Peacekeeping if necessary, but not necessarily peacekeepingJ.L. Granatstein, in the Globe and Mail: With the Canadian Forces' commitment in Afghanistan scheduled to conclude next year, should Canada turn its attention back to United Nations peacekeeping?... The test to determine participation should always be twofold: our national interests and the capability of the Canadian Forces.
Our interests are clear. Canada must defend its territory, its people and its unity. It must work to strengthen the economic welfare of its citizens and, as a liberal democracy, it must co-operate with its friends in advancing freedom. These interests require that we focus first on our own territory, North America and the Western Hemisphere, and on areas of the world... where conflicts are likely to expand and threaten the globe. Alongside our national interests, we have humanitarian values that must be considered, as in Haiti...
We should be willing to offer military assistance to peace operations if key conditions are met. There must be a strong political will to act at the UN. The host nation must agree to accept foreign soldiers on its soil and demonstrably want to resolve the crisis. There must be a clear exit strategy or a withdrawal date stated in advance by the UN or by the Canadian Parliament. The mission must serve Canada's interests and, above all, our troops must be deployed with the equipment, training and numbers required to achieve the operation's ends...
We ought never to make virtually automatic commitments to UN or other peace operations. We need hard-headed, realistic assessments of our situation and interests. Moreover, public backing is essential, and our elected representatives should be required to approve every significant deployment. So, peace operations, yes. But only if it is something we can do and something that is right for us.
Historian J.L. Granatstein is senior research fellow at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.
