Preamble

“Peacekeeping” is just one of a range of activities that the United Nations (UN) undertakes to help maintain international peace and security worldwide. Other related activities include “conflict prevention,” “peacemaking,” “peace enforcement” and “peacebuilding.”[1]

“Peace operations” is the all-inclusive term that the UN now uses when referring to its operations around the world. It is a term that includes peacekeeping, as well as conflict prevention, peacemaking, peace enforcement and peacebuilding.[2]

The UN defines the above-mentioned activities in the following way:

• Peacekeeping: “UN peacekeeping operations are, in principle, deployed to support the implementation of a ceasefire or peace agreement. Today's multidimensional peacekeeping operations facilitate the political process, protect civilians, assist in the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants; support the organization of elections, protect and promote human rights and assist in restoring the rule of law. UN peacekeeping operations may use force to defend themselves, their mandate, and civilians, particularly in situations where the state is unable to provide security and maintain public order.”[3]
• Conflict Prevention: “Conflict prevention involves diplomatic measures to keep intra-state or inter-state tensions and disputes from escalating into violent conflict. It includes early warning, information gathering and a careful analysis of the factors driving the conflict.”[4]
• Peacemaking: “Peacemaking generally includes measures to address conflicts in progress and usually involves diplomatic action to bring hostile parties to a negotiated agreement.”[5]
• Peace Enforcement: “Peace enforcement involves the application of a range of coercive measures, including the use of military force. It requires the explicit authorization of the [UN] Security Council. It is used to restore international peace and security in situations where the Security Council has decided to act in the face of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression.”[6]
• Peacebuilding: “Peacebuilding aims to reduce the risk of lapsing or relapsing into conflict by strengthening national capacities at all levels for conflict management, and to lay the foundation for sustainable peace and development. It is a complex, long-term process of creating the necessary conditions for sustainable peace. Peacebuilding measures address core issues that effect the functioning of society and the state, and seek to enhance the capacity of the state to effectively and legitimately carry out its core functions.”[7]

According to the UN, these five activities “rarely occur in a linear or sequential way,” and the “boundaries” between them “have become increasingly blurred. Peace operations are rarely limited to one type of activity.” The UN explains that these activities “should be seen as mutually reinforcing,” and cautions that, “if they are used piecemeal or in isolation, they fail to provide the comprehensive approach required to address the root causes of conflict and hence reduce the risk of conflict recurring.”[8]

That said, in this report, the Committee uses the term “peace operations,” rather than “peacekeeping,” to refer to the broad range of UN missions.

Introduction

For more than 60 years, Canada has been engaged in international peacekeeping and other types of peace operations under the auspices of such international organizations as the United Nations, the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). More than 125,000 Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members are estimated to have been deployed on peace missions in more than 35 countries over the past six decades.[9] Since the first UN armed peacekeeping force was deployed at the height of the Suez Crisis in 1956, Canadian military personnel have served as peacekeepers in Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Croatia, Cyprus, East Timor, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Kosovo, Mali, Mozambique, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan and Syria, among other locations.[10] Regrettably, approximately 130 of Canada’s peacekeepers have died on such missions and many more have been mentally or physically injured.[11]

Canadians take great pride in their country’s long history of supporting peace operations,[12] and many regard the notion of peacekeeping as a meaningful part of Canada’s national identity and collective memory.[13] According to Walter Dorn, Professor of Defence Studies at the Royal Military College of Canada, this “identity is built partly on the excellent work of the military personnel and the diplomats who made Canada one of the world’s top peacekeepers in the second half of the last century.”[14]

However, as Major-General (Retired) Lewis MacKenzie explained, Canada and many other countries started to “back off” from UN missions in the mid-1990s as a result of the “gross incompetence of the United Nations” at the time as well as major problems encountered on several UN missions, particularly those in Rwanda, Somalia and the former Yugoslavia. The UN’s inability to prevent the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and the 1995 Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in particular, has often been cited as an example of UN peace mission failures in the 1990s. “It was in the mid-nineties when we all backed off” from UN operations, he said. “Rwanda, Srebrenica, Somalia: that’s what caused us to pull back.”[15]

Over the last 20 years, Canada—like most other Western countries—has withdrawn from peace operations as its armed forces focused on the war in Afghanistan and other military commitments worldwide in support of NATO and other allies. A limited number of CAF members were deployed on peace operations during that period, with—according to Mr. Dorn—the result that Canada’s rank among countries contributing troops to UN missions dropped from “the number one position, which [it] held during the Cold War, and in the early 1990s,”[16] to the position of 81 by 2018.[17]

That said, in 2015, the Government of Canada announced its intention to renew Canada’s commitment to UN peace operations,[18] which was reiterated in June 2017 with the release of Strong, Secure, Engaged: Canada’s New Defence Policy (hereafter, Strong, Secure, Engaged).[19] In particular, the Government of Canada announced in August 2016 its intent to deploy up to 600 CAF members and up to 150 police officers on UN missions.[20] At the UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial Conference held in Vancouver, British Columbia in November 2017, Canada announced its new peace operations strategy.[21]

According to Mark Gwozdecky, Global Affairs Canada’s Assistant Deputy Minister, International Security and Political Affairs, the key goal of the country’s new peace operations strategy is to increase the “effectiveness of UN peace operations through support for reform, innovation, and smart pledges.”[22] To that end, in Vancouver, the Government of Canada announced its intention to support UN missions through providing, over a five-year period, a number of “high‑value” military capabilities and innovative training initiatives. To date, this support has included the deployment of an air task force in support of the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission (MINUSMA) in Mali for a period of 12 months. Moreover, Canada has launched the Vancouver Principles on Peacekeeping and the Prevention of the Recruitment and Use of Child Soldiers, which have now been endorsed by more than 70 countries. The country has also launched the Elsie Initiative for Women in Peace Operations, which seeks to increase women’s meaningful employment in UN missions.[23]

It is in this context that the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence (hereafter, the Committee) decided to undertake a study on Canada’s contributions to international peace operations and adopted the following motion on 23 March 2017:

That the Committee undertake a study of Canada’s contributions to international peacekeeping; that the study look at past contributions, how Canadian peacekeepers can be useful in current conflicts, as well as detailed analysis of existing and required resources solely dedicated to peacekeeping efforts; and that the Committee report its findings to the House upon completion of the study.

The study focused on Canada’s re-engagement in such operations and considered actions that could improve the country’s contributions to peace operations with a view to making a valuable difference on the world stage. The Committee also wanted to examine the benefits that result from the country’s participation in international peace missions.

To that end, the Committee held nine public meetings in Ottawa between 19 April and 4 October 2018 on the topic of Canada’s contributions to international peace operations. Testimony was received from a range of witnesses, including UN officials, Canadian federal government and military officials, academics and other stakeholders. During these meetings, a number of issues were discussed, including: Canada’s peacekeeping history; the changing nature of peace missions; the evolution of peace operations; UN reforms and peace operations; Canada’s re-engagement in UN operations; Canada’s peace mission in Mali; conflict prevention and resolution; training; public outreach and educational awareness; the UN women, peace and security agenda; and child soldiers.

In addition, between 28 and 31 October 2018, the Committee travelled to UN Headquarters in New York City to gain a better understanding of the UN’s operations and the manner in which it is conducting and reforming peace operations; enhanced Canadian support for the UN was also discussed. The Committee met with a number of senior UN officials, as well as with Canadian federal government, military and police officials working at UN Headquarters.

Finally, between 9 and 16 February 2019, the Committee travelled to Senegal and Mali to see first-hand the ways in which Canada is contributing to a UN operation. The Committee met with high-ranking government and military officials from Germany, Romania and other countries that are contributing to MINUSMA in Mali, with government and military officials from Senegal and Mali, and with Canadian federal government and military officials stationed in Dakar, Senegal and Bamako, Mali. The Committee also met with representatives from local and international non-government organizations (NGOs). As well, the Committee had the opportunity to visit Canada’s air task force in Gao, Mali, and its Tactical Airlift Detachment and Operational Support Hub in Dakar. During those visits, the Committee was impressed by the professionalism and valuable contributions that CAF members are making in support of MINUSMA in both Senegal and Mali.

The report primarily discusses Canada’s re-engagement in international peace operations. The first section provides an overview of the international security environment and the changing nature of peace missions, and the reforms that the UN is making to adapt to those changes. The second section describes Canada’s past and current contributions to peace operations, and its plans for re-engagement in such operations in the coming years. The third section examines the delivery of Canada’s new “smart pledge” approach to peace missions through its contributions to MINUSMA in Mali. The fourth section highlights changes that might improve Canada’s contribution to peace operations. The final section provides the Committee’s concluding remarks and recommendations to the Government of Canada.

The Changing Nature of Peace Operations

Peace operations have evolved considerably since the end of the Cold War. Until the 1990s, peacekeepers mainly focused on keeping the peace between “belligerents.”[24] However, with changes in the international security environment over the last 20 years, the UN has reformed the way that it conducts peace missions. Today, UN personnel are no longer keeping the peace between belligerents; instead, as Major-General (Retired) MacKenzie told the Committee, they often have to operate in environments where “there is no peace to keep.”[25] Increasingly, current peace operations are multi-dimensional, with more robust and complicated mandates that range from protecting civilians and promoting human rights to supporting political processes and assisting with restoration of the rule of law. They are also more complex and dangerous because they tend to occur in active conflict zones with a variety of state and non-state actors, including armed groups, terrorist organizations and criminal networks.[26]

This new security dynamic has created many challenges for the UN as an organization, and for countries—including Canada—that contribute to UN operations. As Mr. Dorn stated, “despite all their flaws, UN [peace] operations remain one of the best ways to prevent, manage and resolve conflict.”[27]

In that context, the Committee’s witnesses made comments about UN peace operations in an evolving and challenging security environment, changes to such operations, and their continued relevance.

1.  UN Peace Operations in an Evolving Security Environment

Traditionally, peace operations focused mainly on peacekeeping, and involved the deployment of peacekeepers as a neutral force to help keep the peace after an agreement to cease hostilities and—typically—to engage in negotiations designed to resolve the conflict had been reached between warring states. From 1956 to the 1990s, most peace missions were designed to manage situations of interstate conflict in support of ceasefire agreements and related political processes. In that era, the use of force was limited, and peacekeeping missions were usually deployed to locations with the consent and cooperation of the parties to the conflict, as well as the support of the international community. In general, peacekeeping mandates were limited to observing and reporting, supervising adherence to the terms of ceasefire agreements, and acting as a buffer between former belligerents. As such, three basic principles underpinned Cold War‑era peacekeeping missions and distinguished those missions from other types of political or military interventions: the consent of the parties; peacekeepers’ impartiality; and the absence of force except in self-defence.[28]

According to Major-General (Retired) David Fraser, “peacekeeping in those days, while dangerous and demanding, was still a state-to-state mission.… [T]he host nation asked the UN to assist in the resolution, and affected states by and large adhered to the rules for UN participation.”[29] In his view, while peacekeeping continued to evolve into missions like the one in Bosnia in the 1990s, which were more dangerous than previously, “there continued to be state actors that to a degree adhered to conventions while a political settlement was found.” He emphasized that the “success of Bosnia is a tribute to the United Nations in facing adversity and the ever-changing scope of operations, and in working through to allow affected nations to find their own path to resolution.”[30]

Since the 1990s, the nature of peace operations have had to evolve significantly. The international security environment no longer resembles that which characterized the Cold War and immediate post‑Cold War periods. The environment in which peace missions are now deployed, as well as associated armed conflicts, are increasingly complex and deadly. These armed conflicts can involve a multitude of armed state and non-state actors, including armed militias, terrorists and criminal organizations, and can have many dimensions, including sectarian, ethnic, regional and local. The violence associated with these conflicts is rarely limited to a recognized battlefield, and civilians are often subjected to brutality and severe human rights violations.[31]

These trends and new phenomena have complicated international responses to violence and instability. The 1994 Rwandan genocide and the 1995 Srebrenica massacre are often cited as examples of the failure of traditional peacekeeping models and mandates to protect civilians in such conflicts. The 1999 mission in Sierra Leone was the first UN peace operation mandated to protect civilians, and this mandate now exists for most of these operations.[32]

The mandate to protect civilians has contributed to a major shift in the nature of peace operations. In essence, there has been a shift in focus from Chapter VI (Pacific Settlement of Disputes) of the Charter of the United Nations (the UN Charter) to Chapter VII (Action with Respect to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression).[33] Chapter VI had essentially served as the basic mandate of traditional peacekeeping missions since the beginning of the Cold War. As Ian Johnstone—Dean ad interim and Professor of International Law at Tufts University’s Fletcher School—explained to the Committee, peacekeepers were originally “deployed on the basis of Chapter VI of the UN Charter and used force only in self‑defence.” However, with UN personnel now mandated to protect civilians and increasingly deployed to dangerous conflict zones where local authorities are often unable to maintain law and order, Chapter VII allows UN personnel to use force not only in self-defence, but also to protect civilians and to counter threats.[34] For more information on Chapter VI and Chapter VII of the UN Charter, see Appendix A and B.

In seeking to remain relevant in this evolving security environment, modern peace operations are increasingly characterized by: deployment to contain violence both within a nation and between countries; partnerships with other security actors, including such regional organizations as the African Union; and mandates that include traditional peacekeeping, peace enforcement and civilian protection measures, post-conflict reconstruction and peace building. In some cases, the result has been deployments to places where there are belligerents with varying affiliations and interests, and where the commitment to a viable peace process is limited. As the UN Secretary‑General emphasized in 2014, “UN peacekeeping operations are increasingly mandated to operate where there is no peace to keep.”[35]

According to Bruce Jones, Vice-President and Director of Foreign Policy with the Brookings Institution, there have been three major phases in UN peace operations since the 1990s. He described the first phase, which lasted from the late 1980s to the mid‑1990s, as a period during which the UN experimented with new forms of peacekeeping, and during which there was “a series of searing strategic failures” in Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia and elsewhere.[36]

Mr. Jones characterized the second phase, which occurred from about the mid‑1990s to 2010, as a period of reform that was largely led by Kofi Annan when he became UN Secretary-General. He explained that this phase “saw the UN substantially increase the size of its deployments relative to the fighters it was confronting; substantial improvements in command and control; a recognition that impartiality as a core principle of UN peacekeeping did not limit the UN from fighting back against spoilers or those trying to undermine peace agreements; and the adoption of what's called ‘multi-dimensionality’—i.e., the integration of security, economic, and humanitarian instruments under an overall political framework.”[37] In his view, the “large expansion” in the number and size of peace operations worldwide “played a major role in the substantial decline in the level of war in the world during that period,” with “a 40% decline in all wars worldwide” and “an 80% decline in major wars” between states.[38]

Finally, Mr. Jones referred to the third phase—from 2010 to the present—as the post‑Arab Spring phase, which has involved the “integration” of two agendas: a counter-terrorism agenda; and a civil war management agenda. He noted that, since 2010, more than 90% of all battle deaths worldwide have occurred in wars where a terrorist organization is one of the combatants, leading to a situation in which questions of civil war management can no longer be meaningfully separated from issues of counterterrorism. He highlighted Mali as an example of a complex conflict involving both state and non-state actors, which renders peace operations extremely difficult and poses a range of new security challenges, and suggested that such conflicts are now the trend.[39]

According to Mr. Jones, this reality has led to a “hardened UN peacekeeping” approach, “where the UN still operates under relatively traditional concepts of peacekeeping, such as impartiality, but with substantially greater punch capacity and a substantially greater capacity to fight back against spoilers and those who would derail peace agreements or otherwise threaten the peace and stability of the country in question.”[40] In his opinion, in this context, the UN’s requirements include: the participation of “sophisticated troop contributors … if these missions are going to be successful”; an “evolution of the legal framework to recognize that there are times when the UN will be a party to conflict”; and “a willingness to use force against spoilers and against groups that are dedicated to eroding civilian security, eroding a peace agreement, and eroding the stability of the country in question, and it requires effective backstopping from headquarters.”[41]

Marie-Joëlle Zahar, Professor and Research Director of the Peace Operations Network at the Université de Montréal, identified four characteristics that did not exist when peacekeeping was created during the Cold War but that now affect the peace missions that are occurring in increasingly complex conflict zones. She said:

[First, armed conflicts are] much more regionalized than internationalized, as they used to be. Most of today's wars are not civil wars; they are ‘internationalized civil wars.’ … That means that there are foreign states and non-state actors who play a role in instigating, prolonging, or exacerbating struggles.... The second thing … is the emergence of extremist groups. Instability and violent conflict are a fertile breeding ground for extremist movements.… The third point … is the multiplication and fragmentation of conflict actors. It has never been as great as in today's wars.… In Mali, the fragmentation of northern anti-government forces and their composition and re‑composition into ever-shifting alliances and counter-alliances remains one of the main obstacles to achieving sustainable peace.… This fragmentation … has created divisions and armed struggles between erstwhile allied clans.… The last point … is the increase in violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.[42]

In sum, beyond their blue helmets, many of today’s UN missions bear little resemblance to those undertaken prior to the 1990s.[43]

The complexity of today’s threat environment in several regions of the world has made peace operations increasingly dangerous, with rising numbers of deaths and injuries in recent years. Personnel deployed on UN missions today often face hostilities and are at greater risk than was the case during Cold War‑era peacekeeping missions. According to the UN, as of 30 April 2019, 3,842 UN personnel had been killed on its peace operations over the last 70 years.[44] Of that number, 2,339 fatalities—more than 60% of all deaths during UN operations—had occurred between 1999 and 2019.[45] Moreover, the UN has indicated that, over the 2013‑2017 period, 622 UN personnel had been killed on its peace operations,[46] which is a number that is higher than “during any other five-year period in the UN’s history.”[47] The “deadliest” year was 2017, with 139 fatalities.[48]

2.  Challenges to Peace Operations

UN peace operations are experiencing a number of challenges. For example, an unprecedented need for such operations are straining the UN’s resources. According to the UN, in recent years, its peace missions:

have been deployed to increasingly difficult and complex environments, even as demand for peacekeeping has increased. Our [peacekeeping] core business processes have not kept up with these demands. Mandate implementation is hindered by slow, unresponsive service delivery, micro-management by governing bodies, a trust deficit with member states and with staff, inadequate resourcing of and ineffective implementation of mandates, and a lack of transparency and accountability.[49]

The UN has also noted that “peacekeeping faces several challenges that undermine its ability to deliver on its mandates,” and has emphasized that “political solutions are often absent, and missions seem to have mandates that lack focus and clear priorities.”[50] Moreover, the UN has said that:

[c]omplex threats in several environments are causing a rise in fatalities and injuries of peacekeepers, and missions have sometimes lacked the personnel and equipment to meet these threats. Peacekeeping operations have also faced challenges in delivering on protection mandates and in contributing to long-term, sustainable peace, and in achieving coherence with other actors operating in the same contexts.[51]

The strain on the UN’s resources has given rise to debates about whether its budget for peace operations, which has been gradually reduced in recent years for various reasons and totals approximately US$6.7 billion for 2018‑2019,[52] is sufficient. The debate is occurring in the context of the United States’ March 2018 announcement that it would reduce its financial contribution to the UN’s peace operations budget in the future;[53] this announcement is consistent with a trend of reduced financial contributions by other UN member states.[54]

There have been shortages of both personnel and equipment for UN missions in recent years.[55] For instance, in December 2018, the UN Secretary-General reported a continued “critical shortfall in terms of equipment” for MINUSMA in Mali, referring—more specifically—to a “lack of military medium-utility helicopters and contingent-owned armoured personnel carriers, including mine-protected vehicles.”[56]

A number of witnesses commented on the UN’s budgetary reductions. They indicated that UN peace operations must be properly resourced in order to be effective “on the ground,” and emphasized the need for adequate funding, personnel and equipment. According to Major‑General (Retired) Denis Thompson, inadequate funding could have catastrophic consequences for UN missions. He explained that:

[p]eacekeeping is imperfect. There are no rainbows, butterflies, or unicorns in the world that is inhabited by peacekeepers. It's ugly, it's violent, it's arbitrary, and at times, it's blatantly unfair. It certainly is not for the faint of heart. Sadly, when it is under-resourced, the consequences can be disastrous, and often they are counterproductive.[57]

In agreeing, Alexandra Novosseloff—Senior Visiting Fellow with the International Peace Institute—reminded the Committee that peace operations “have always been done on the cheap,” and are usually financed through “limited civilian budgets” instead of “larger military budgets.”[58] In her view, underfunding often results in fewer personnel being deployed on UN missions than are needed, which can be problematic “on the ground” in complex conflict zones. She compared the number of troops deployed on NATO and UN missions, noting that NATO has deployed more than 130,000 troops to Afghanistan in recent years, a number that is larger than the UN’s deployment of fewer than 15,000 “blue helmets in the north of Mali, which is twice the size of Afghanistan.”[59] As well, she noted that NATO deployed 50,000 troops to Kosovo in 1999, while the UN is deploying just over 17,000 “blue helmets in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is the size of continental Europe.”[60]

Another challenge pertains to the lack of training of certain UN contingents deployed on peace operations. At present, these operations rely on military and police personnel from developing countries, and some of these personnel have low levels of readiness.[61] Richard Gowan, Senior Fellow with the United Nations University’s Centre for Policy Research, stated that “[t]raining remains very important” for countries deploying troops on UN missions, and that “[a]s much as [troops] have all the pre-deployment training, we have seen through experience that even that is not enough.”[62] In agreeing, Adam Day—Head of Programmes with the United Nations University’s Centre for Policy Research—noted that the structure and training of armed forces differ across countries. In his view, re-grouping “multiple different troop-contributing countries within a single” operation has been a challenge for the UN from linguistic and training perspectives, and “[o]ne of the main difficulties has been a wide variety of training and capacities across different kinds of peacekeepers.”[63]

The UN’s Department of Peace Operations (formerly the Department of Peacekeeping Operations) is currently working to develop specific training materials and to improve pre-deployment training standards.[64] Some witnesses suggested that more could be done to prepare troops for UN deployments. For example, Ameerah Haq, a former Under-Secretary General with the UN’s Department of Field Support, said that training about such issues as sexual exploitation and abuse is needed, while Mr. Day identified training about the protection of civilians and other key tasks relating to the mandates of UN peace operations in today’s environment.[65]

The UN has been criticized that it is “often too slow to engage with emerging crises.”[66] Concerning mission design, there are concerns that “mandates and missions are produced on the basis of templates instead of tailored to support situation-specific political strategies, and technical and military approaches.”[67] Furthermore, mission and mandate design challenges are compounded by the rise in violent extremism, as well as armed groups, terrorists and criminal organizations in places where UN operations are taking place, such as Mali.[68] According to Mr. Johnstone, the UN “must design more tailored, context appropriate and adaptable missions. The practical challenge is not to concoct some ideal end state and design a mission to achieve that, but rather to determine what is achievable in light of conditions on the ground. The prospects of achieving any outcome will depend heavily on local, regional and global political dynamics.”[69] According to him, “one size does not fit all. The trick is to figure out what is achievable in the circumstances, design a mission accordingly, and prepare to adapt as the circumstances require.”[70]

According to the Committee’s witnesses, other UN-related challenges include inefficient bureaucratic structures, weak mission leadership, lagging technological capabilities, an inability to deploy rapidly,[71] perceived failures to protect civilians in certain situations, and allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse perpetrated by personnel deployed on UN peace operations.[72]

Major-General (Retired) Mackenzie, in particular, expressed concern about the issue of sexual misconduct by personnel from certain troop-contributing countries deployed on UN missions. As he explained:

You have a problem with underpaid soldiers in areas where there is potential for human trafficking, prostitution rings, and black marketeering. I'm not saying they're all doing it, but boy the temptation is there for these poorly equipped, and in some cases poorly trained, so-called contributions to UN peacekeeping.[73]

A number of these challenges have led to calls for increased accountability.[74] However, as Mr. Jones explained, the problem is that “a number of countries have not taken the necessary steps to provide that accountability. The UN can't force them to do it.” That said, he noted that the UN “has gotten more selective about which countries it's willing to allow to contribute, if they aren't taking those steps.”[75]

3.  The Continued Relevance of Peace Operations

Despite the challenges associated with peace operations, most of the Committee’s witnesses held the view that participation in such operations remains relevant in today’s context. Peggy Mason, President of the Rideau Institute on International Affairs, acknowledged that “UN peacekeeping is no miracle cure and there are no guarantees of success.”[76] In providing her opinion that peace missions are valuable tools that can facilitate peace processes in conflict zones, she explained that:

[p]eacekeeping is the front end of a complex, long-term process of helping conflicting parties create the necessary conditions—political, socio-economic, and security—for sustainable peace. At the centre of this effort is the peace process. Complex political problems always lie at the heart of violent conflict and require political solutions that are negotiated and agreed to by the parties.... It is precisely because of the primacy of the peace process that today's multi-dimensional UN peace operations are much more than military operations charged with providing a safe and secure environment. The core of the effort comprises civilians mandated to facilitate the peace process, promote the rule of law, and support the establishment of legitimate and effective institutions of governance.... This military assistance is in concert with diplomatic and technical support for national political dialogue and reconciliation efforts.[77]

Moreover, Mr. Jones stated that UN peace operations are often better suited to addressing some of the complex problems that exist in many conflict zones than are operations led by military alliances, such as NATO or “coalitions of the willing.” He said that countries like Canada have basically three deployment options when managing conflict and participating in multinational operations worldwide: through military alliances, such as NATO; through coalitions of the willing, such as the Global Coalition Against Daesh or the G5 Sahel Joint Force; or through international organizations, such as the UN.[78]

While deployments through NATO have advantages relating to military capacity and interoperability, there are also disadvantages. Mr. Jones noted that, in “large swaths of Africa and the Arab world [NATO] confronts a substantial built-in disadvantage in terms of the perception of legitimacy or illegitimacy of a Western-based platform,” and suggested that “NATO has proven to be rather bad at multi-dimensionality.”[79]

Moreover, in Mr. Jones’ view, although the international community has increasingly turned to “coalitions of the willing” to deal with crises in certain regions of the world in recent years, and notwithstanding the demonstrated capability of many of those multinational coalitions to perform “quite effectively,” these coalitions have the “disadvantage of operating in a kind of questionable legal domain and a questionable legitimacy domain.”[80]

Mr. Jones indicated that deployments through the UN are often the best option from a multi-dimensionality perspective because of the UN’s presumed neutrality and its decades-old experience with organizing and managing large-scale multi-dimensional peace operations worldwide.[81]

Mr. Gowan commented that the UN remains “better placed to conduct operations” in some regions of the world, including Africa. While acknowledging the growing influence of the African Union, he told the Committee that the “UN remains the best placed to run large-scale multi-dimensional peace operations” in Africa.[82] At least 50% of the 14 UN peace missions worldwide are in Africa,[83] and more than 80% of the UN personnel currently deployed on peace operations are serving on that continent.[84] Mr. Gowan pointed out that the UN’s five largest missions are presently in Africa—the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, South Sudan and Sudan—and account for about 75% of all UN personnel deployed on peace operations around the world. He emphasized that “the UN is still the market leader on the African continent.”[85]

According to Mr. Gowan, peace missions today “still have positive strategic effects” on the ground. In his view, “[e]ven if they cannot deliver easy stability, they limit and contain violence in fragile states,” thereby ensuring that “jihadi groups and other non‑state groups do not overthrow governments and create regional instability. They protect and facilitate vital humanitarian aid, saving many lives. Most importantly, they provide frameworks for long-term political peacemaking processes.”[86]

Ms. Novosseloff agreed, and explained that UN missions are a cost-effective way of contributing to global stability, with “very diverse” activities that range from “observation and monitoring missions to multi-dimensional mandates and political assistance and mediation.”[87] In her opinion, peace operations provide “value for the money” spent and are the “only method worth pursuing, combining the political with the military, the police, rule of law, and respect for human rights” in order to manage and resolve armed conflicts.[88] Zoé Dugal, Deputy Director of Field Operations with CANADEM, held a similar view, and maintained that “peace operations are still the best and often the only instrument at our disposal to respond to conflict and human suffering.”[89]

In conclusion, most of the Committee’s witnesses thought that peace operations remain relevant today, and encouraged countries like Canada to continue participating in such operations in the future. Ms. Zahar suggested that such participation “is not really a choice for Canada or for any country like Canada whose prosperity and security depend on international peace and security.... [It] is a necessity to prevent trouble spots in Mali or elsewhere from becoming open sores and the source of regional and international instability.”[90]

Canada’s Re-Engagement in Peace Operations

UN peace operations have undergone reforms and have constantly evolved in response to a changing—and increasingly challenging—international security environment.[91] Mr. Dorn told the Committee that UN missions have improved since the 1990s, as have activities at UN Headquarters in New York City, which has enhanced its field support in numerous ways. Overall, the UN’s capacity has “grown immensely” in many different areas, including technology, intelligence, doctrine, training and the protection of civilians.[92] Those improvements have helped to enhance the ways in which peace operations are conducted, and have helped to ensure that UN troops have the proper support and mandates on the ground to deal with the wide range of threats and challenges that exist in modern conflict zones. They have also ensured that peace missions remain relevant and adapted to contemporary needs. Mr. Johnstone emphasized that, if—on balance—peace operations continue to “work” today, that success is largely attributable to the UN’s reforms.[93]

However, while the UN has been engaged in a “period of reflection and renewal” concerning peace operations over the last 20 years,[94] Canada and other Western countries have—for various reasons—decided to reduce their contributions to such missions. Mr. Dorn suggested that, as a result, Canada’s capacity for peace operations has declined over time.[95]

That said, in recent years, the Government of Canada has expressed its intention to have Canada re-engage in international peace operations, and help the UN to continue to revitalize and adapt its missions in the face of a changing international security environment. As noted earlier, in November 2017, the Government announced its new peace operations strategy in Vancouver. It aims to provide critical support to peace operations, and to develop new and innovative ways to encourage the UN to undertake reforms and modernize its missions.

Since November 2017, the Government of Canada has made several commitments to UN peace operations. These commitments include “smart pledges” of key, high-value military enablers and capabilities for peace missions.[96] The CAF’s air task force currently deployed to Mali in support of MINUSMA is an example of this “smart pledge” approach to UN operations. Other contributions include initiatives aimed specifically at women and child soldiers, as well as innovative training support and commitments to deploy more Canadian police personnel. As the Committee learned during its October 2018 visit to UN Headquarters, the UN has welcomed Canada’s re-engagement in peace operations.[97]

1.  Reforms and Peace Operations

Since 2000, and on the basis of several high-level reports highlighting a need to improve peace operations,[98] the UN has started to introduce a series of reforms designed to strengthen its capacity to manage and sustain field operations.[99] For instance, Mr. Johnstone noted that the Brahimi report of 2001 stressed the need for larger and better-equipped UN peace operations to protect both personnel and civilians, and to “deal effectively with groups that seem to undermine the peace process via violence.”[100]

Recent developments have led to renewed international support for UN missions, and an awareness of the need to ensure their effectiveness. In October 2014, the UN Secretary-General appointed the High-Level Independent Panel on UN Peace Operations, or HIPPO (hereafter, the Panel), whose task was to assess both the state of the UN’s current operations and its future needs.[101] The Panel “considered a broad range of issues facing peace operations, including the changing nature of conflict, evolving mandates, good offices and peace building challenges, managerial and administrative arrangements, planning, partnerships, human rights and protection of civilians.”[102] The Panel’s June 2015 report —popularly known as the HIPPO report—contained recommendations in such areas as human resource management, troop contributions, operational readiness, pre-deployment training, mandate design, rules of engagement, mission capabilities, command structures, communications, technology and innovation, and cooperation with regional organizations.[103]

According to Ms. Dugal, the HIPPO report is generally regarded as the “new road map for contemporary peace operations,” and essentially recommends four major shifts in conducting peace missions.[104] She summarized the report’s first shift as involving politics “driving” the design and implementation of peace operations, consistent with the view that lasting peace can only be achieved through political solutions alongside military operations. In commenting on its recommended second shift, she said that the report urges more flexible use of the full spectrum of UN peace operations to respond to changing needs on the ground, with peace operations including traditional peacekeeping, as well as investments in diplomacy and development to prevent conflicts from recurring. Regarding the third shift, she stated that the report recommends a stronger, more inclusive peace and security partnership for the future, which requires engaging with international partners and fostering a common understanding of democratic values, human rights and the protection of civilians, especially women and children. Finally, Ms. Dugal commented that the report’s recommended fourth shift entails the UN Secretariat becoming more field-focused and UN missions becoming more people‑centred.[105]

With the findings in the HIPPO report in mind, in 2017, the UN Secretary-General proposed reforms to the UN’s peace and security architecture, as well as its management and development systems and structures.[106] According to the UN, these reforms have the “overall objective of reducing fragmentation for better delivery, to make the peace and security pillar more coherent, nimble and effective by prioritizing prevention, sustaining peace and delivery on Agenda 2030.”[107]

As well, the UN has noted that a series of strategic reviews of major peace operations has been launched. These reviews, which “focus on assessing the presence of conditions for successful mandate implementation with a view to recommending adjustments to the Security Council,” consider such factors as “the relevance and pertinence of mandates, the political environment and will of key parties, [UN] operations’ comparative advantage vis-à-vis regional and other partners, and the configuration of support for the mission.”[108] The UN has indicated that these reviews “will identify ideas for new, enhanced peacekeeping approaches and will strengthen [UN] cooperation for prevention through early action, as opposed to merely reacting to outbreaks of violence.”[109] According to Mr. Gwozdecky, these reviews reflect the view that “peacekeeping does not operate in a silo,” and that peace missions include a “continuum of actions” that include peacekeeping, peacebuilding and conflict prevention.[110]

In addition, in March 2018, the UN Secretary-General launched Action for Peacekeeping (A4P), which is designed to “renew mutual political commitment to peacekeeping operations.” According to the UN, through A4P, the Secretary-General has called on UN member states “to join him in developing a set of mutually-agreed principles and commitments to create peacekeeping operations for the future, with the goal of reaching a formal agreement by the end of 2018.”[111] A4P, which is designed to strengthen the collective actions of member states to make peace operations more effective, seeks to refocus these operations with realistic expectations, to make them stronger and safer, and to mobilize greater support for political solutions and for well-structured, well-equipped and well-trained forces for such operations.[112]

In September 2018, the UN Secretary-General hosted an A4P High-Level Meeting in New York City, which was attended by more than 100 UN member states, including Canada, as well as by the African Union Commission, the European Union, the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie and NATO. According to the UN, the meeting’s outcomes included endorsement of the Declaration of Shared Commitments—a collective action plan designed to strengthen peacekeeping—by more than 150 countries, including Canada.[113] However, although Canada and other countries have been supporting the A4P efforts to renew and reform the political commitment of UN members states and the UN system to make peace operations more effective.[114]

For example, Mr. Gwozdecky told the Committee that the UN is still “struggling to keep up” with “increasing demands on UN peace operations,” and indicated that the number of personnel deployed on such operations—now totalling approximately 100,000—has doubled over the past 15 years. Moreover, he explained that the armed conflicts with which the UN is “confronted and [the] mission mandates issued by the Security Council are increasingly complex, requiring a wider range of skills, assets, and new technology to get the job done in difficult environments. At the same time, the UN is facing pressure for reform, cost savings, and efficiencies in its operations.”[115]

Furthermore, as Global Affairs Canada noted in February 2019,

UN peace operations have been dogged by concerns about resource management and inefficiencies, inadequate safety and security planning for peacekeepers and frequent and often unaddressed allegations and confirmed incidents of sexual abuse and other violence by peacekeepers. Political solutions are having difficulty finding traction with the parties to the conflict and missions often have mandates that seemingly lack focus and clear priorities. Complex threats in several environments are causing a rise in fatalities and injuries of peacekeepers, a situation which is often exacerbated by a lack of adequately trained personnel and equipment to meet these threats.[116]

The Committee received similar information when they visited UN Headquarters in October 2018. While UN officials spoke about progress being made on development and peacekeeping reforms within the UN, they said that more work is required regarding management reforms, and indicated that peace operations should be more focused on conflict prevention and peacebuilding. Moreover, they expressed a need for: more stable and secure funding for peace missions; better training of personnel deployed on peace operations; more qualified staff officers; more women; improved mechanisms to prevent and respond to allegations—and confirmed incidents—of sexual exploitation and abuse; clearer and more robust mission mandates; strengthened intelligence, logistics support, in-theatre maintenance, air mobility and aeromedical capabilities; and specialized heavy equipment, such as helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, armoured vehicles and anti-improvised explosive device (IED) equipment.[117]

According to Global Affairs Canada, there is a need for “closer coordination and synchronization” between the UN and its member states to make UN missions more effective, and to ensure that collective efforts to reform and modernize these operations respond to contemporary realities and are successful.[118] The UN is looking to countries like Canada to help it meet those challenges and fill existing capability gaps.[119]

2.  Canada’s Historic Contributions to Peace Operations

Almost all of the senior UN officials with whom the Committee met, both at UN Headquarters in October 2018 and when visiting MINUSMA in Mali in February 2019, praised Canada for its support and valuable contributions to UN missions. In particular, they highlighted the professionalism and high level of training of Canadian military, police and civilian personnel deployed on peace operations, and the sophisticated and valuable assets and capabilities that the country provides. Virtually all of these officials expressed respect for Canada’s historic leadership and efforts in UN peacekeeping, and welcomed the country’s renewed support for—and commitment to—UN missions.[120]

Canada has a long history of participating in peace operations. Such operations became a core feature of Canada’s international engagement in 1956, when Lester B. Pearson—then Secretary of State for External Affairs—played a key role in defusing the Suez Crisis. He championed a proposal at the UN to establish the first large-scale international armed peacekeeping force—widely referred to as the UN’s first official peacekeeping mission—to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities. Mr. Pearson was awarded the 1957 Nobel Peace Prize for these efforts, and Canada became a major contributor to international peacekeeping under the auspices of the UN and other entities.[121] Canadian personnel participated in almost every UN peace operation until the mid-1990s,[122] and Canada was a leading contributor to such operations throughout most of the Cold War, providing approximately 10% of all UN peacekeepers.[123]

However, Canada’s contribution to UN peace operations has been declining over the last two decades as the country has gradually withdrawn from such operations. As shown in Appendix C and D, beginning in the second half of the 1990s, Canada’s contribution to UN missions started to decline from historical levels. The country was once a major contributor to such operations, deploying thousands of troops in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and the first half of the 1990s. At the height of Canada’s contributions in the early 1990s, more than 3,000 CAF members were deployed on peace operations worldwide.

More recently, Canada has been a relatively minor contributor to UN peace operations, and has deployed—at most—a few hundred soldiers per year since 1998. In May 2018, about a month before Canada started to deploy its air task force to Mali in support of MINUSMA, 40 of the 91,585 military and police personnel from 124 countries deployed on 14 different UN peace operations around the world were Canadian, and Canada ranked 81^st among the 124 countries contributing uniformed personnel to such operations.[124]

According to Major-General (Retired) MacKenzie, the main reason why Canada and other Western countries “backed off” from peace operations in the mid-1990s was the “gross incompetence of the United Nations” at the time and several peace operations that could be described as “failures,” notably those in Rwanda, Somalia and the former Yugoslavia. According to him, Canada and other countries had “lost faith” in the UN.[125]

The outbreak of war in Afghanistan following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States also led countries like Canada to shift resources away from peace operations.[126] Between 2001 and 2014, the CAF’s priority was its mission in Afghanistan, with more than 40,000 CAF members serving in the Afghan theatre of operation over that period.[127] Moreover, with the CAF involved in military missions elsewhere in the world in support of NATO and other allies, such as the multinational campaign against Libya in 2011, the global campaign against Daesh in Iraq and Syria since 2014, and NATO assurance and deterrence measures in Europe in response to Russian aggression since 2014, peace operations were generally regarded as a relatively lower priority.[128]

Ms. Carolyn McAskie, former Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General and Head of the UN Peacekeeping Mission in Burundi, commented that Canada’s “absence has been to the detriment of our reputation” in peace operations.[129]

3.  Canada’s Renewed Commitment to Peace Operations

Ms. Dugal acknowledged to the Committee that, although Canada “has not been as active” in UN missions over the last two decades as had historically been the case, the country is now “trying to re-engage.”[130] As noted earlier, in November 2015, the Government of Canada announced its intention to renew the country’s commitment to UN peace operations,[131] a commitment that was reiterated in June 2017 with the release of Strong, Secure, Engaged.[132] Moreover, in August 2016, the Government indicated that it would make a significant contribution to UN peace missions, including the deployment of up to 600 CAF members and up to 150 police officers for such operations, an increase in police and civilian resources, and the development of a new Canadian peace operations training initiative.[133] The Government also committed to allocate $450 million over three years under the Peace and Stabilization Operations Program, which will support efforts “to bring security and stability to fragile and conflict-affected states by supporting peace operations, mediation, conflict prevention and post‑conflict reconstruction efforts.”[134]

In November 2017, Canada hosted the United Nations Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial Conference, which was organized to assist the UN’s efforts to rethink and reform the ways that peace operations are undertaken.[135] At the conference, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the Government of Canada’s strategy for providing critical support to UN missions and protecting civilians, while actively supporting the UN’s A4P agenda and promoting the reform of such operations.[136] The strategy includes the following five core elements:

• Vancouver Principles on Peacekeeping and the Prevention of the Recruitment and Use of Child Soldiers[137]
• Elsie Initiative on Women in Peace Operations[138]
• Smart Pledges[139]
• Innovative Training[140]
• Police Deployments[141]

Mr. Gwozdecky commented that Canada’s new peace operations strategy is, first and foremost, “about doing things differently, doing things better, and doing things together.” He highlighted that “all the elements of the Canadian approach respond directly to the findings from high-level reports commissioned by the United Nations.”[142]

As well, Mr. Gwozdecky noted that all pledges made at the 2017 United Nations Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial Conference in Vancouver are meant to be “mutually reinforcing.” He explained that Canada is “delivering a number of highly effective operational capabilities to support UN missions, but at the same time [is] promoting change in how UN peace operations are conducted, with a particular focus on the participation of women and the issue of child soldiers. Our hope is that Canada's credibility as a direct contributor to UN missions will help to amplify our efforts to shape the evolving norms and practices of peace operations.”[143]

Finally, Mr. Gwozdecky pointed out that Canada's contributions to UN missions are consistent with broader international trends in the evolution of such operations, “with a greater focus today from nations like Canada on contributions that capitalize on national strengths in relation to what the UN needs” as peace operations evolve. He suggested that “[t]he days when Canadian peacekeeping was viewed as boots on the ground have largely passed, in part because the UN has been successful in recruiting a broad range of new countries,” but also “because of the changing nature of conflicts, UN mandates and mission requirements [that] call for a broader range of new capabilities well beyond the boots on the ground.”[144]

Progress has been made with some of the contributions and initiatives launched at the 2017 United Nations Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial Conference. Concerning Canada’s new “smart pledge” approach to peace operations, the country has launched Operation PRESENCE to support MINUSMA. Operation PRESENCE involves the deployment of an air task force comprising approximately 250 CAF members, five CH‑146 Griffon and three CH-147 Chinook helicopters to Gao, Mali, as well as a tactical airlift detachment of one CC-130J Hercules transport aircraft to Dakar, Senegal.[145] Canada also pledged to station a CC-130J Hercules transport aircraft at the UN Regional Support Centre in Entebbe, Uganda, to provide tactical airlift support to UN peace operations in Africa.[146] Canada is currently working with the UN to set conditions for the eventual deployment of this tactical airlift capability. While preparations are underway, no Canadian aircraft has yet been deployed to Entebbe.[147] No announcements have yet been made regarding Canada’s offer to provide a Quick Reaction Force of approximately 200 military personnel and associated equipment for UN operations. As Mr. Gwozdecky explained: “The timing and location of this contribution remains to be determined.”[148] According to Global Affairs Canada, the Quick Reaction Force offer “has been entered into the UN capability registry, but Canada has not yet received a request for its deployment.”[149]

Canada has also committed to provide up to 20 police officers to MINUSMA and the European Union Capacity Building Mission Sahel Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) starting in 2019.[150] The first two Canadian police officers deployed to Mali in January 2019, and a few others have since been deployed to that African country.[151]

Canada is also working with the UN to determine next steps with regards to providing innovative training for UN peace missions. According to Global Affairs Canada, “current areas of consideration include using deployable Canadian Training and Advisory Teams to support other troop contributors in achieving, amongst other objectives, those associated with the Elsie Initiative.”[152]

Work related to the Elsie Initiative and the Vancouver Principles is also progressing. For example, on the Elsie Initiative, Canada announced it will be establishing bilateral technical assistance and training partnerships with the Ghana Armed Forces and Zambia Police Service, and will support Senegal to implement its Armed Forces’ Gender Integration Strategy.[153] Canada also worked with the UN on the development of the Elsie Initiative Fund for Uniformed Women in Peace Operations, which will provide financial assistance and incentives to ensure that there are more women in peace operations. The multi-partner fund was officially launched in March 2019.[154] Canada is also continuing its advocacy to expand the support of UN members states for the Vancouver Principles.[155]

In addition to Operation PRESENCE, a small number of CAF members are currently deployed on peace operations in Cyprus (Operation SNOWGOOSE), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Operation CROCODILE), Egypt (Sinai Peninsula) (Operation CALUMET), Israel (Operation JADE), Kosovo (Operation KOBOLD) and South Sudan (Operation SOPRANO).[156] As Lieutenant-General Stephen Bowes, Commander of Canadian Joint Operations Command, explained to the Committee:

There are approximately 120 Canadian Armed Forces members deployed on these complex operations across the globe, including both UN missions and those led by other organizations. Canadian military personnel participating in UN missions in Cyprus, the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, and the Middle East serve vital functions in the domains of logistics planning, military liaison, and training, as well as surveillance and monitoring of demilitarized zones. Canada also participates in non-UN operations that make equally important contributions to regional peace and security, including the multinational force and observers in the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, the Office of the United States Security Coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and the NATO Kosovo Force.[157]

Aside from personnel and equipment, Canada is also providing the UN with financial support for peace missions. For 2018‑2019, Canada was the ninth-largest contributor to the UN’s peace operations budget of US$6.7 billion, with an assessed contribution representing approximately 2.92% of that budget.[158]

4.  Benefits of Canada’s Re-Engagement in Peace Operations

Most of the Committee’s witnesses held the view that, from the perspective of global peace and security, Canada’s re-engagement in UN peace operations will be beneficial in the long term. For instance, Major-General (Retired) Fraser contended that the country’s re‑engagement is of “national importance,” especially considering that “Canada was a founding member of the United Nations” and “has a long and distinguished history of supporting the [UN] and other international organizations.”[159] He explained that “Canada has contributed to the UN Charter, including maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations, achieving international co‑operation, and solving international problems of economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character while promoting and encouraging respect for human rights.”[160]

Major-General (Retired) Fraser believed that, as a G7 nation, Canada “has much to offer” to UN missions, and noted that the UN is “looking to Canada for leadership and ideas.”[161] As he explained:

The mission to Mali is dangerous, and the traditional idea of UN missions or peacekeeping is a thing of the past. This is not a reason not to participate. It is a call to understand the strategy of how we will harness all the Canadian government capability, like we did in Afghanistan.… We have much to offer, and the contributions being offered, if packaged in a more comprehensive manner and within a strategic plan, would offer us a greater return on our investment. I believe that we have capabilities that are needed by the United Nations and in keeping with the UN Charter, which are also supported by our own Canadian values.[162]

Mr. Dorn agreed, and maintained that “Canada can become a really constructive force on the international stage, helping bring peace to war-torn areas of the world .”[163] Most witnesses suggested that Canada’s new peace operations strategy is a valid approach for re‑engaging in such operations. According to Major-General (Retired) Fraser, the strategy’s initiatives—notably the smart pledge approach, the Vancouver Principles and the Elsie Initiative—are “all good initiatives.”[164]

Several witnesses emphasized that, aside from committing financial and material resources to peace operations, Canada has much to contribute in terms of human resources. Major-General A.D. Meinzinger, the Department of National Defence’s [DND’s] Director of Staff, Strategic Joint Staff, noted that CAF members are highly trained and professional, and are well regarded on these operations. He said that Canada brings “well-trained, competent, professional airmen, airwomen, soldiers, and sailors into those sorts of deployments,” and described CAF members as highly agile, flexible, and capable of responding to “short-notice requests” in “a very professional way.”[165] He also made comments about the high quality of the CAF and the value of its operational experience on peace operations.[166]

CAF members are also well-respected internationally because of their valuable contributions to peace operations. Lieutenant-General Bowes mentioned that “many of the nations that contribute forces are contributing conscripts” to peace missions, whereas Canada contributes volunteers. In his view, Canada has “a professional military, a volunteer force.” He also stated that Canada has “a rigorous professional development system” and a “values-based system.… Canadian values are in demand.”[167]

Canada’s “Smart Pledge” in Action in Mali

The Committee was privileged to have the opportunity to meet CAF members deployed on Operation PRESENCE when they travelled to Senegal and Mali in February 2019. The trip included visits to the CAF’s Tactical Air Lift Detachment and Operational Support Hub in Dakar, Senegal, and to the UN’s Camp Castor in Gao, Mali, which is where CAF members deployed under Operation PRESENCE are stationed. The Committee saw first‑hand the outstanding work that CAF members are doing in support of MINUSMA, which is one of the UN’s most complex and dangerous peace operations.

As well, the Committee had the opportunity to visit MINUSMA’s headquarters in Bamako, Mali, and to examine—with senior UN officials—issues and challenges relating to the ongoing conflict in Mali, the evolution of MINUSMA and Canada’s contribution to it, and additional actions that Canada could take to assist the UN. The Committee also visited the École de maintien de la paix Alioune Blondin Beye in Bamako and discussed, with school personnel, issues relating to training for peace operations. While in Bamako and Dakar, the Committee also had the pleasure to meet with several government and military officials from Senegal and Mali, as well as with similar officials from some of the countries contributing troops to MINUSMA. Moreover, they met with academics and stakeholders from several non-government organizations that are working in Mali.

The Committee left Senegal and Mali with a better understanding of the crisis in Mali, and a greater appreciation of UN peace operations and some of the challenges faced by UN military, police and civilian personnel on the ground. The visit also allowed the Committee to see first-hand the variety of contributions that CAF members are making to a UN mission and, at the same time, to observe an example of Canada’s new smart pledge approach to peace operations.

Regarding this example of Canada’s smart pledge approach, the Committee’s witnesses focused on the crisis—and current security situation—in Mali and the international community’s response to it, the 2015 Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali Emanating from the Algiers Process (hereafter, the Peace and Reconciliation Agreement), Canada’s Operation PRESENCE and areas of possible CAF assistance in Mali. Upon its return to Canada, the Committee released a report entitled Canada’s Task Force Mali in April 2019.[168]

1.  The Crisis in Mali and the International Response

Since Mali gained its independence from France in 1960, the relationship between the populations of northern and southern Mali has been in a constant state of conflict, resulting in a number of rebellions that have been primarily instigated by the traditionally nomadic Tuaregs, who have consistently sought independence for the country’s north from Mali’s central government in Bamako. Historical tensions between north and south have played a central role in Mali’s rebellions. There has always been mutual distrust between the populations of Mali’s northern territories and the Malian government in the south, which has continuously ignored northern aspirations for economic development and political representation, thereby prompting violent confrontation and separatist aspirations in the north. The most recent rebellion occurred in 2012.[169]

The current crisis in Mali is a continuation of the long-standing tensions between the country’s north and its south. This crisis started when Tuareg separatists made use of flows of fighters and weapons from war-torn Libya in the aftermath of Muammar Ghaddafi’s defeat in 2011 to foster a civil war in northern Mali in 2012 against the Government of Mali. The Tuareg rebels formed the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) and obtained support from the regional terrorist network known as Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), which used the occasion to exploit interethnic grievances and local resentment towards Mali’s central government.[170]

As rebellion spread across northern Mali, disgruntled members of Mali’s armed forces—angered by their government’s mishandling of the conflict in northern Mali—overthrew the country’s elected president in a military coup. The rebels used the opportunity created by the military coup to declare the independence of Azawad. However, their success was short-lived. With a security vacuum in Mali, AQIM and other terrorist organizations pushed the Tuareg rebels out of the main cities in northern Mali and took control over the territory. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people were displaced and a regional humanitarian crisis occurred.[171]

In December 2012, UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2085 authorized the African-led International Support Mission in Mali (AFISMA) to help Mali strengthen its defence and security forces and to support Malian authorities’ efforts to recover and stabilize the areas in the north under the control of terrorists and other armed groups, to protect the civilian population, and to provide humanitarian assistance.[172] In January 2013, France launched military air strikes and ground combat operations in northern Mali. François Hollande, who was then France’s president, justified the intervention by noting the Government of Mali’s request for assistance and portrayed the intervention as necessary both to prevent a southward advance from northern Mali by the terrorist forces and to protect French citizens in Mali.[173] At its peak, the French intervention—known as Operation SERVAL—comprised almost 5,000 troops on the ground; they were assisted by 2,000 Chadian personnel who had been deployed in January 2013, by U.S. logistical and surveillance support, and by African forces deployed within the framework of AFISMA.[174] By April 2013, Operation SERVAL had recaptured most of the territory held by the terrorist groups, and the Tuareg separatists then reasserted control over the territory. In all, about 45 Chadian and French troops were killed on Operation SERVAL.[175]

A mid-2013 ceasefire between the armed rebel groups and the transitional government that governed Mali following the military coup of 2012 allowed for presidential elections and peace negotiations. In August 2013, Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta was elected President of Mali;[176] he was re-elected in August 2018.[177]

2.  The 2015 Peace and Reconciliation Agreement

In April 2013, the UN established MINUSMA through UNSCR 2100. Designed to help stabilize Mali in the aftermath of the 2012 rebellion, MINUSMA replaced AFISMA, and was mandated to protect civilians and support the peace process between the Government of Mali and the armed rebel groups.[178] Negotiated in Algiers, Algeria, the Peace and Reconciliation Agreement was signed in June 2015 following a long negotiation process.[179] According to Global Affairs Canada, the implementation of this agreement has been challenging, requiring significant reform of political, governance, security and economic structures in Mali, as well as the active cooperation of all signatories and the support of the international community.[180]

In 2017, the U.S.-based Carter Center received the mandate to be an independent observer of the agreement’s implementation. To date, it has issued three progress reports—most recently in February 2019—and has identified numerous implementation challenges.[181] According to representatives of the Carter Center with whom the Committee met in Bamako, progress in implementing the agreement has been slow, and the threat of terrorism and intercommunal conflict in Mali continues to undermine the agreement’s implementation. The Committee was told that intensified violence in central Mali since 2015 has been a serious impediment to implementation efforts, as have slow disarmament and demobilization by the agreement’s signatories. Road transportation, in particular, remains very difficult because of the actions of terrorist groups.[182]

Although the Carter Center reported periodic conflicts between the signatories from 2015 to 2017, its most recent report characterized the sustained cessation of hostilities between the signatories in 2018 as a major achievement. That said, both Mali’s population and the international community are reportedly frustrated and impatient with the agreement’s slow implementation.[183]

In October 2018, the UN and the Government of Mali signed a Pact for Peace, which calls on the signatories of—and the parties to—the June 2015 Peace and Reconciliation Agreement to work towards rapid and effective implementation of the peace process. According to the Carter Center, the status of the agreement’s implementation will constitute a benchmark in June 2019 discussions for renewal of MINUSMA.[184]

3.  Mali’s Current Security Situation

The current security situation in Mali remains volatile, with numerous non-signatory armed extremist groups and terrorist organizations continuing to assert territorial claims across northern and central Mali. According to the UN Secretary-General’s December 2018 report about the situation in Mali, “the security situation [remains] of grave concern” as a result of “several complex attacks launched by violent extremist groups in the [country’s] central and northern regions.”[185] The Committee was told that the number of conflict-related fatalities in Mali has increased in recent years, rising from 318 in 2016 to 1,760 in 2018, the most deadly year since the beginning of the armed conflict in 2012.[186] As of 30 April 2019, 198 UN personnel have been killed on MINUSMA.[187]

In addition to the role played by armed extremist groups, instability in Mali is affected by organized criminal organizations, and by arms, drug and human traffickers. Moreover, instability arising from the absence of state control in Mali’s north, deteriorating security in central Mali, persistent and violent conflict in northern Mali, degrading living conditions, insufficient economic opportunities, rising narcotics trafficking in West Africa and rampant corruption have allowed transnational criminal networks both to develop a complex illicit trafficking network and to flourish in the country.[188]

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the ongoing violence in Mali has significantly worsened living conditions and limited humanitarian access across the country’s northern and central regions, with an estimated 5.2 million people—or one in four residents—“in dire need of humanitarian assistance.”[189] Moreover, continued violence in these regions has had a considerable impact on the human rights situation in the country, with numerous reports of human rights violations and little progress in providing justice for victims.[190]

When the Committee visited MINUSMA Headquarters in Bamako in February 2019, UN officials said that the conflict in Mali remains difficult and complex, and suggested that progress towards peace must continue with the international community’s support. According to them, Mali is a poor and weak state that has become an illicit trafficking centre as a result of the instability caused by the ongoing conflict. They believed that the rise in arms, drug and human trafficking through Mali is affecting the security of both the Sahel region, and the rest of Africa and Europe.[191] The Committee also heard that the international community is continuing with its efforts to help stabilize Mali, as well as the greater Sahel region, with several countries and international organizations—with different mandates and missions—currently on the ground in Mali.[192]

The UN’s main effort in Mali continues to be centred around MINUSMA, whose mandate has been revised in recent years. For example, in June 2014, UNSCR 2164 gave MINUSMA new tasks that included: “ensuring security, stabilization and protection of civilians; supporting national political dialogue and reconciliation; and assisting the reestablishment of state authority, the rebuilding of the security sector, and the promotion and protection of human rights.”[193] More recently, in June 2018, UNSCR 2423 established the following “priority tasks” for MINUSMA: support the implementation of political and institutional reforms, particularly the restoration and extension of state authority and the rule of law throughout Mali; support defence, security, stabilization, reconciliation and justice measures; protect civilians, including against asymmetric threats; promote and protect human rights; and provide humanitarian assistance.[194]

MINUSMA is currently the third-largest of the UN’s 14 peace missions deployed around the world.[195] As of 31 March 2019, the mission comprised 13,137 military personnel and 1,734 police personnel—a total of 14,871—from 57 countries, including Canada; the top five troop-contributing countries were Burkina Faso (1,875 personnel), Bangladesh (1,693), Chad (1,472), Senegal (1,617) and Togo (1,237), which—with 7,894 personnel collectively—accounted for more than 53% of the total number of troops deployed on MINUSMA. As of that date, approximately 3.9% of the personnel serving with MINUSMA—or 588 individuals—were women.[196] As well, MINUSMA is one of the UN’s most dangerous and deadliest operations, with—as of 30 April 2019—198 personnel killed since its establishment in April 2013.[197]

In addition to MINUSMA, a number of countries and international organizations are actively engaged in counter-terrorism efforts in Mali and elsewhere in the Sahel region. Committee members learned that there are three main state actors currently engaged in counter-terrorism efforts in Mali: France; the G5 Sahel Joint Force; and Mali.[198]

France has been engaged in counter-terrorism operations in Mali since the launch of Operation SERVAL in 2013.[199] In August 2014, Operation SERVAL was converted into Operation BARKHANE, with an expanded counter-terrorism mandate throughout the Sahel region: Burkina Faso; Chad; Mali; Mauritania; and Niger.[200] About 4,500 French troops are currently deployed on Operation BARKHANE.[201] From 2013 to 2018, Canada supported Operations SERVAL and BARKHANE by periodically providing strategic airlift support. Under Operation FREQUENCE, Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) CC-177 Globemaster strategic transport aircraft have moved military personnel and equipment between France and the Sahel region in support of France’s counter-terrorist operations in Mali and elsewhere in West Africa.[202]

Second, the G5 Sahel is a regional organization comprised of Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Chad that was formed in 2014 with the goal of strengthening capacities and increasing coordination among members to counterterrorism and organized crime in the Sahel region to prevent conflict from spilling across borders. The G5 Sahel Joint Force was established in July 2017 to undertake coordinated counter-terrorism efforts in the region. With about 5,000 troops from the five countries in the Sahel region, the G5 Sahel Joint Force has received support from the European Union and the UN, among others. For example, in December 2017, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution authorizing UN personnel deployed on MINUSMA to provide the G5 Sahel Joint Force with logistical and operational support. As such, Canada’s troops and equipment in Mali may be called upon to support the G5 Sahel Joint Force.[203]

Finally, the third main state actor actively engaged in counter-terrorism efforts in Mali is Mali itself, with the country’s military and police forces conducting counter-terrorism activities in their own territory.[204] In January 2013, in an effort to help restore state authority in Mali, the European Union agreed to deploy a multinational European Union Training Mission Mali (EUTM Mali) to Bamako to provide coordinated assistance, expertise, training and support to help strengthen the capabilities of Mali’s armed forces. The European Union Capacity Building Mission Sahel Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali), which is a civilian training mission, was launched in January 2015 to provide similar advice and training to Mali’s police and other security forces.[205]

4.  Canada’s Interests in Mali

Canada has been supporting international efforts to help stabilize Mali and the Sahel region. Canada and Mali have maintained bilateral diplomatic relations since 1969, and Canada has provided more than $1.5 billion in international assistance to Mali since 2000.[206] The two countries are also trade and investment partners. For example, Canada has mining interests in Mali. According to Louis Verret, Canada’s Ambassador to Mali, Canada is the largest source country for private investment in Mali’s mining sector,[207] which is a significant contributor to Mali’s economy; about 62% of the country’s export revenue is derived from that sector.[208] Gold is the main commodity of Mali’s mining sector, and Canadian firms own and operate a number of gold mines in the country. The Committee heard that Canadian firms are responsible for 60% of gold mining in Mali, and their investments in mining operations in the country amounted to $1.52 billion in 2016. For instance, in 2017, B2Gold—a Canadian firm—invested $600 million and opened one of Mali’s largest gold mines.[209] That said, the Committee heard during its visit to Mali that most of the profits made in the mining sector does not remain in Mali. Mali continues to be one of the poorest countries in the world.[210]

It is in Canada’s interest to assist the Government of Mali and the international community in overcoming the current crisis in Mali, and to help restore peace and stability in Mali and in other parts of the Sahel region.[211] Since 2012, Canada has adopted an integrated approach to its programming in Mali to address the complexity of the conflict, with development and humanitarian assistance programs being combined with peace and security programs.[212] Mr. Verret told the Committee that there is no security without development, and no development without security. In his view, because they go “hand in hand,” Canada tries to have synergies between them in order to have the best possible effects on the ground.[213]

Development and humanitarian assistance programs are essential for helping to resolve some of the root causes of the conflict in Mali, which is one of the world’s poorest countries. The country ranked 182^nd out of 189 countries on the Human Development Index for 2017, and nearly 45% of its population of 17.6 million people lives below the national poverty line. Moreover, about 76% of Mali’s population lives in rural areas,[214] and some of the conflict is the result of tension and competition between farmers and herders in poor rural areas over access to land. As well, Mali’s population is very young, with almost 65% being under 25 years of age. A number of armed extremist groups recruit youth, and—according to Canadian government and MINUSMA officials—many of Mali’s youth are radicalized. As well, the country’s weak governance makes it difficult for the Government of Mali and its security forces to assert control over many regions of Mali.[215]

Investing in development and humanitarian assistance programs is one way that Canada can help to bring stability and prosperity to Mali. The Committee was told that 25% of Mali’s population needs humanitarian assistance due to the armed conflict in the country, but also because of desertification and agricultural unpredictability, including that caused by climate change. Moreover, Mali has an adult illiteracy rate of almost 66%, and its infant and maternal mortality, morbidity and malnutrition rates are among the highest in Sub-Saharan Africa. Gender inequality in Mali is also high. The Committee heard that, in Mali, nearly 40% of women are married before the age of 18, 83% of women are victims of genital mutilation, and 78% of women cannot read.[216]

Mali is currently Canada’s second-largest recipient of international assistance in Africa. Since 2000, Canada has provided more than $1.5 billion in international assistance to that country;[217] in 2016‑2017, that assistance totalled nearly $125.5 million, placing Canada among the largest bilateral donors to Mali.[218] According to Global Affairs Canada, this assistance “focuses on improving basic social services, including health services, nutrition and basic education, promoting inclusive economic growth that works for everyone through agriculture and irrigation, and promoting gender equality and inclusive governance through strengthening government institutions.” Global Affairs Canada maintained that these investments have already made it possible “to achieve significant results in the fight against poverty and in improving the living conditions of Malians.”[219]

The Committee was told that the Government of Mali is having success in areas where Canada is providing development assistance to Mali. For example, Canada’s support helped to increase enrollment in the country’s elementary schools by approximately 289,000 students between 2012 and 2017; almost 47% of these students were girls. Moreover, more than 700,000 people in Mali’s rural areas have benefited from inclusive financial services, including agricultural credits, and 67% of the beneficiaries have been women. Canada has also contributed to strengthening Mali’s health care system, and improving basic community services and access to reproductive, maternal and child health care. As well, the Committee heard that Canada’s efforts have led to significant reductions in Mali’s mortality rate for children under 5 years old—from 191 per 1,000 children in 2006 to 95 per 1,000 in 2017—and in its maternal mortality rate—from 464 per 100,000 women in 2006 to 368 per 100,000 in 2017. Canada also funded the construction and rehabilitation of more than 250 hydro-agricultural sites in Mali between 2014 and 2017, which gave almost 25,000 producers—30% of them women—access to irrigated and developed land.[220]

Concerning peace and security, Canada has been supporting the peace and reconciliation process in Mali through various initiatives that promote stabilization, counter terrorism, and encourage dialogue between the Government of Mali and armed rebel groups to achieve a lasting peace.[221] For example, through Canada’s Peace and Stabilization Operations Program for the Sahel region, $30 million was allocated over the 2016 to 2019 period for peace and stabilization programming in two major areas: support for implementation of the June 2015 Peace and Reconciliation Agreement, with a focus on women and youth; and support for, and enhancement of, peace and stabilization operations in the region, including through training, capacity building , community conflict-resolution mechanisms and support for human rights.[222] Global Affairs Canada maintained that Mali and the Sahel region “are likely to feature prominently in future [Peace and Stabilization Operations Program] programming to further advance peace and reconciliation during the 2019-2022 … period.”[223] Moreover, Mali benefits from Canada’s $41 million in regional funding for the Sahel region as part of the Counter-Terrorism Capacity Building Program.[224]

5.  Canada’s Operation PRESENCE

One of the most visible demonstrations of Canada’s integrated approach to the conflict in Mali is Operation PRESENCE. As noted earlier, in March 2018, the Government of Canada announced a commitment to deploy an air task force on MINUSMA for a 12‑month period, including three CH-147 Chinook helicopters to provide urgently needed aeromedical evacuation, transport and logistics capacity, five CH-146 Griffon helicopters to provide the Chinook helicopters with armed escort and protection, and approximately 250 CAF members for support.[225] Operation PRESENCE is scheduled to end on 31 July 2019.[226] A Romanian transport helicopter detachment will replace Canada’s air task force in Mali, although this detachment is not expected to be fully operational before 15 October 2019, at the earliest.[227]

On 24 June 2018, the first CAF members to deploy on Operation PRESENCE left Canada for Mali, and the first Chinook and Griffon helicopters arrived in Gao, Mali on 15 July.[228] Canada’s air task force relieved the German and Belgian helicopter detachments based in Gao. The German air contingent consisted of NH-90 transport helicopters and Tiger attack helicopters; the Belgian air contingent comprised NH-90 transport helicopters. The German and Belgian helicopters officially ceased flying operations on 30 June 2018 and were withdrawn from Mali in subsequent days.[229]

Canada’s air task force reached its initial operating capability, and became available to conduct air operations, on 1 August 2018. The air task force reached its full operating capability on 15 August, and completed its first medical evacuation in support of MINUSMA on 11 September. As of 1 May 2019, Canada’s air task force had conducted nine MEDEVACS,[230] airlifted more than 5,800 passengers and more than 369,000 pounds of cargo, and flown almost 2,900 hours in support of MINUSMA.[231]

The CAF members and helicopters are based at Camp Castor, a German-run UN camp close to the airfield in Gao; they are co-located with personnel from several NATO countries, notably Germany and the Netherlands. They also work closely with other troops based at the neighbouring UN Super Camp in Gao. The Committee had the opportunity to visit Camp Castor, and to see CAF members cooperating with other UN contingents.[232]

Several of the individuals with whom the Committee met in Senegal and Mali noted that Canada’s air task force provides a sophisticated and valuable military capability to MINUSMA, with its helicopters permitting UN troops to conduct longer-range and higher-risk patrols and activities. The Committee also learned that Canada’s air task force is providing a critical aeromedical evacuation and air transport capability, with lives being saved in the theatre of operation. Overall, the Committee was told that Canada’s contribution is extremely appreciated, and that its air assets and personnel will be hard to replace when Operation PRESENCE ends.[233]

While most of the individuals with whom the Committee met in Senegal and Mali described the contributions of Canada’s air task force as exemplary, and praised the professionalism and value of the CAF’s air detachment in Gao. However, several people raised concerns about a significant capability gap of almost three months between the end of Operation PRESENCE on 31 July 2019 and the beginning of Romania’s mission on 15 October. Because of the urgency of the situation, in April 2019, the Committee released a report[234] identifying several actions that the Committee was told Canada could take to help bridge the capability gap.[235]

Although Operation PRESENCE will end in July 2019, Canada will continue to contribute military staff officers, civilian police officers and financial support to MINSUMA.[236] About 10 Canadian staff officers are currently assigned to MINUSMA Headquarters in Bamako,[237] Canada has committed to provide up to 20 police officers to MINUSMA and EUCAP Sahel Mali starting in 2019,[238] and the country provides approximately US$27 million to MINUSMA annually through its assessed contributions to the UN’s budget.[239]

While in Dakar, Senegal, Committee members also had the opportunity to visit Canada’s Interim Operational Support Hub and its Tactical Airlift Detachment, and to see the ways in which the 65 CAF members assigned to those units are supporting MINUSMA.[240] The hub’s main task is to control and coordinate the movement of personnel, materiel and equipment between Canada and the air task force in Gao, while the tactical airlift’s primary role is to fly personnel and supplies between the hub and Gao; they serve as a vital lifeline for the CAF air task force deployed to Mali. As of 1 May 2019, the RCAF’s CC‑130J Hercules transport aircraft, which is assigned to the Tactical Airlift Detachment and operates from the Interim Operational Support Hub, had flown more than 1,245 hours in support of MINUSMA, airlifting about 2,700 passengers and approximately 1.9 million pounds of cargo.[241] During its visit to Senegal and Mali, the Committee had the opportunity to fly on the Tactical Airlift Detachment’s CC‑130J Hercules.

Although the Interim Operational Support Hub’s main priority is to support Operation PRESENCE, it also assists other CAF missions in the region,[242] including Operation NABERIUS, which is the CAF’s military training mission in Niger. Since 2013, small teams of CAF members have been providing Niger’s armed forces with training funded by Global Affairs Canada’s Counter-Terrorism Capacity Building Program,[243] thereby helping that country to build up its counter-terrorism capabilities. Niger is one of the five countries that make up the G5 Sahel Joint Force. Other CAF missions in the region include Operation SOPRANO, which is the CAF’s contribution to the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), and Operation CROCODILE, which is the CAF’s contribution to the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO).[244]

The Committee told the Senegalese government and military officials with whom they met during their visit to Dakar that Canada is thankful to Senegal for allowing its territory to be used to support MINUSMA’s logistics operations.[245]

6.  Areas of Possible Canadian Military Assistance in Mali

During its visit to Mali, the Committee discussed several possible areas of future Canadian assistance to the country. For example, when they visited the École de maintien de la paix Alioune Blondin Beye in Bamako, Mali, the school’s senior authorities provided an overview of the types of training provided to personnel deployed on peace operations, and indicated that a contribution of Canadian personnel to the school would be welcome. In particular, the school authorities suggested that Canada could fill some instructor positions that are vacant, particularly with female instructors to increase the number of the school’s instructors who are women. As well, the authorities encouraged Canada to send francophone or bilingual instructors and researchers because most of the school’s activities are conducted in French. Moreover, the Committee was told that the school’s research centre urgently needs analysts and researchers, and expressed a hope that Canada could fill some of those vacant positions too.[246]

The Committee also discussed the possibility of Canada providing capacity-building assistance, including advice, training and military equipment, to the G5 Sahel Joint Force. Some of the individuals with whom the Committee met noted the potential for Canadian contributions to the European Union’s training missions in Mali.[247]

Improving Canada’s Contributions to Peace Operations

Today, peace operations are both more complex and more dangerous than was the case during the Cold War. According to Major-General (Retired) MacKenzie, they are “unbelievably different,” which is “why you need well-trained, well-led, and well-equipped soldiers” who are capable of working together as a team, and who have proper support and resources to conduct operations in conflict zones, such as Mali.[248] As times have changed, peace operations have had to adapt to new security challenges. Several of the Committee’s witnesses emphasized that the focus of such operations today is to prevent and resolve conflict, rather than to keep the peace.[249] Shelly Whitman, Executive Director of the Roméo Dallaire Child Soldiers Initiative, suggested that “[t]he era of chapter VI-style peacekeeping is over. We are in chapter VII,” and “we are sending forces that must be capable and must be credible in order, in extremis, to have to use kinetic force to establish an atmosphere of peace and to permit the other elements to be able to function.”[250]

While the UN has made progress in recent years in reforming its peace operations, many witnesses held the view that more work is needed to ensure that these operations remain relevant, efficient and adapted to the constantly evolving international security environment. They encouraged Canada and other UN member states to develop new and innovative ways to improve and reform UN missions.

Although most of the Committee’s witnesses supported both Canada’s new peace operations strategy and its contribution to MINUSMA, some of them held the view that Canada could—and should—be doing more. In identifying areas of possible improvement to Canada’s leadership and other contributions to international peace operations, their focus was: leadership and personnel contributions to peace operations; restructuring and reforming UN engagement in peace operations; conflict prevention and resolution; training for peace operations; a Canadian Training Centre of Excellence on Peace Operations; public outreach and education; women, peace and security; and child soldiers.

1.  Leadership and Personnel Contributions to Peace Operations

Witnesses stated that Canada’s leadership role in UN peace operations has diminished over the last two decades as the country has withdrawn from such operations, a consequence of which is a loss in influence at the UN. Ms. McAskie contended that Canada previously was a leader at the UN in peacekeeping, peacebuilding, development, humanitarian assistance and other areas. She said that, with this leadership, Canada was able to “shape the agenda … because we showed up and we took responsibility.” However, according to her, the situation has changed with Canada’s withdrawal from peace operations and the UN has “stopped asking us to provide military leaders and political leaders,” with the result that the country is “not at the table” when the UN makes decisions about peace missions. Ms. McAskie commented that Canada “lost out on placing competent Canadians” in key positions at the UN and on peace operations, and emphasized that, “[i]f we're not at the table, we cannot influence the negotiations.… [W]e’re just not seen as a player” anymore.[251]

In agreeing, Major-General (Retired) MacKenzie noted that, when Canada still had a leadership role in peacekeeping in the early 1990s, the country had “1% of the world's population [but was] doing 10% of the world's peacekeeping.”[252] Today, Canada’s contribution to peace operations is considerably lower than was once the case.[253] According to Major-General (Retired) MacKenzie, with almost 100,000 UN personnel currently deployed around the world on peace missions that often comprise more than 10,000 troops each, Canada no longer has the capacity to make such a significant contribution to the UN’s peace operations, especially because the country is also contributing to other military operations worldwide, including with NATO.[254]

Brigadier-General (Retired) Mitchell stated that the initiatives contained in Canada’s new peace operations strategy are “all good contributions and welcome,” and that the Vancouver Principles and the Elsie Initiative give the country “a little bit” of a leadership role internationally, but he did not think that those contributions are “big enough” or “broad enough” to return Canada to the forefront as a world leader in peace operations.[255]

That said, several witnesses held the view that Canada should strive to regain a leadership role in UN missions and made a number of related suggestions,[256] such as increasing the number of CAF members deployed on such operations. According to Major-General (Retired) Thompson, “credibility is bestowed upon those who put boots on the ground.”[257] He explained that:

[i]f you want to play a leadership role in the world, you need to accept the risk, in blood and treasure, by contributing boots on the ground to round out the quality of a fully enabled peacekeeping mission from top to bottom. By so doing, Canada would build credibility, garner the leadership positions that it hasn't held for many years, and over time re-emerge as a leader on the world stage.… If you don't put boots on the ground and skin in the game, then no one is going to give you the time of day. You don't have any credibility.[258]

Major-General (Retired) Thompson provided Canada’s contribution to the war in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2014 as an example of the country’s influence and leadership on an international operation that resulted from its highly competent senior officers and qualified troops. He said that “Canada benefited enormously from the presence … of Canadian boots on the ground” in Afghanistan, and commented that “they were boots on the ground that in turn gave Canada a seat at the table and a say in what was going on in [Afghanistan].” In Major-General (Retired) Thompson’s opinion, Canada would have to take this approach again if it wants to regain influence and leadership on peace operations. He suggested that the best way to do so is by providing “quality density from top to bottom” to such operations,[259] and mentioned that:

at the top [Canada] needs to have competent, active-force commanders overseen by equally committed civilian leadership.... They need to be supported by properly staffed headquarters that have access to and harness a variety of capable enablers—including intelligence feeds, proper logistics support, helicopters, and fixed-wing assets—and where the rubber meets the road, properly trained and disciplined boots on the ground. It's the full range from the leadership through to the staff and to the properly trained boots on the ground.[260]

In expressing a similar view, Brigadier-General (Retired) Mitchell stated that, “if Canada also puts boots on the ground, along with the other things,” the country would “step into that world leadership role again.”[261] Other witnesses agreed.[262] For example, Mr. Day noted that “one way of showing leadership at the UN is by contributing troops on the ground and being able to guide the strategic direction of a UN mission … with staff officers and planners.”[263]

Witnesses mentioned that the CAF’s professionalism and superb training make CAF members valuable assets in any peace operation. Major-General Meinzinger emphasized that “the quality of the CAF members is appreciated, particularly in the leadership realm. Canadian personnel are experienced operationally and that makes a difference on the ground.”[264]

CAF members’ bilingual capabilities are also an asset on UN peace operations. Noting that about one-half of such operations are currently in francophone countries in Africa, and acknowledging that there are “linguistic challenges right now in a lot of francophone missions” because of a lack of well-trained military personnel who speak French, Mr. Day indicated that Canada could make a significant difference in those theatres of operation if the country were to provide a higher number of qualified francophone staff officers and troops.[265] Senior UN officials reiterated that point when speaking to the Committee during its October 2018 visit to UN Headquarters. They also highlighted the need for more women to be included on Canadian military and police contingents.[266]

Mr. Day also encouraged Canada to provide more staff officers to the UN. He explained that Canadian officers are “some of the best, if not the best” in the world, and contended that assigning more of them to the UN would be a “value added” contribution that the country could make to peace operations.[267] Similarly, during its visit to UN Headquarters, the Committee was informed about the need for staff officers, with representatives of the UN Department of Peace Operations commenting that the UN needs qualified staff officers from Canada to fill UN positions and to train staff officers from other troop-contributing countries.[268]

2.  Restructuring and Reforming UN Engagement in Peace Operations

Several witnesses told the Committee that Canada should seek a greater presence within the UN system in order to make a more meaningful contribution and to help shape reforms to UN peace operations. Ms. McAskie pointed out that the UN's policies and processes concerning these operations have “evolved rapidly and dramatically over the past three decades,” and commented that “[t]he UN is very aware of what needs to be done, but it lacks government support and resources.” She said that countries like Canada could help by providing the UN with more support and resources. In her opinion, Canada has been “absent for a long time and has been very critical” of the UN, “yet has not taken the effort to get in there and fix the problems that it criticizes.” Ms. McAskie felt that providing the UN with additional support and resources “would give [Canada] a stronger voice within the UN, thereby allowing it to have more influence within the system.”[269]

Moreover, according to Ms. McAskie, “the United Nations is in need [of] everything,” particularly personnel. She emphasized that there is a need for properly trained military personnel deployed on peace operations, but also noted that “the United Nations needs Canada's policy and development analysis capacity.” She believed that Canada should provide UN headquarters and UN missions with people who have extensive experience in policy development and the delivery of international assistance, and stated that “it is very important for the UN mission to have access to people with extensive experience, … and we have that.”[270]

More specifically, Ms. McAskie identified an absence of Canadians in the Office of Military Affairs at UN Headquarters. The main function of that office is to provide military expertise to the UN’s Department of Peace Operations and its Department of Operational Support.[271] According to her, because Canada does not have anyone in that office, “we do not have an opportunity to contribute to mission development, long-term planning, or support for field missions.… This impacts chain of command issues. We cannot criticize problems within the chain of command if we do not have anyone in the chain of command. We therefore need Canadians in the chain of command. That could also give us access to privileged information.”[272]

Mr. Dorn agreed, and indicated that Canada should send more qualified personnel to UN Headquarters to assist with reforms to peace operations. He explained that “[w]e need to strengthen the United Nations in New York,” and suggested that UN Headquarters is “understaffed, under-resourced, [and] underfinanced.” In particular, Mr. Dorn pointed out that the UN’s Department of Peace Operations has “expanded fivefold from the heady days of the early 1990s,” which means that “there is a need for much more support.” In his view, Canada should “apply for some of the military posts in New York.”[273]

Aside from personnel, witnesses highlighted a number of other ways that Canada could make valuable contributions to reforms of UN peace operations. For example, several witnesses expressed concerns about the problem of sexual exploitation and abuse by UN personnel deployed on such operations, and said that personnel who are guilty of such crimes must be held accountable for their actions. In discussing the problem, which is serious for the UN, Ms. McAskie explained that some UN “member states will not punish the perpetrators, even once they are identified.”[274] According to her, “[t]he UN needs our help in dealing with [this problem],” and Canada should take a leadership role, and be more engaged and active.[275] Mr. Johnstone agreed. “There is still work to be done on accountability for sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers,” he told the Committee. “I am not aware of any UN member state pushing for the withholding of reimbursements to TCCs [troop contributing countries] that fail to investigate, prosecute and when appropriate punish perpetrators. Perhaps this is a cause Canada could take up.”[276]

The UN also needs technology and equipment, and is looking to Canada and other UN members states for assistance.[277] During the visit to UN Headquarters, UN officials spoke to the Committee about the UN’s lack of capacity in terms of air mobility (helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft), anti-IED equipment and heavy equipment, notably armoured vehicles. They also highlighted the need for greater airlift capabilities, and for more aeromedical evacuation teams and associated equipment on peace operations. According to them, the UN would be grateful for Canada’s assistance in this regard. They also noted that some troop-contributing countries are sending their personnel on peace missions without certain equipment, such as flak jackets, communication systems or anti-mine detection devices. From this perspective, Canada was urged to supply equipment to some of those countries. UN officials also reported a lack of maintenance capabilities in the field for armoured vehicles and for other heavy equipment, and asked Canada to provide field maintenance expertise to certain troop-contributing countries.[278]

In focusing on the challenges of new technologies, particularly concerning artificial intelligence and cyber warfare, Mr. Gowan mentioned that “the UN does not yet have the architecture that is necessary to manage, prevent or respond to any new forms of warfare that we are likely to see in the coming decades.”[279] He contended that Canada has expertise in some of those emerging technological fields, and could help the UN to overcome some challenges.[280]

Witnesses also identified a need for more sophisticated intelligence for UN peace operations, and characterized improved intelligence sharing between countries as vital, and the development of new and innovative intelligence capacities as imperative. UN officials told the Committee that they would like Canada to help fill some intelligence-related gaps,[281] while Mr. Day indicated that peace operations require more long-range drones for surveillance and to gather intelligence.[282]

Witnesses also stated that Canada could assist the UN by helping to enhance rapid deployment capabilities. According to the UN’s new operational readiness policy, troop-contributing countries must do more to accelerate the deployment of their troops.[283] In emphasizing the need for more rapid deployment, Mr. Day explained that “[c]ountries need to be able to send troops after one or two months, not after a year or two.”[284] UN officials highlighted the importance of rapid deployment to theatres of operation both to protect civilians and to help prevent mass atrocities and genocides, and noted that late arrival to a conflict zone could have catastrophic humanitarian consequences. In their discussions with the Committee, UN officials identified rapid deployment capabilities as a critical area where Canada could make a high-value contribution to UN peace operations, and urged Canada to move forward with—and promote—its Quick Reaction Force concept that was announced in November 2017.[285]

Similarly, Brigadier-General (Retired) Mitchell suggested that Canada could contribute to the establishment of a “rapidly deployable, multinational headquarters to support mission leadership,” which—in his view—is not a new concept. Citing Canada’s instrumental role in the creation of the multinational Standby High-Readiness Brigade (SHIRBRIG) for UN operations, which was active from 1996 to 2009, he noted that the SHIRBRIG was “a multinational brigade that could be made available to the UN as a rapidly deployable peacekeeping force.… It did not belong to the UN, but rather was made available to the UN as required and at the discretion of the individual SHIRBRIG members.” Brigadier-General (Retired) Mitchell said that, although a new multinational brigade “may never be resurrected for political and economic reasons, Canada could still undertake the leadership role by focusing on providing the framework of one vital contribution that SHIRBRIG provided—the jewel in the crown, if you will—and that is a multinational UN military headquarters.”[286] According to him, a rapidly deployable, multinational headquarters:

could be fully trained and equipped with UN-compatible vehicles, equipment, and communications, able to integrate fully within a UN mission headquarters, and deployable within a very short period of time in order to rapidly establish new military command-and-control capacity within an integrated UN mission headquarters. It should not be a full-time, fully manned headquarters, but rather would have a small, permanent planning and training staff that would be augmented from across the country for training events and operations.… To achieve the headquarters’ multinational character, Canada could provide the basic building blocks, and then arrange to partner with like-minded nations to provide elements to augment the headquarters staff, equipment, and resources. Once established and trained, it could be offered as a formed headquarters on standby, and readily deployable within the framework of the UN peacekeeping capability readiness system.[287]

UN officials informed the Committee about the way that the UN is dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder and other types of operational stress injuries among UN personnel deployed on peace operations. With these operations occurring in increasingly hostile environments, such injuries are now more prevalent. According to some of the UN officials, the UN would like to benefit from Canada’s experience with treating such injuries. The Committee spoke to them about the success of the CAF’s Road to Mental Readiness (R2MR) program, which is a resilience and mental health education, awareness and skills training program that is embedded throughout CAF members’ careers. Introduced in 2009, the R2MR program aims to ensure that CAF members receive the most appropriate training so that they can be as mentally prepared as possible to deal with the various challenges that they may encounter throughout their military careers and while deployed on operations. UN officials indicated that Canada’s R2MR program could be of valuable assistance to UN personnel deployed on peace operations, as could the sharing of information about operational stress injuries and possible treatments.[288]

3.  Conflict Prevention and Resolution

The Committee’s witnesses made comments about the growing importance of conflict prevention and resolution in the context of UN peace operations.[289] According to Lieutenant-General (Retired) Roméo Dallaire, the world has entered “an era of conflict resolution and conflict prevention,”[290] and is “caught in an era where it's not peace and it's not war but it's a spectrum, a whole variety of commitments and tasks, all of which focus on either preventing the frictions that lead to conflict or on the actual conflict.”[291] Regarding conflict prevention, he said that:

we've entered an era where we need … a new conceptual base to conflict prevention. The old theory of war … was … very force on force, with the classic use of military force. That has disappeared. We're into an era where … the civilian population is just as much the victims, as they can be also the targets, as they can be also the perpetrators. In this era, we can't keep using old tools.… We are in dire need of conflict prevention by multidisciplinary leaders who master the various disciplines that are needed to deploy in the field.[292]

Concerning conflict resolution, Lieutenant-General (Retired) Dallaire stated that:

[w]e're into conflict resolution that does call for security forces to potentially have to be engaged in extremis to be able to use force to stabilize a situation and … protect civilians. That's the aim of the exercise. Peacekeeping, if you want to use that term, is today about how you protect civilians in order to permit the human security envelope, which has all the other dimensions—humanitarian, legal, nation-building, and so on—and then the room to be able to pull it together.[293]

The growing focus on conflict prevention and resolution has prompted the UN to expand the mandates of its peace operations in recent years, which has increased the pressure on Canada and other UN member states to include military, police, legal, development and other components as part of their contributions to such operations.

During their visit to UN Headquarters, the Committee was told that Canada could do more to help prevent conflict. For example, UN officials suggested that Canada could try to find solutions that would help to prevent young people from becoming radicalized and recruited into armed extremist groups and terrorist organizations. Other UN officials said that the country could become more actively engaged in “exporting the rule of law” worldwide.[294]

UN officials emphasized that the best “political tool for conflict prevention” and enforcement of the rule of law is police officers, who are better-placed than military personnel to address some of the major problems—including organized crime, corruption and a lack of the rule of law—encountered in many of today’s conflict zones. In encouraging Canada to enhance its police contributions to UN peace operations, they indicated that Canadian police officers are in high demand because of their professionalism, significant levels of training, and linguistic skills that enable them to be deployed on operations in francophone countries in Africa or in Haiti. As well, the UN officials expressed an openness to having Canadian police officers provide training to local police and security forces.[295]

Witnesses also said that Canada could do more regarding conflict resolution and post-conflict reconstruction, especially given the growing need to rebuild state structures in war-torn countries rapidly and efficiently in order to avoid power vacuums that could both be exploited by armed groups, terrorists, criminal organizations and other “rogue elements,” and lead to a new crisis. Mr. Day stated that conflict resolution and post-conflict reconstruction could be achieved through providing governance, judicial, development and humanitarian assistance, as well as through capacity-building efforts to help train and rebuild local military and police forces to ensure that local authorities can properly enforce the rule of law.[296] UN officials urged Canada to continue to make—and perhaps even increase—these types of contributions to peace operations.[297]

4.  Training for Peace Operations

A number of witnesses highlighted the need to enhance peace operations‑related training in order to ensure that both military and civilian personnel are prepared for such operations. According to Ms. McAskie, “the complexity of modern UN peace operations … requires UN personnel to have specialized skill sets,” and there is a reliance on “military people who are also diplomats and diplomats who understand the military aspects. You need to have all these people training together.”[298] Mr. Dorn explained that, with the current expansion of peace operations’ mandates, the UN needs various people who have skills in a wide range of duties and trades, many of which are unrelated to the military. In his view:

[i]f you're dealing with nation-building or security sector reform, you not only need to reform the military and the police but to deal with the courts. You even need to deal with the intelligence agencies of the government. That requires specialized capacity.… That's why we need to do specialized training for these kinds of activities.[299]

Many of the Committee’s witnesses urged Canada to invest in training, and emphasized training for both Canadian military, police and civilian personnel deployed on peace operations, and personnel from other troop-contributing countries, particularly—as emphasized by Ms. McAskie—“third world partners.”[300] She said that “[t]he UN needs properly trained armed forces, like Canada's armed forces.… [T]he Canadian Armed Forces would be an extraordinary asset to the United Nations.”[301] In agreeing, Ms. Haq contended that the training of UN forces “remains very important. Canada can play a very important role” in providing such training.[302]

According to Mr. Dorn, the CAF could benefit from more training about peace operations. He mentioned that Canada’s withdrawal from such operations over the last 20 years has resulted in a “loss of CAF experience in the field,” with the result that:

we are not as familiar with the United Nations as we could be, so when we go into those missions, we do not have all the knowledge we need to network effectively in that system. We have paid a high price because we're no longer providing the leadership at the military level.… We're paying a high price because we want to train others in peacekeeping, but we don't have the experience ourselves, so we cannot claim to be the experts in peacekeeping.[303]

In commenting on a decline in the CAF’s peace operations‑related training, Mr. Dorn stated that the number of such training activities has “dropped to less than a quarter of what it was in 2005, with fewer exercises and almost no role-playing as UN peacekeepers.” However, he also noted that some efforts are now being made to “reinvigorate” the peace operations curriculum.[304]

CAF members receive training at the Peace Support Training Centre (PSTC) in Kingston, Ontario. Established in 1996, and directly linked to the Canadian Army Doctrine and Training Centre since 2017, the PSTC has the mandate to “generate and train military experts in influence activities and to support pre-deployment training for individuals or small team missions” deploying on peace operations.[305] According to Major-General Stephen Cadden, Commander of the Canadian Army Doctrine and Training Centre, the PSTC “provides specific individual training to prepare selected members of the Canadian Armed Forces, other government departments, and foreign military personnel for full spectrum operations within the contemporary operating environment.… We train our soldiers and the civilians who will work with them to go into a full war-fighting environment and scale down the knowledge and training as necessary, if we're going into a peace support operation.”[306] Training is provided concerning gender, cultural awareness and child soldiers, among other topics.

With a staff of approximately 60 personnel, each year, the PSTC trains more than 1,000 CAF members, approximately 300 Global Affairs Canada civilian personnel, and between 60 and 70 officers from foreign armed forces.[307] According to Major-General Cadden, the PSTC’s current “vision” is:

to be recognized by all Canadian government departments and allies as the trainer of choice and experts in the delivery of individual readiness training. This includes individual preparation training and hazardous environment training, a United Nations military expert on mission course, security force capacity building, information operations, psychological operations, and civilian and military co-operation training and courses.[308]

Several witnesses encouraged Canada to develop a capability to provide training to personnel from other troop-contributing countries that participate in UN missions. According to Mr. Day, “Canada can offer a combination of linguistic capabilities and excellence in military training that almost no other country in the world has today.”[309] Major-General (Retired) MacKenzie noted the need to train troops from developing countries, many of whom lack training and equipment.[310]

In that regard, Major-General Derek Joyce, DND’s Director General of International Security Policy, highlighted Canada’s experience in providing military training to personnel from foreign armed forces through its Military Training and Cooperation Program (MTCP).[311] Established in 1963, the MTCP “uses military training and capacity building in the area of peace support operations to develop and strengthen bilateral defence relations with countries of strategic interest to Canada.”[312] The MTCP offers courses and training on subjects that range from logistics relating to peace operations to women, peace and security.[313]

During their visit to UN Headquarters, the Committee learned about the UN’s desire for Canada to provide training to other troop-contributing countries. In describing training for peace operations as a major UN priority, UN officials noted that contingents deployed on these operations are from a wide range of countries with varying military standards, giving rise to a need for training and standardization to avoid interoperability problems in the field. According to them, UN forces rarely train together but are frequently deployed on operations together, which is a situation that differs from NATO, whose forces train and exercise together regularly but deploy on operations only occasionally.[314]

As well, the Committee was told that, given the essential need for improved training of UN forces, the UN is looking to Canada for assistance. UN officials believed that military personnel from various troop-contributing countries, including those who are the “weakest,” could benefit from the experience and professionalism of Canada’s military.[315] In their view, there is a need for more “green on blue” training: training of UN peace operations forces (blue) by personnel from professional and well-trained armed forces (green).[316]

In speaking with the Committee, officials from the UN’s Department of Field Support emphasized the need for pre-deployment training, and commented that Canada could assist with such training.[317] Ms. Haq suggested that Canada could enter into partnerships with certain countries and help with pre-deployment training, thereby providing the UN with a service that would be of “great value.”[318] Mr. Day noted that “interoperability is an important issue for new troops coming in,” and indicated that problems often emerge when “you have a troop-contributing country that isn't used to operating alongside some of the more developed countries.” In his opinion, pre-deployment training for these troops could have positive impacts.[319]

According to witnesses, another area where Canada could provide assistance to the UN pertains to training in theatres of operations. Ms. Haq emphasized that “[t]he UN has a training unit in every single mission,” and contended that Canada could make valuable contributions to such in-theatre training units, “particularly in relation to community policing and things like protection of civilians.”[320]

This view was reiterated by UN officials, who expressed the desire to have Canada contribute to UN mobile training teams because of CAF members’ bilingualism, operational experience and high military standards. In essence, mobile training teams are on-site technical assistance teams comprising UN and non-UN training experts on peace operations, and they are deployed under specific terms of reference and for a limited period of time to address particular pre-deployment training and capability development needs. These teams often assist specific countries with their pre-deployment and in-theatre training.[321] Under the UN’s A4P, countries are encouraged to be more interoperable and to have capabilities that are standardized. Because conflict zones are becoming more complex and a wide range of countries are contributing troops to peace operations, a focus on more intensive training prior to deployment is key, and Canada can help with mobile training teams.[322]

Ms. Haq also spoke about the requirement for better training of UN forces to ensure that they have the right capabilities, and the proper operational and tactical training, to operate efficiently alongside regional organizations and other partners in theatres of operation. As well, she noted the need to provide these forces with better training “on the very important elements of understanding human rights and understanding issues related to gender and other things, which the United Nations provides for pre-deployment of troops. The United Nations obviously can't go to every single peacekeeping institute where troops are being prepared for United Nations deployment, so that kind of training, on a bilateral basis or with other partners from that context, is also important, to bring their capacities up.”[323] In her view, there should be better tactical, operational, human rights and gender sensitivity training, and Canada could provide such training.[324]

Similarly, other witnesses highlighted the need to provide UN forces with proper training on gender issues, as well as on the protection of civilians, and suggested that Canada could assist the UN in providing such training. Ms. Kathryn White, President and Chief Executive Officer of the United Nations Association in Canada, emphasized the need to enhance women, peace and security training, training for gender advisers, and training on civil society engagement. She said that “[t]he protection of civilians is increasingly vexing and complex in modern peacekeeping, because it’s what armed groups are more and more targeting.” As such, in her opinion, countries like Canada should “encourage the gender and civil society engagement throughout the [UN] command structure, and … [should] explore new ways to engage civil society in order to protect them on the ground.” She believed that the Canadian military has experience in these areas, and that Canada could provide leadership and training.[325]

Ms. Haq commented that Canada could also play a “very important role” in assisting troop-contributing countries with training related to sexual misconduct, exploitation and abuse. She explained that the “whole issue of sexual exploitation and abuse” by UN personnel on peace operations is “still very much at the fore,” adding that experience has shown that pre‑deployment training for UN forces “is not enough” to address those issues. In her view, “Canada can bring a lot to bear on that whole issue of sexual exploitation and abuse” because the country has “very high standards” regarding such issues.[326]

According to Mr. Gowan, there is a growing requirement for counter-IED training, and Canada would be well-suited to provide such training because of its experiences in Afghanistan. He mentioned that, at present, African contingents are experiencing the most casualties in Mali because they lack the experience and equipment to deal with IEDs.[327]

Some witnesses encouraged Canada to provide more training to police personnel from other countries deploying on UN missions, and UN officials identified a need to train both police and civilian personnel deployed on such operations.[328] Ms. Haq noted that “Canada has a stellar record and reputation in terms of community policing,” and commented that the country would be well-placed to provide that kind of training to other UN police contingents.[329]

5.  A Canadian Training Centre of Excellence on Peace Operations

Several of the Committee’s witnesses suggested that Canada should establish a training centre of excellence on peace operations, similar to the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre that the Government of Canada closed in 2013. The centre was established in 1994 in the aftermath of the “Somalia Affair,” when—as stated by Mr. Dorn—Canada experienced a “terribly maligned reputation” as a result of misconduct by some soldiers from the country’s Airborne Regiment while they were deployed on a peacekeeping mission to Somalia, from 1992 to 1993. He said that one of the recommendations of the Somalia Inquiry was that “Canada needed to better train its forces,” which led to the creation of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre and the PSTC. In his opinion, when the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre was closed, Canada “[forgot] that lesson.”[330]

Some witnesses highlighted the high-value work done by the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, and suggested that experience was lost when the centre was closed. Brigadier-General (Retired) Mitchell characterized the centre as “the world's first civilian-managed peacekeeping training centre, one of only a handful conducting training, capacity building, public education, and research that reflected the multidisciplinary realities of contemporary peace support operations.” He stated that the centre was “historically an effective instrument of Canadian foreign and defence policy,” and noted that “it enjoyed a solid reputation in the international community as a leading authority on peace support operations, and served as a model for other countries.”[331]

In agreeing, Mr. Dorn commented that the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre was the “founding institution” for the International Association of Peacekeeping Training Centres, and contended that it made Canada one of “the leaders in peacekeeping training.” In his view, Canada has paid a “high price” by closing the centre,[332] and “no longer [has] a place where military, police, and civilians can train and educate together.” He mentioned that, although the PSTC does excellent work, “its program is only for the military, it is mostly aimed at the tactical level, and only a small fraction of its program is actually focused on the UN specifically.”[333]

According to Mr. Gowan, the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre was particularly valuable because it linked research to policy making and training, bringing together “not merely researchers, but also practitioners,” and it could also provide training.[334] During its visit to UN Headquarters, the Committeewas told that other advantages of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre over similar UN training centres worldwide were its proximity to UN Headquarters and its bilingual nature.[335]

In emphasizing complementarity, Major-General Cadden explained the main difference between the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre and the PSTC in the following way:

The Pearson Peacekeeping Centre … dealt at a different level than what we do at the Peace Support Training Centre. We really focus on the tactical training, for troops and civilian partners and international partners who will be deploying.… [The] Pearson Peacekeeping Centre dealt with education, research and capacity building, higher-level concepts that were critical for the United Nations to function but completely different from what the troop on the ground would need to look like and the knowledge he would need to have.… The [PSTC] focuses on specific skill sets for an individual. We will tailor it for a mission.… We really try to focus in on the type of training the individual would need.[336]

Most of the Committee’s witnesses held the view that establishing a Canadian training centre of excellence on peace operations similar to the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre would help to improve training for UN missions,[337] and would “enable development of [peace support operations] research, education, training and capacity building.”[338] UN officials with whom the Committee met encouraged Canada to establish such a training centre.[339]

Ms. Mason spoke about the “urgent need for Canada to upgrade its training for effective re-engagement” in UN peace operations, and suggested that one way to do so would be to establish a “world-class peacekeeping training centre” in Canada. She emphasized that “leadership and international peacekeeping training and practice requires a world-class international training centre at home.” She said that, “[i]f the Government of Canada is to fulfill its oft-repeated promise to lead an international effort to improve and expand the training of military and civilian personnel deployed in peace missions, then [it] must urgently re-establish [its] own capacity to undertake world-class, multidisciplinary peacekeeping training here in Canada for Canadian and international military police and civilian peacekeepers.”[340] In Ms. Mason’s view, such a peace operations training centre should be “under civilian leadership, at an arm's length from government, with reliable funding, and clear links to and support from the Department of National Defence and Global Affairs Canada.”[341]

According to Mr. Dorn, such a centre would be of high value in training both military and civilian personnel deployed on peace operations. In his opinion, it is “important that the military get exposed to the other components of peace operations and that they learn to work under civilian control. Unlike NATO missions, UN missions are civilian-led.… We need to be able to increase the military's awareness of working with civilians, including police.… We're really lacking in the capacity to do operational- and strategic-level education on peace operations.”[342]

In agreeing, Ms. Dugal mentioned that establishing such a centre in Canada would be an important way of supporting and training the “the numerous, highly qualified Canadian civilians working in the UN and other peace operations around the world.”[343] She explained that:

[w]e need a mechanism for deploying Canadian civilian staff, just as our armed forces and the [Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP] have mechanisms to deploy their soldiers and police officers around the world. However, those civilians lack support.… We have a large number of civilians who participate in global missions of the UN or other multilateral organizations, such as the [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, or OSCE], but who do not receive much support from the Canadian government or Canada in general.[344]

According to Ms. Dugal, establishing a peace operations training centre in Canada would be a good way to provide support and training to Canadian civilians who deploy on such operations. She also mentioned that, at the moment, “not much training is provided to civilians. Soldiers and police officers receive training before deployment, but Canadian civilians don't have that opportunity.… The idea would really be to create a centre to help Canadian civilians be better trained and equipped once [they are] on the ground, but also to establish improved connections with the Canadian government, so that the government would be better informed of everything those people are doing around the world.”[345]

6.  Public Outreach and Education

Several witnesses spoke about the need to improve the education of the Canadian public regarding the changing nature of peace operations and the implications for Canada. Ms. White referred to the results of a March 2018 poll commissioned by the United Nations Association in Canada, which found that 88% of respondents supported the deployment of Canadian military and police personnel on UN peacekeeping operations, while 11% were opposed. She also noted that the support for deployment was “strongest” among older Canadians, especially those 60 years of age and older, probably because “this is a cohort that has experience and memories of UN peacekeeping at another time.”[346] In her opinion, those results demonstrate a continued need for public education in Canada about issues relating to peace operations, as well as national security and defence, especially among younger Canadians.[347]

According to some of the Committee’s witnesses, Canada’s population does not understand peace operations. In their view, the Canadian public is nostalgic about the traditional peacekeeping of the Cold War era, and does not understand either the historical origins of peacekeeping or the ways that peace operations have evolved in recent decades. Major-General (Retired) MacKenzie made comments about the “peacekeeping myth” in Canada and Canadians’ mistaken—yet firm—belief that peacekeeping has always been the prime function of the country’s armed forces.[348]

Lieutenant-General (Retired) Dallaire explained that “[a]ll the peacekeeping we used to do during the Cold War … was barely 3% of our efforts, but it was 97% of our reputation with Canadians. Ninety-seven per cent of our work was how to shoot Russians. That's what we trained for.”[349] More CAF members were deployed on NATO commitments and operations between the 1950s and the 1990s than on UN peacekeeping missions. For example, while 1,002 CAF members were deployed on such peacekeeping missions worldwide in 1990, approximately 8,000 CAF members—supported by 4,400 civilians—were deployed to Canadian bases in Germany as part of Canada’s contribution to NATO. Canadian army and air force units based in Germany during the Cold War participated in various NATO military exercises, and regularly trained with NATO forces as they prepared for war against the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies.[350]

Most of the Committee’s witnesses held the view that the Canadian public could benefit from becoming better informed about peace operations. In Ms. White’s opinion, the Government of Canada has a responsibility to explain to Canadians why participation in peace operations is important and how today’s operations differ from those of the Cold War era. She said that providing Canadians with this information would be beneficial from foreign relations, national security and defence perspectives.[351]

Ms. White drew particular attention to the engagement of youth, describing such engagement as “critically important” and noting opportunities provided in the school system, and by educational materials and social media. She commented that the “more our young people are educated and engaged,” the better, and identified a need for them to be more “involved with their government in those kinds of decision-making.”[352] She emphasized that the Government of Canada could support the United Nations Association of Canada in educating and engaging youth, since it has “relationships with schools, universities and colleges across the country.”[353]

According to witnesses, there is also a need to educate politicians. Major-General (Retired) Mackenzie recalled a “lack of understanding” of national security and defence issues among elected officials in the 1990s. He stated that, at that time, some politicians did not understand the difference between NATO and the UN.[354] Ensuring that politicians understand national security and defence issues is important if they are going to be able to explain to the Canadian public why Canada should participate in certain military operations overseas, including UN missions, Major-General (Retired) Mackenzie explained.[355] In Major-General (Retired) Mitchell’s opinion, Canadian politicians should not “sugar coat” their explanations to the public, but should instead provide information that answers the following questions: “what are we trying to achieve? Why are we going to do this? … What are our interests? Why [participate in this operation] and not [in a different] one? What do we hope to accomplish? How are we going to do it, with what, and when?”[356]

7.  Women, Peace and Security

Many of the Committee’s witnesses spoke about the importance to Canada of the women, peace and security agenda, which is the result of UNSCR 1325 on women, peace and security. Consequently, since 2000, UN member states have been encouraged to involve women in—and to integrate gender perspectives into—multilateral security initiatives, such as UN missions. UNSCR 2242, which is also focused on women, peace and security and was adopted in 2015, has set a target to double the current rate of women’s participation in peace operations by 2020.[357]

However, when speaking with the Committee at UN Headquarters, UN officials reported that there has been “limited success” in increasing the number of women deployed on peace operations. Currently, women represent approximately 4% of military personnel and 10% of police personnel deployed on UN peace operations, percentages that are lower than the UNSCR 2242’s targets of 15% of military personnel and 25% of police personnel on such operations by 2020. That said, the UN has taken actions designed to increase the number of women in staff positions at UN Headquarters. UN officials stated that the UN might have to “penalize” member states that do not meet the UN’s targets for women’s participation in its peace operations.[358] Ms. Beth Woroniuk, Coordinator of the Women, Peace and Security Network—Canada, expressed discontent with the UN’s lack of progress in increasing women's participation in such operations, and encouraged the UN to be more active in promoting the employment of women.[359]

Many witnesses urged Canada to continue to promote women’s participation in UN missions,[360] and most regarded Canada’s Elsie Initiative as both a sound “pilot project to accelerate women's meaningful participation in the United Nations peace support operations”[361] and a “vital initiative that requires further support.”[362] However, some witnesses believed that Canada could do more with the Elsie Initiative. For instance, Ms. Woroniuk mentioned that the initiative holds great potential and “is an example of how Canada can lead at the UN,” but could be improved.[363] According to her:

[f]irst, the Elsie initiative focuses on getting other countries to deploy more women. It seems rather contradictory to urge others to increase deployment percentages without turning this focus inward.... Second … there are important concerns around the argument that increasing the participation of women will lead to increased effectiveness of peace operations. All peace support operations personnel must take responsibility for improved effectiveness in addressing issues of gender-based violence, not just the women members. Third, Canada's attempts to support UN peace operations must take a broad view. There is a need to support and fund the full range of gender-mainstreaming initiatives in peace support operations. Deploying more women without addressing the overall capacity of peace support operations to implement the full range of gender equality issues will take us only so far.[364]

Ms. Woroniuk also highlighted the importance of considering the full range of challenges and opportunities in deploying more Canadian women on peace operations, and commented that:

[w]hile we strongly support Canada's increasing the percentage of women deployed to international missions, we have heard that the conditions must be in place to ensure their success.… There are institutional, cultural, structural, attitudinal and logistical issues in peace support operations that must be addressed to ensure that these deployments are effective. It is crucial to ensure that women peacekeepers have proper training, medical support, equipment and facilities. As well, research shows that women peacekeepers are subject to harassment and abuse, often called blue-on-blue violence. Understanding and addressing issues related to sexism and homophobia in the security sector is critical.[365]

As well, Ms. Woroniuk noted the existence of both Canadian and international commitments “to do more than increase the number of women in peace support operations.” In particular, she identified commitments on “integrating a gender perspective,” which includes “understanding how diverse women and men are affected differently by armed conflict generally, and by peace support operations more specifically.”[366]

According to Ms. Woroniuk, Canada must “preach by example” if it wants to be a true “women, peace and security leader.” While expressing satisfaction with the ways in which DND and the CAF are implementing UNSCR 1325, she said that:

[m]ore work is required to build skills, construct training that actually works, and develop guidance across all work areas, from procurement to relations with local populations. This includes … gender analysis—supported by gender advisers … across all issues, including the rule of law, protection of civilians, security sector reform, and consultations with women's organizations on the ground. It involves including gender issues such as conflict-related sexual violence in mission mandates. It involves improved gender data, capacity-building and training on gender analysis and gender perspectives, including participation from women's organizations. It is important that this training be directed at leadership, not just the rank and file. It also involves specific programs to increase women's participation in post-conflict reconstruction, the deployment of women protection advisers, as well as improved reporting on all of these issues.[367]

Moreover, Ms. Woroniuk suggested that peace operations personnel should have the skills and abilities to interact effectively with local populations, “drawing on the skills, knowledge and expertise of local women's rights organizations and activists.”[368]

Finally, Ms. Woroniuk urged the Committee to ensure that all of its recommendations are both consistent with, and reinforce, the commitments in Canada's national action plan on women, peace and security. In her view, the plan “outlines a comprehensive and ambitious set of targets that, if implemented, would set Canada up as a global leader on women, peace and security. The national action plan makes numerous commitments related to peacekeeping, peace support operations, and Canada's international deployments.”[369]

In also making gender-related comments, Ms. White called on Canada to attach 10 gender advisers to the UN’s Department of Peace Operations, with a focus not on “very senior people,” but rather on “people who will actually be deployed with troops.” She mentioned that Canada has a gender adviser in Mali, who “provides cohesion and coherence across all of the … troop-contributing countries.”[370]

As well, witnesses addressed the long-standing issue of UN peace operations personnel sexually exploiting and abusing the very people they should be protecting. In noting universal outrage about this situation, which remains unresolved and difficult to address, they urged Canada to continue to speak about the importance of effectively addressing sexual exploitation and abuse by UN personnel, and to remain vigilant, both at the UN and in all peace operations in which Canadian military, police and civilian personnel participate.[371]

8.  Child Soldiers

Some of the Committee’s witnesses identified youth, peace and security issues as increasingly important in peace operations,[372] and several were particularly concerned about the issue of child soldiers. For example, Lieutenant-General (Retired) Dallaire spoke about the “operational threat of the use of children as weapons of war,” and characterized the use of child soldiers in conflict zones worldwide as a problem that the international community urgently needs to address. In his view, it is a problem that personnel deployed on peace missions worldwide are increasingly likely to face in the coming years.[373] According to Ms. Whitman, more than 250 million children globally are currently affected by armed conflict. She stated that “[s]even state armies continue to use and recruit children, and 56 non-state armed actors recruit and use children around the world,” which—in her view—should be a concern for both Canada and the rest of the world.[374]

Lieutenant-General (Retired) Dallaire mentioned that he resigned as a Senator in order to devote his time solely to efforts designed to address the issue of child soldiers, with the ultimate aim “to eradicate the use of that weapon's platform, which you find in every conflict in the world” and which “is a crime against humanity.”[375] Ms. Whitman described the recruitment and use of child soldiers as a “strategic security concern,” and as both “a human rights issue and … an issue related to the protection of civilians, but it goes beyond that.” She explained that:

[t]he purposeful recruitment and use of children as soldiers is something we have to understand in terms of its being used for the sustainment and fuelling of particular armed groups around the world. It can have an impact on our own troops' morale and effectiveness. It can have huge impacts on post-traumatic stress. We also need to understand that the use and recruitment of child soldiers is an early warning indicator for mass atrocities and genocide prevention.[376]

Ms. Whitman said that there are means “to reduce the use of children as soldiers by setting conditions that we have yet to explore fully and should be looking at in terms of our own preparation for troops and for those around the world.”[377] In noting the requirement for more research and training on how to deal with child soldiers in order to prepare military and police personnel deployed to conflict zones,[378] she commented that Canada has an opportunity to be a leader by re-engaging in peace operations, and by “making children a priority and leading by example.” She indicated that protecting children is a value of which all Canadians can be proud.[379]

According to Ms. Whitman, the Vancouver Principles are a step in the right direction, but the Government of Canada has to go beyond the principles and initiatives outlined in those principles. In her view, “Canada must be committed not only to increasing the number of [nations that endorse the Vancouver Principles], but it must create implementation that is strategic in its approach and guidance to complement the Vancouver Principles. Most important is for Canada to be committed to ensuring that the Vancouver Principles and the implementation guidance are put into action. This requires support from subject matter experts to work alongside the Canadian Armed Forces as well as the RCMP.”[380]

Ms. Whitman emphasized that the “implementation” process in relation to the Vancouver Principles requires “strategic complementarity” to build training and lessons learned units, as well as “full implementation, by the CAF and the RCMP, of new training approaches in line with the Vancouver Principles as well as a commitment to potentially create a centre of excellence on child soldiers in Canada.” The goal would be to establish Canada as a world leader on the subject of child soldiers “so that understanding the prevention of the recruitment and use of child soldiers is an entry point for a new agenda, an agenda that focuses on children, peace and security.”[381] In her opinion, partnerships with nations that endorse the Vancouver Principles are required to build regional training expertise, as are bilateral exchanges between endorsing nations that have experiential knowledge about issues relating to child soldiers, and the promotion of best practices that provide incentives for countries to demonstrate such practices. According to Ms. Whitman, there is also a need for advocacy and support of the UN’s children and armed conflict agenda, and “support that demands clear indicators of practical implementation of tangible change for prevention.” Lastly, she believed that the implementation of the Vancouver Principles requires “serious” and long-term funding.[382]

Some witnesses felt that the development of a training capability on how to deal with child soldiers is one way that Canada could continue to show global leadership regarding implementation of the Vancouver Principles, and would be of high value to future UN missions. According to Ms. Whitman, there is a potential training role for the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP. She also noted that Canada could play a role in “setting standards” for how to deal with child soldiers that “cannot only improve the UN's effectiveness” on peace operations, “but also help to address a major human rights atrocity that is currently contributing to cycles of violence around the globe.”[383]

Witnesses acknowledged the Roméo Dallaire Child Soldiers Initiative as a training model on child soldiers. The initiative currently involves research and the delivery of training about child soldiers to security sector actors with the aim of promoting broader security sector reforms.[384] According to the Roméo Dallaire Child Soldiers Initiative, “preventative training” that “changes attitudes, behaviours and policies of security sector actors, allowing them to counter-act the issue of child soldiers effectively” is provided, with this training helping to produce “better, more specialized soldiers, police, and peacekeepers.”[385] Similar training initiatives could be endorsed and promoted at the UN in order to help enhance the training of UN forces regarding child soldiers. Mr. Gwozdecky said that “one of the most challenging things any Canadian or other UN uniformed peacekeeper” might face on an operation is “coming face to face with a 14‑year-old carrying a weapon” and “knowing what to do.” In his view, training is required.[386]

Conclusion and Recommendations

Throughout this study, the Committee heard that peace operations continue to be relevant. Mr. Gowan explained that these operations “still have positive strategic effects,” and suggested that, “even if they cannot deliver easy stability, they limit and contain violence in fragile states such as Mali, ensuring that Jihadi groups and other non‑state groups do not overthrow governments and create regional instability.”[387] In his view, peace operations “protect and facilitate vital humanitarian aid, saving many lives,” and “provide frameworks for long-term political peacemaking processes.”[388] He stated that it is not surprising that “the vast majority of UN members continue to support blue helmet operations,” and noted that—as of October 2018—more than 150 countries and four regional organizations had endorsed the UN’s A4P initiative.[389]

According to Ms. Haq, peace operations remain a “very important part of the whole international response to conflict,” and Canada needs to “make sure that it’s engaged and leading” in such operations.[390] In agreeing, Ms. McAskie emphasized that it is in Canada’s national security interest to re-engage in peace operations, and commented that:

[o]ur own security depends intimately on the successful workings of the international rules-based system that Canadians have helped to build over the last 70 years.… Our national interest is a global one. What happens across our borders is in our national interest. We must get away from the narrow concept of national interests as ideas of direct benefit to us. We're an international player; we always have been. Global peace and security is absolutely fundamental to our security, health, environment, immigration, trade—to everything. If we stand back and let these crises roll without playing a part, then we will reap the consequences.[391]

Ms. McAskie also contended that, as a member of the international community, Canada has a responsibility to contribute to world peace and security. In her opinion, by contributing to peace operations, the country helps to ensure “the safe and secure world that is essential to our own well-being.”[392]

Canada has been contributing human, material and financial resources to peace operations for more than 60 years, and has secured a solid reputation in the field despite having drastically reduced its contributions to such operations over the last 20 years. While the UN has welcomed Canada’s recent re-engagement in peace operations, since the 1990s, a lot has changed in the way that these operations are conducted. According to Mr. Gwozdecky:

[t]oday's peacekeeping missions take place in a much different context. Belligerents can be numerous and varied, including not only political actors but also criminals and terrorists who have little interest in peace. Consequently, rather than monitoring a ceasefire or peace agreement, peacekeepers often play the role of a stabilization force, with tasks focused on protecting civilians and helping to create the conditions for peace to emerge. The conditions and objectives of peacekeeping today are thus significantly different from those of previous generations, and the tools for dealing with this constant change have not adequately kept pace.[393]

In particular, peace operations today are deadlier and far more dangerous than in the past, with UN personnel being the target of attacks by armed groups and terrorist organizations. The UN has undertaken a number of reforms designed to improve peace missions and to adapt such operations to the changing international security environment. The Committee was told that Canada has supported these reforms, but that more needs to be done to renew and reform UN peace operations, and to ensure that such operations remain relevant and efficient into the future.

Most witnesses also held the view that Canada could—and should—do more to re‑engage in UN missions, and believed that enhancing the country’s contributions to such operations would help to strengthen global peace and security, and would improve Canada’s relationship with the UN.

In light of what the Committee heard in Ottawa, and the Committee learned during its visits to UN Headquarters in New York City, Senegal and Mali, it is recommended:

Recommendation 1

That the Government of Canada, through a ‘whole-of-government’ approach and with relevant domestic and international partners, explore ways to address economic insecurity and inequality as drivers of international conflict, in the Sahel region and in other parts of the world, and that

• (a) attention be given to opportunities to support the infrastructure needs of fragile or failed states that are suffering from or are at risk of conflict, and
• (b) the assessment of such opportunities include, but not be limited to:
  • Energy infrastructure;
  • Digital and communications infrastructure;
  • Water distribution and climate mitigation systems;
  • Health infrastructure;
  • Transportation, including roads, ports and airports;
  • Justice reform and judicial institutions;
  • Banking, finance and capital markets infrastructure.

Recommendation 2

That the Government of Canada explore options to augment Canada’s contributions to the work of the United Nations in the areas of peacebuilding and conflict prevention, including:

• Efforts to increase the number of women deployed in United Nations peace operations;
• Supporting Troop-Contributing Country deployment readiness;
• Strengthening United Nations planning and coordination support;
• Supporting training programs for United Nations multi-lingual troop deployments;
• Planning for and executing the deployment of equipment;
• Increasing Canada’s contribution to CANADEM[394], which supports the deployment of Canadian civilian experts in peace operations.

Recommendation 3

That the Government of Canada, through a ‘whole-of-government’ approach, explore avenues to strengthen Canada’s support for the United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, newly formed under the Secretary-General’s Action for Peacekeeping (A4P) Reforms, which could include:

• Increasing Canada’s voluntary contribution to the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs Trust Fund, which funds United Nations work in the areas of conflict prevention and resolution; and
• Increasing the number of Junior Professional Officer positions offered by Canada to the United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs and Department of Peace Operations.

Recommendation 4

That the Government of Canada provide the Committee with a comprehensive technical briefing at minimum once every six months when Canadian troops are deployed on operations conducted in accordance with Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

Recommendation 5

That the Government of Canada recognize the important role of international peace operations in avoiding and/or mitigating humanitarian disasters and large scale human rights violations and recognize the importance of international peace operations to Canada’s national interest in reducing or eliminating drug, gun and human trafficking, refugee flows, and safe havens for international terrorism.

Recommendation 6

That the Government of Canada supplement our military contributions to peace operations with support for peace processes and with support for multidimensional programs addressing the challenges of stabilization and transition out of conflict.

Recommendation 7

That the Government of Canada develop a plan to bring Canada’s development assistance program to 0.7% of our GDP in a timely manner and that this plan explicitly recognize funding for support of peace operations as a form of development assistance.

Recommendation 8

That the Government of Canada capitalize on the unique perspectives and capabilities that Canada brings to peace operations along with our high-level military skills and that these include our bilingual and multicultural policies and capabilities, our emphasis on gender equity and the importance of including women in peace operations in all roles and at all levels, and the absence of a colonial past on the international level.

Recommendation 9

That the Government of Canada re-establish the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre with a mandate including but not limited to conflict research, conflict prevention and mediation, civilian protection, and child soldiers and a delivery model emphasizing capacity building and training the trainers.

Recommendation 10

That the Government of Canada fill the position of Ambassador on Women Peace and Security as soon as possible; and that additional funding be provided to support this position.

Recommendation 11

That the Government of Canada increase funding to grassroots women’s peacebuilding initiatives through the Elsie Initiative. Women’s participation in peacebuilding processes has been shown that women taking active roles in peace operations lead to higher success rates for those operations and help foster better relationships with local communities than predominantly male-dominated operations.

Recommendation 12

That the Government of Canada recognize the severe impacts of Mali becoming a failed state would have on ongoing humanitarian aid efforts, on counter trafficking operations aimed at stopping the flow of drugs, guns, and people across the Sahel, and on future refugees flows.

Recommendation 13

That the Government of Canada recognize the important role MINUSMA is playing in stabilizing Mali.

Recommendation 14

That the Government of Canada recommit to support for Mali in view of longstanding Canadian development assistance programming in Mali and in view of the ongoing economic ties between Canada and Mali. The Committee further recommends that the Government of Canada expedite a package of assistance measures to assist in the stabilization of Mali to flow immediately after the end of our current military mission in order to demonstrate Canada’s ongoing support for MINUSMA and that this package include additional measures to expedite the arrival of Canada’s promised contribution to the police training mission in Mali and provide additional support to the peace process in Mali, in particular the Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration Program.

Recommendation 15

That the Government of Canada consider additional bilateral military assistance to the G5 Sahel nations based on the successful model of Canada’s Operation NABERIUS in Niger in order to increase their capacity to guarantee their own security.

Recommendation 16

That the Government of Canada continue to increase its commitment to women, peace, and security programming.