Continuous Policy Development - Peacekeeping

Home / Blogs / Paul Maillet's blog /
By Paul Maillet on 27 August 2010 - 8:53am
Whither Peacekeeping

Traditional peacekeeping where we interjected ourselves after the conflict (after a ceasefire and with the permission of all parties) and where belligerents were tired of conflict, and we had a posture of neutrality, is not so applicable in today's conflict zones.  Today we are required to participate where war is still underway, where all parties may not welcome us, and where neutrality is hard to come by.   We need to be bold and innovative in creating a new approach to international, defence and foreign policy to accommodate these dangerous conditions. 

I would suggest we redefine international policy objectives to such as:

A Canadian foreign engagement policy in conflict zones that involves our participation and activity based on the primacy of peace, care, livelihood and justice.

1. To contribute to the cessation of violence: Activity relating to the reduction of conflict, characterized by providing security, protection or constabulary type operations, protect and serve not search and destroy, diplomacy, safe spaces, stopping the killing not war fighting.
2. To contribute to relief of suffering:  Activities regarding the care and wellbeing of victims of war.
3. To contribute to reconstituting livelihood:  Activity relating to rebuilding communities, societies, governance, and economic development where possible.
4. To contribute to justice and reconciliation: Activities that advocate and facilitate justice and reconciliation activity.

These four roles better suit Canadian values and could then serve to restructure foreign policy and military doctrine and force structure, equipment, training, and tactics accordingly.

I believe that we need to advance this discussion to renew our GPC policy on this subject.  I would like to begin an effort under the new GPC continuous policy development process to see if something can be proposed and approved.  I believe that the endorsement of 20 members are required to advance policy proposals under this resolution.

Further information contact Paul Maillet Tel 613 841 9216 or email at pmaillet@magma.ca

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Oops

Submitted by Jim Johnston on 27 August 2010 - 1:26pm.

Sorry, I posted this response on the wrong blog!  My bad.

Jim Johnston, Lambton-Kent-Middlesex Opinions expressed are my own.

I would encourage this ideas

Submitted by Stephen LaFrenie on 2 September 2010 - 9:14am.

Hi Paul

Thank you for spearheading this and for participating in the international evening on August 16th at Hart House.  There is discussion in the foreign policy forum and I encourage people to use that forum.  They can join or have invites sent to them.

I think we should use our own forum off line to disuss ideas and then put concrete proposals as they develop on the main site here in the FP forum.  If people don't agree then we can proceed as you need. 

I also hope that we can produce more public forums like the international evening and the events your team put together on Afghanistan last year.  The Green Party needs to work from two distinct angles.  The first should be to advance bold new ideas on approaching peace development alongside the concept of peacekeeping and the second would be to work in non-partisan efforts with individual MPs and members from other parties.  I have my criticisms of the NDP and how they approach larger issues as a party but individually, NDP, Liberal & Bloc MPs and supporters have worked to endorse peace  concepts like the department of peace even though it is not necessarily official party policy.   

Stephen

 

 

This blog reflects my personal opinion. It is not official Green Party Policy. www.departmentofpeace.ca 

http://stephenlafrenie.blogspot.com

Greens for DRC?

Submitted by Sarah Hutchinson on 3 September 2010 - 6:33am.

I like what you've written, Paul.  However, I find that the explicit wording in our Policies (see the Global Greens Charter - Nonviolence) are a little more explicit in how we will be focused on understanding each other as a route to deescalating violence as a better method than just parading military might.  Your article 1 does not do this enough.  Also, we need to be explicit in supporting the Global Greens Charter in "Nonviolence...requires...a global security system capable of the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts".  To this end, any overall GPC policy needs to openly state support of Canadian military operations on foreign soil be under UN auspices only. 

I'm wonderding what your thoughts are on GPC support for a Canadian mission in the DRC?  It seems likely that's our next site once we leave Aghanistan. 

Sarah Hutchinson Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing

proceeding with peace engagement policy

Submitted by Paul Maillet on 5 September 2010 - 6:16pm.

Hi Sarah, I agree with much of what you have said.  The outline was merely to provide something to form a group around and it will evolve I am sure.  Certainly Canada can be a leader again here in promoting a  global response capacity as you suggest.

I would be careful about locking in Canada to UN missions only.  We may want to "go it alone" if conditions dictate, and humanitarian operations sometimes need a collective response, or a "consensus of the willing" to meet a crisis.  We simply have to be true to our understanding of non-violence when we enter any operation.

My thoughts on DRC is it would be nice to have a policy from which we can develop a consistent response to such crisis, and obligate the government to act in certain ways. We do have to decide which of the tragic conflicts in the world we can spend our limited resources on, but we should not refuse to do what we can do when such suffering and conflict arise in the world. 

Our voice and values will be heard in Canadian politics.  We need only be credible to have influence.