Two of Canada’s greatest and goodest mushy brains dream on whilst wanting a worthwhile Canadian initative that would be worthless in reality:
The unfulfilled promise of UN protection
The R2P doctrine needs tools and decisiveness to be effective in preventing mass violenceFive years ago this week, with the horrors of Rwanda and Srebrenica still vivid in memory, the members of the United Nations vowed to take collective action, including military force if necessary, to prevent or stop mass violence within a state when the national government is unable or unwilling to do so.
…R2P has failed to fulfill its promise in places such as Darfur and the Democratic Republic of the Congo [no kidding, see this]…
…the R2P “toolbox” [love that lingo] must be filled with items needed to make the concept operational [toolbox items Update thought: "Neither Ma Deuce nor the Bofors wants to die…"]…
• A standing rapid-response force with specialized training and equipment, so that protection is only a few hours away when the Security Council authorizes protection. The current practice of cobbling a force together from many contributing countries takes months and produces an unco-ordinated team with uneven preparation.
Above all, R2P needs a champion, a role that Canada once played. If we win election to the Security Council next month [more on that possible great triumph here], our country should rediscover this important cause…
By advocating R2P in appropriate cases and fashioning tools to make it effective, Canada can ensure that humanity makes the most of this historic breakthrough.
Lloyd Axworthy is president of the University of Winnipeg and a former Canadian foreign minister. Allan Rock is president of the University of Ottawa and a former special adviser to the United Nations on Sri Lanka.
By “advocating” Canada can “ensure” nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada. Nichts. Ništa. Rien de flipping tout. No amount of Canadian hot air is going to make any serious country–including, thank goodness, ours–maintain military units committed to immediate despatch by the Security Council. That idea has gone nowhere for decades and will continue that progress. Why do these former senior cabinet ministers still live in a world of such apparently impenetrable intellectual fog?
Earlier at Daimnation!:
R2P reality
Plus another bright idea from the Axeman–a Canadian “ministry of peace“! How does that fit in with invading countries and, necessarily, engaging in regime change? Fellow ain’t got no logic nor sense. But then we all knew that.
Mark
Ottawa
I’d rather see us pull out and take our money with us. And I’m waiting for the Americans to boot the organization out of North America. Let it sit in some backwater in Africa or the Middle East, or better yet, atop an active fault line.
Excellent post.
The fallacy at the heart of Pearson-esque soft power is effectiveness without a backstop of hard power. Rock and Axel tacitly acknowledge the hard limit of soft power in their reference to a “specialized” “rapid response force” (RRF). We all know these types of forces don’t just appear out of nowhere. Excellent equipment, specialized training, constant readiness and efficient transport all require *oodles* of money. And we all know who’s first in line to condemn hard power spending.
Another flaw in soft power doctrine: keeping hard power at a distance. When hard power is required it is usually needed NOW, not six or eight hours from now. The hundreds of women gang raped in Congo this past couple weeks will testify to the ineffectiveness of help being six or eight hours away.
Another flaw: scale. Preventing a Rwanda requires more than a couple RRFs; it requires entire armies.
Hmmm Ministry of Peace, gee why does that not make me sleep well? Pearsons idea of a UN forces between two nation states that are willing to have peace and will accept the terms and conditions and want the UN force there to avoid conflict is still viable, just that the right conditions are rare these days.
“Why do these former senior cabinet ministers still live in a world of such apparently impenetrable intellectual fog?”
Two reasons. First, one does not get to be a senior cabinet minister in the Liberal Party of Canada by virtue of ability and intelligence. Obviously.
Second, it pays well. Alan and Loydy there got those jobs for being good team players, and they keep them by being good team players. They just crank out propaganda for the team, and their six-figure sinecure is safe.
When I was much younger I seriously thought the UN should have its own standing army in order to rapidly and effectively intervene. Today I understand that it is UN Bureaucracy that prevents the forces they do have from being effective. Frankly, now that I am older and wiser, the only thing scarier than an ineffective UN army would be an effective one.
..By “advocating” Canada can “ensure” nothing. Zip. Zero….
But it’s not really about that is it? Advocacy is just a fancy word for blowing hot air and feeling morally superior. It requires no action, in fact it abhors action, since that would move the problem from group hugs and talking into the realm of nasty realism and all of the tradeoffs which advocacy ignores. But then that’s the librano MO isn’t it?
TALK – ACTION = ??
The full article is not to be missed, particularly the part about how military intervention should be “the very last resort” when dealing with genocide or rape gangs. No, we should instead try some vigorous shunning. That always works.
How many innocent lives are Axworthy, Rock and their ilk going to sacrifice to avoid having to kill anyone committing such evil, heinous crimes?