These are French peacekeepers, trying to bring some sort of “peace, order” and even mediocre government to Muslim North Africa …

… and this is North Africa’s response, in Paris and, the day before yesterday, in Nice …

This is what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau thinks he wants to do in Africa …

I suspect he can already imagine himself accepting his Nobel Peace Prize; and I guess that Paul Heinbecker and Lloyd Axworthy are already imagining all the wonderful cocktail parties to which they will be invited when Canada has a temporary, second class seat at the UN Security Council.

But this is what 21st century peacekeeping looks like …

… and these, not Nobel Peace Prize banquets are the more likely outcomes …

… and the those are the images that will fill our TV screens until we have another murderous outrage on a Canadian street.

Da’esh/ISIL/ISIS wants us to follow France into the peacekeeping business because modern, 21st century UN peacekeeping can be, in some respects, seen as unwarranted Western interference in the internal affairs of Islamic states. Many Islamic leaders believe and teach that islam is a complete socio-economic-political ‘package:’ all that on needs to live a good life in this world and achieve paradise in the next is to obey the holy Quran. There is no need for laws or courts or institutions or banks or schools or anything else … just obedience, submission, to Islam.

This, well intentioned though it is, …

…has become an excuse for more of this …

Let us understand that the United Nations, as currently constituted and managed, is a failure at peacekeeping. It wasn’t always this way … there were times and places ~ Kashmir and Palestine in the 1940s, the Egypt-Israeli borders in 1956 when there was a peace to be kept between belligerents who actually wanted peace, albeit, in the case of Egypt’s Nasser, only until one felt ready for war again in 1967. It began to go wrong in 1960 … with the first UN mission to the Congo. There was no peace to be kept … a UN Force was inserted into a failed state and left to its own devices while a civil war raged around it. The UN used second rate troops (Irish, Malaysian and Swedish) where first rate ones might have done some good and the civil and military leadership, from Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld on down was somewhere between inept and ignored. In fact the UN peacekeeping effort was being used (misused) as a proxy for the larger Cold War. Canada and a few others became proxies for the Western allies; Poland a a few others stood in for the Warsaw Pact members and Sweden and India represented the non-aligned nations. It got worse in Cyprus, although  a few lessons about the quality of troops were learned, as the mission devolved into a semi-permanent “holding action” that recognizes the de facto partition of the country. The UN has, literally, become a significant component of the (failing) Greek Cypriot state and the UN force because part of the status quo, making peace even  more elusive.

Most UN peacekeeping missions since 1960s have been failures … some abject, others only relatively so. Mostly the UN “kept the peace” as an adjunct of the cold war. There is, in the 21st century, too often, no peace to be kept, especially not anywhere in Africa nor in the Islamic crescent that stretches from the Atlantic coast of North Africa all the way through to Indonesia and the Southern Philippines. and the UN does not want a mandate to make peace. The internal politics of the UN prohibit members from interfering in the “internal” affairs of others ~ notwithstanding what advocates of R2P (Responsibility To Project) (or even more ill considered doctrines like W2I (the Will To Intervene) propose ~ unless government almost totally breaks down. Then the UN may step in, under certain 20150613_np_sangaris04_pciat_comops_jaune-20-legion-193very controlled conditions: in Africa, for example, a robust, useful peacemaking force will not be tolerated, the force must be from the African Union and it must, first and foremost, protect the interests of the failed states neighbours. If the failed state is in “French Africa” then the French may send in the Foreign Legion to protect French interests. And this is the situation into which Justin Trudeau wants to send Canadian soldiers ~ preferably, he suggested during the 2015 election campaign, French speaking female police officers ~ to be UN peacekeepers.

The situation into which the UN is being inserted is this …


 … and that is the situation into which Prime Minister Trudeau wants to insert Canadian soldiers and police officers. The situation is one in which “good deeds” committed overseas are “rewarded” back at home with bombs and bullets.


To “win” a seat here …

… to be adored in a place that Prime Minister Harper treated with the disdain it deserves. There will be consequences, and I doubt Canadians will like them.

4 thoughts on “Consequences”

  1. Sir, I can agree with your reasoning, especially if I would be a Canadian (I am not). But will you apply the same arguments to the fact that Canada is sending their troops to Latvia? If answer is “no” what is the difference?

    1. I think the mission to Latvia is a thing of a completely different order. First, NATO is, once again, fulfilling it’s one and only mission: to secure Western Europe … to make it safe from Russian aggression. Canada helped to create the oragnization and the mission in 1948. NATO, and the consequential Cold War, was our answer to Stalin and Russian imperialism 70 years ago, and it is the answer to Putin and Russian opportunistic adventurism now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s