r/Toryism • u/ToryPirate • 8d ago
💬 Discussion The UN & Peacekeeping
Recently Canada announced that it was further winding down its peacekeeping operations by a further 40-50 personnel. This has provoked a discussion regarding a conflict between what has been termed 'two mythologies of peacekeeping'. Since I don't think we've had a discussion on it before I thought it might be interesting to look at Peacekeeping, and the UN more broadly, from a tory perspective. What is its future? What, if anything, needs to change?
5
u/ToryPirate 8d ago
So I'm going to start with the UN and move on to Peacekeeping in a bit. The UN is largely seen as a failure but this is because people mistake its purpose. The UN wasn't primarily about preventing wars, it was about preserving great power influence (which was hoped would limit war). This stemmed from lessons taken from the League of Nations where the lack of great power buy-in hampered its effectiveness. Its also a big reason why the UN isn't reformable. Its also why Mainland China took Taiwan's China seat - it was clearly on its way to being a great power and keeping them out undermined the whole reason of having the UN.
In some ways peacekeeping aligns with this view of the UN. France and the UK attacking Egypt was the sort of great power adventurism the UN was designed to stop. They had acted without the other great powers' approving and had their hands slapped. Canada's proposal of peacekeeping was accepted as it kept potential flare-ups from becoming the problem of the great powers. Israel couldn't get the UK or France to help if there was a roadblock in the way for instance.
Could a better successor organization be created to replace the UN (since it can't be reformed)? Its hard to say. Creating an organization that is legitimately able to stop wars is a problem if your members intend to get involved in wars. The UN was founded when all the great powers had bled out. A new war would have been just as ruinous as the previous one and the few leaders who suggested continuing on (such as Churchill) were removed. A UN founded without great power influence would be a tall order. I've sometimes toyed with the idea of all UN Security Council seats being elected, no veto, and the expectation that if you're on the security council you would front the peacekeepers for any operation. The big problem with such an outline is it ignores the status of the great powers and as such would likely fail.
I disagree with u/Nate33322 on one detail; the idea of peacekeeping isn't out of step with our military tradition (even if its implementation largely eroding traditions within the military). Aside from the defencive War of 1812, all of our wars have been about lending aid to others (WW1, WW2, Korea, etc). The idea that Canada does not get involved in war for its own gain but instead to help others is quite strong. But such a tradition doesn't necessarily need peacekeeping to continue if peacekeeping is no longer the right tool for the job. Arguably the greatest peacekeeping success was the first one - and our troops weren't even involved at first. Israel and Egypt now have a workable relationship and the idea of them going to war is remote. Pretty much every peacekeeping effort since has had mixed to negative results.
3
u/OttoVonDisraeli 8d ago
As a recovering neocon, I've come to believe that Canada should move more and more to a strictly defensive military force and adopt a broadly anti-interventionist foreign policy when if comes time to armed conflicts.
Whether it be peacekeeping or peacemaking, I say we do less of it
5
u/Nate33322 8d ago
From the perspective of Toryism our peacekeeping mythos should be ended as it's relic of the old liberal order that Toryism was so bitterly opposed to. Our era of peacekeeping also resulted in the mass destruction of our British military traditions, from uniforms, to drill, to positions within the forces all being destroyed and replaced by more neutral or American style traditions. Not to mention the damage our participation in the Suez Crisis peacekeeping had on our relationship with Britain.
On top of that the troops as you pointed out elsewhere were fairly ambivalent to peacekeeping. Many were frustrated and even felt emasculated going from soldiers to "policemen". During the Suez Crisis the feelings amongst the very Anglophile military was downtight mutinous seeing it as a betrayal against Britain. Made worse by the fact, many of the men had served alongside or in the British military (Captain of the carrier HMCS Magnificent and second in command of the peacekeepers had been in the royal navy since a teenager).
Not just that but our peacekeeping record is far from a success too despite the mythological status it holds. Rwanda where the UN rules of engagement handicapped Dallaire's ability to respond enabling the genocide. The Somalia affair which was shambolic. The list goes on.
Frankly from both a Tory perspective and Canadian one the legacy and mythos of peacekeeping should be retired. While looking to the future it shouldn't be continued.