Good afternoon. My name is Justin Massie and I hold the Canadian Research Chair for Foreign Policy and Canadian Defence at the Université du Québec à Montréal.
Today I would like to speak about a domestic and political aspect of the Canadian Forces' role in Afghanistan and that is, the current confusion and division among Canadians regarding the rationale, appropriateness and nature of this mission.
This division continues despite many efforts by Members of Parliament and the media to explain Canada's mission in Afghanistan. These efforts appear to be in vain. The most recent survey, of June 8, 2006, showed that 44% of Canadians are opposed to the mission. Compared to the 62% and 45% opposed in March, and 54% in May 2006, these figures show that a considerable number of Canadians disapprove of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, essentially since Canada took over command in Kandahar.
In principle, such a division should not be worrisome. Public opinion is volatile, and the country should not be governed by public whims. The role of the CF abroad must address other imperatives in order to become more consistent. It should be noted, for instance, that a majority of Canadians were opposed to Canada’s participation in the Gulf war in 1991 before it began, yet a majority approved after the fact.
However, the noteworthy aspect of the current situation in Afghanistan is the confusion over the nature of Canada’s role, confusion that is at the root of the division that is evident in public opinion. I think one of the criteria for a mission’s success is the collective belief that the forces are acting fairly and by necessity. To achieve this, the government cannot ignore the fact that a significant group of Canadians does not understand why the CF are deployed in such large numbers in Kandahar or what the justification is for soldiers being killed.
The persistent ambiguity among members of Parliament, in the media and in public opinion in general is, in my opinion, the result of a widening gap between the perception of Canadians and the actual operations conducted by the CF.
From 1956 to 1960, a significant attachment was quickly formed with respect to the role of Canadian peacekeepers, so much so that their role became more mythical than real. Barely 10% of Canadian troops were assigned to peacekeeping operations during the cold war. This is nevertheless the symbol and trademark that the CF inherited, both in Canada and abroad. Canada is inevitably linked with the emblematic United Nations peacekeepers.
In spite of the change in the nature of conflicts, including the increase in civil conflict as opposed to conflict between states, Canadian governments have persisted in justifying the deployment of CF abroad by invoking the peacekeeping image. Responding favourably to this image, Canadians developed the notion that Canada is a peaceful nation, which promotes peace. Underlying this perception is the widespread idea among Canadians that war is an aberration and is avoidable and that it can be prevented through cooperation and negotiation.
The 1990s saw exponential growth in the number of peacekeeping operations authorized by the Security Council, the tendency of a number of Western countries to favour NATO over the UN, and the growing participation of developing countries in UN peace operations. In reaction to this, Canada considerably reduced its commitments to the UN to focus instead on NATO missions.
This shift in the role of the CF was not marked, however, by a significant public attachment to any particular role. Faced with change in the nature of its operations, Canadian governments justify interventions with new concepts, including human security and peace building, which were a reflection of the ideals underlying the peacekeeping image of previous years. During that time, Canadians were tempting to find a new role for Canadian Forces that corresponded to their concept of war.
It was following the attacks of September 11, 2001, and especially in reaction to the US foreign and defence policy response, that Canada was forced to more clearly define its international role. The new international context involved fighting terrorism as the primary if not sole imperative of US foreign policy. Furthermore, the resurgence of new transnational threats compelled Canada to change the traditional role of the Canadian Forces from the cold war period, and to clear up the ambiguity that persisted in the 1990s. Only the former was achieved.
What we can see today is the fact that the Canadian Forces are standing resolutely beside their traditional allies in a fight against terrorism, at the expense of their former peacekeeping role, which is deeply rooted in the national psyche. The combat operations that are an inherent part of the Canadian commitment in Kandahar, in order to fight insurgents, are in sharp contrast to the fifty-year-old image of the Canadian Forces. There are, of course, Canadian soldiers assigned to humanitarian roles in Afghanistan. This is a role that receives a great deal of media coverage for its actual scope, but the primary role of the forces deployed there is to pursue Afghan and other insurgents, using force.
In order to succeed in rebuilding Afghanistan, we need to first ensure that a government is legitimately elected, second, ensure that the country is monitored and that it is secure, and third, establish those infrastructures that are necessary for sustainable socio-economic development. We are currently at the second stage, which we must complete before moving on to the third.
The Canadian mission in Afghanistan, which will oversee the transition from operation Enduring Freedom to the ISAF, is acting within the frame of this second stage. Combat operations are therefore much more extensive than the rebuilding efforts.
In my opinion, this mission is based on a different concept of war from what predominates in Canadian society. In order to effectively fight terrorism, it is in my opinion sometimes necessary to prevent its emergence and sometimes to counter it offensively. The idea behind this reasoning is that confrontation is inevitable and thus that military efforts are essential to achieving peace.
As a result, there is great confusion among Canadians at present. Consider, for example, the withdrawal of the Canadian Forces from the Golan Heights, the few forces deployed in Haiti, and the few troops available for a significant deployment in Darfur. These three missions correspond to the traditional peacekeeper image. Compared to the current engagement in Kandahar, this situation implies first, a reduction in the ability of the Canadian Forces to intervene in missions that are more traditional for the Canadian Forces and, above all, demonstrates the will to depart from the previous role to a more dangerous and warlike one. Major military and political consequences should be expected, including the difficulty of operationalizing military requirements in a manner that is consistent with humanitarian necessities.
The reason for the current confusion and division in Canadian society can, in my opinion, be attributed to the gap between a political will to create a new military role for the Canadian Forces, based on new strategic imperatives, and the public perception of the international role the Canadian Forces should play.
In order to reduce this gap and to win Canadians support for a new role for the Canadian Forces, the symbols and myths of the past will have to be tailored to Canada's new commitment in Afghanistan or, alternately, this commitment will have to be tailored to Canadian's values and principles.
The difficulty in reconciling ideals and strategic imperatives stems from the unique relationship between Canada and United States. The image of an elastic is often used to illustrate this dilemma. Canada must stretch the elastic as much is possible in its relationship with the United States, without breaking it. On the one-hand, Canada must accept the power and international strength of the U.S.—political, economic or military, and adjust to it. On the other hand, Canada's independence must be preserved by invoking images and symbols, including that of a peacekeeper, that enhance Canada's distinctness.
The dilemma between the need to move closer to the United States and the need to develop a distinct foreign policy can be resolved. It is a question of manoeuvring so that America's might can contribute as much as possible to furthering and developing Canadian interests, while also reassuring the United States that our interests are compatible with theirs.
The peacekeeping role of the Canadian Forces, combined with a firm commitment to NATO during the Cold War, solved this dilemma. Today, along with a firm commitment to the fight against terrorism, there must be a new uniquely Canadian trademark.
Thank you.