Cornies: Canadian Parliament should give peace a chance

Article content

Inspired at least in part by Cat Stevens’ 1971 hit Peace Train, a band of ardent peace activists is slow rolling its way across Canada. The group of 40 left Vancouver aboard a Via train on Nov. 15. With a few stops along the way, they plan to arrive in Ottawa Nov. 20.

Along with other “peace trainers” from points south and east, they’ll spend three days meeting MPs, holding panel discussions and participating in a rally on Parliament Hill on Nov. 23.

Article content

Their aim, as stated in a petition to be presented to the House of Commons by B.C. MP Gord Johns: that Parliament “establish and fund a Centre of Excellence for Peace and Justice focused on research, education and training in conflict resolution, diplomacy and peace operations for Canadian civilians, police, military personnel and the international community.”

Never mind that petitions to the House seldom catch the attention of government, let alone result in action. Organizer Keith Wyton of Vancouver Island says he’s motivated as much by conscience – wanting to leave the world a better place for his family – as by the aim of changing the course of Canadian military and foreign policy.

There are good reasons, however, for Ottawa to consider resuscitating and reframing Canada’s once-esteemed capacity and commitment to peacekeeping.

This country’s reputation for being a reliable broker and dependable partner in international conflict zones was first established by Lester Pearson, who, as then-prime minister Louis St. Laurent’s external affairs minister in 1956, helped resolve the Suez Crisis. Pearson suggested creation of a UN-authorized peacekeeping force to stabilize the conflict and permit attacking forces to withdraw. He then committed a battalion of Canadian troops to assist.

Article content

Canadians widely embraced the role of being a middle power that could make important contributions to peacekeeping apart from having a military role. Missions to West New Guinea, Yemen and Cyprus became notable successes, Egypt and Vietnam less so. Nevertheless, between 1948 and 1988, Canada played an outsized role in UN peacekeeping efforts, contributing roughly 10 per cent of its forces, about 80,000 personnel.

Then came the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans, the scandal of Somalia and the horrors of Rwanda. Successive federal governments, following public opinion, grew wary – and weary – of international involvement. Funding for peacekeeping and peacemaking projects slowly was strangled. The war in Afghanistan essentially reoriented Canada toward military action with allies, rather than peacemaking.

With the proliferation of armed conflicts worldwide, the reality of another administration led by Donald Trump and uncertainty about what all of it will mean at NATO, a reinvestment in peacekeeping is timely.

The federal government, no matter which parties are in power during the next decade, will face increasing pressure to continue building its military capacity. That should include a return to peacekeeping and peace building.

Article content

Regarding NATO’s two-per-cent-of-GDP gauge for military spending: Canada should be guided by it, not brow-beaten with it. And as those expenditures grow, they should be guided by a multipronged strategy, rather than thrown at the purchase of hardware and equipment.

Ernie Regehr, the co-founder and former executive director of Project Ploughshares, now a senior fellow at the Simons Foundation Canada, says the Canadian Armed Forces have a difficult time recruiting personnel, owing partly to the narrowing of their mission.

“The Department of National Defence hasn’t got anywhere near the capacity to spend the kind of money that would be involved to reach two per cent,” Regehr says. “To be able to spend that, you need to have a much larger armed force than we have now…. If we were more actively involved in peacekeeping, I think recruitment would be a lot easier.”

How to begin? By deploying, “even if it’s 25 to 50 personnel,” into peacekeeping operations, Regehr says. “It would start to rebuild the culture of peacekeeping within the Department of National Defence. At one time, that was a strong culture there. There were military personnel who took huge pride in peacekeeping operations.”

Article content

Regehr points out that, despite the impression that Canada is a laggard when it comes to meeting international commitments, it’s the seventh-highest military spender within NATO and in the Top 10 per cent of military spending worldwide. The two-per-cent-of-GDP measuring stick is misleading, because Canada has a high GDP, he says.

“People love to mock Canadian military capacity, but it doesn’t comport with reality,” he says.

Furthermore, polling regularly suggests Canadians continue to see peacemaking as a good fit for the nation’s multicultural, multilingual makeup.

Ottawa should meet the moment: Establishment of a centre of excellence that resembles what the “peace trainers” are advocating. Urge other countries to join a movement that would create a consortium of peace building institutes. Grow our presence in peacekeeping and bolster our capacity to re-engage with a fraught world poised on the edge.

Larry Cornies is a London-based journalist. cornies@gmail.com

Article content