Violence Prevention Articles & Essays

Canada is unable to answer the question “quo vadis” as regards its role in international peace. Rather than being faced with the controversy about whether Canadian troops are or are not fighting a war in Afghanistan, and the PM having to mull troop deployment to Darfur, Canada is well-positioned and capable of preventing violence in the first place.

After every Canadian shared the embarrassment and guilt when members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment tortured a Somali citizen to death during our peacekeeping mission in Somalia in 1993, the Airborne Regiment was disbanded and we kept our heads down, humbled on the international stage. Our untarnished reputation as peacekeepers, the proud legacy of Lester B. Pearson was at risk.

Then Canada pushed hard, however, under the leadership of Lloyd Axeworthy, to replace our image of soldiers in blue helmets with the image of Canada as pragmatic, bold diplomats. Supporting a successful international effort to ban anti-personnel land mines and promoting the notion of “human security” was promptly followed by yet another ground-breaking initiative. Canada promoted and helped secure the notion of “responsibility to protect”. When governments of countries, notwithstanding their sovereignty, are unable to protect their citizens against war crimes and genocide, the international community will intervene – a revolutionary concept just recently affirmed by the UN Security Council.

But when the rubber hits the road, as it has in Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Canada has generally equivocated. It has sent mixed messages to Washington, to Canadian troops, and to countries in conflict who need solid commitment followed with action.

Now, Canada is no clearer on where it stands. The much-awaited process to review Canada’s foreign policy died with the fall of the Liberal Government, the Canadian initiative to address the challenge in Sudan and Darfur, led by Senators Jaffers and Dallaire and Robert Fowler has been disbanded. The Canadian public is uncertain of what Canadian forces are doing in Afghanistan; and the current conservative Minster of Defence, Mr. O’Connor, recently declared that Canada is not able to deploy more troops for other missions, even though he expects Canada will be called to do so. In fact, even with a vigorous recruitment program, O’Connor says that it will be five years before Canada’s armed forces have enough personnel to take on more assignments. Yet the Conservative Government talks about building a stronger fighting force.

Is this really the path Canada should take? Can it afford it? Does it build on the Canadian advantage?

What should Canada do?

There is an answer. Canada should and can stake out a leadership role in preventing mass violence. How? By building the capacity for Early Warning and Early Response. Indeed, not counting the costs of the American-led war and occupation in Iraq, it has been estimated that for every dollar spent on peace, twelve are spent on war-making. Yet, everyone agrees that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And Canada does not have the military –industrial complex nor the tax revenues to be a fighter on the world stage. Neither does that role reconcile with ordinary Canadians’ image of themselves, at home or abroad. Certainly a well-equipped and trained modern force able to carry out a limited number of peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions is appropriate, but why not invest in prevention in the first place.

A good beginning has already been made on Early Warning. Most every government in the world has some capacity to identify potential violence. Ministries of defence, justice, and foreign affairs scope the horizon, including looking inside the country, with a view to predicting and preventing violence. And two nongovernmental organizations, Swisspeace and the International Crisis Group are pre-eminent in the business of Early Warning. Neither, however, connects Early Warning to Early Response, although the Canadian International Institute of Applied Negotiation in Ottawa is demonstrating that this can be done. Mass violence can be prevented. How? By taking low-profile, early activities that include diplomacy, mediation, and economic development always with an eye to the types and forms of violence that are present or likely in a country at risk.

But no country has seized upon the Early Warning-Early Response prevention agenda. Canada can. Norway and other middle powers in Europe have staked out a role as mediators in international conflict situations. They have committed resources to the role of mediation, including efforts to end civil wars. And they have built expertise and good reputations there. Canada could, but hasn’t. And if it concentrated on that role it would be entering a marketplace that is already filled with UN Special Envoys, eminent persons like Jimmy Carter, and regional bodies such as the Organization of American States.

Prevention, however, is given lip-service around the world, but no teeth. Canadian leadership is needed to build a global Early Warning – Early Response System and to cultivate and then deploy from Canada, teams that can work early and effectively to prevent killing. Right now, being outside the region and having access in Washington, Canada is well-positioned to support a desperately-needed constructive dialogue between the USA and Iran to prevent escalation of that conflict into violence; it can tackle the necessary challenge of engaging rebels and even so-called terrorists in preventive dialogue with their adversaries, and it can work in a low-keyed manner to change the course of direction in little-known countries like Cameroon that are destined for violence if left on their present track.  At a fraction of the cost of peacekeeping and waging war, Canada can help ensure there are no more Darfurs. Doesn’t that make sense?

 

For more information contact:

Dr. Ben Hoffman,

President and CEO,

Canadian International Institute of Applied Negotiation

Suite 1105 - 1 Nicholas Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1N 7B7
http://www.ciian.org