prime minister, defence minister and foreign affairs minister of the day.
Fifth, Prof. Dorn plays the well-worn anti-American card. Our troops are under the command of U.S. generals and U.S. senior officials, he says. No, they are not. They are under the command of the Canadian Chief of the Defence Staff via the Canadian Forces chain of command. The degree of control that the Americans have over our troops there is limited to the extent that the Government of Canada decides, just as will be the degree of control exercised by the Canadian general in Kandahar over any American troops in the Canadian-led brigade.
If there is going to be a constructive debate on the merits of more Canadian involvement in UN peacekeeping operations, then we need more objective input than that of Prof. Dorn.
The Globe, in the typically light and objective fashion of its Letters section, gives Col. St. John's letter the title: Hear the cannon roar.
Cross-posted to Daimnation!
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 8:42 a.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home