Skip to main content

Globe editorial: The Liberals fudge their peacekeeping promise – and with good reason

There may be little to no traditional peacekeeping to be done anymore – patrolling an international cease-fire line, the peacekeeping of Lester Pearson, is not exactly an in-demand career these days – but many Canadians retain an emotional attachment to the idea. It has power, plucking at heart strings and stirring nostalgia.

That's why the Liberal Party made the return of Canada's United Nations blue helmets a central part of the 2015 campaign – even though it was a little bit like Donald Trump pledging to bring manufacturing jobs back to the Rust Belt. As the Team Trudeau platform put it, in bold letters, "We will renew Canada's commitment to peacekeeping operations."

Ever since making that promise, the Trudeau government has been trying to figure out how to fulfill it. It has spent two years delaying and fudging, and on Wednesday, with the Prime Minister announcing vague, and small, commitments to future UN peace operations, the fudging continued.

Story continues below advertisement

For that, Canadians should be thankful.

We come not to bury Justin Trudeau's policy of peacekeeping prevarication, but to praise it. This is not a case of moving from the idealism of opposition to the cynicism of power. On the contrary, it looks more like an evolution from a cynical campaign fantasy to a more honest assessment of objective reality.

On Wednesday, Mr. Trudeau announced that his government will commit a mere 200 Canadian troops to future, unnamed UN missions – continuing two years of declining to specify a destination. He also promised extra logistical support for the UN, and (Liberal party branding alert) $21-million to encourage more female soldiers in UN operations.

It's a lot less than what the Liberals seemed to be promising on the campaign trail. In fulfilment of that election pledge, the government until recently appeared determined to find somewhere dangerous to put hundreds of Canadian boots on the ground. A leading candidate was Mali, where 80 UN personnel have died since 2013.

On its self-scorecard, the government will surely call this promise "fully met." It should more accurately be graded somewhere between "modified" and "not being pursued." Again, that's wise and prudent.

Canada shed an enormous amount of blood in Afghanistan, and there is no enthusiasm, in Ottawa or the country, to search for new war zones to enter. The government of Canada can, and sometimes must, send our troops into harm's way. But it had better have an exceedingly good reason for doing so. Until it does, the government should tread cautiously.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

If your comment doesn't appear immediately it has been sent to a member of our moderation team for review

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.