Introduction
As of late there has been a constant cultural idea within Canada what has defined its military operations as primarily consisting of peacekeeping measures. Peacekeeping, as defined by the most international relation scholars and the U.N., is defined as a rather unique system of armed intervention in order to instill order within countries that are currently in conflict in order to create conditions appropriate for the development of peace. In this regard, it is thus considered that due to its participation in numerous U.N. peacekeeping measures that Canada itself is thus a peacekeeper that does so due to altruism and the desire to mitigate international conflict, however such an assumption should not be immediately assumed to be true. This paper is not trying to state that Canada is not a peacekeeper; rather the justifications behind the participation of Canada in peacekeeping measures must be taken in consideration.
Harting and Kamboureli as well as Jefferess and Beaver in their various work examining the “myth” behind Canada’s peacekeeping actions explain that the prevalent social idea behind peacekeeping and what it actually is in reality are actually two divergent and distinct concepts which should be differentiated in order to gain a proper understanding of the justifications and reasons behind Canada’s actions as a peacekeeper. As such an examination of Jefferess definition of the use of ethos and selective interpretation, Harting and Kamboureli’s use of ethos and national interests and finally Beaver’s use of peacekeeping as a method of military survival will be examined in order to give a clearer picture of the reasons behind Canada’s peacekeeping measures and how they differ from the current ideas proliferated in society.
Article Examination
Harting and Kamboureli
Harting and Kamboureli in their article “Introduction: Discourses of Security, Peacekeeping Narratives, and the Cultural Imagination in Canada” present the argument that the idea of Canada as a peacekeeper (international arbiter of global conflicts) is highly ambiguous, rooted in apparent racial undertones and the development of a specific type of public ethos in order to protect national interests both domestically and internationally (Harting and Kamboureli, 660). The term “racial undertones” is connected to the historic concept of “the white man’s burden”, a view that presents the idea that white people have an inherent obligation to encourage the positive development of other cultures until such a time that they are fully inculcated in the adoption of western ideals and mannerisms.
Harting and Kamboureli give evidence of this apparent cultural predilection when they cite the following statement by Adrienne Clarkson: “our ability to maintain justice and do what is right… is a role that history has allotted us” (Harting and Kamboureli, 660). This particular statement gives credence to the arguments of Harting and Kambourelli at which point it can even be said that the idea of Canada as an international peacekeeper is nothing more than a persistent myth created out of need to ensure domestic acceptance of Canada’s joint international military operations (Harting and Kamboureli, 661). What must be understood is that any prolonged or even short lived international military operation is intrinsically linked to domestic support for that particular operation due to the nature of democratic governments who are inherently obliged to obey “the will of the people”.
Yet it must also be noted that Canada is part of numerous alliances and coalitions to which it is obligated to lend military aide in times of conflict. As such in the case of Canada in order to gain domestic support for its participation in joint alliance and military operations the myth of Canada as an international peacekeeper, the idea of Canada’s altruism, the cultural idea of “the white man’s burden” is thus fostered in order to gain domestic support for Canada’s joint international military operations with its allies (Harting and Kamboureli, 661). This joint participation helps to ensure national interest since it ensures continued support from allies from both a military and intergovernmental relationship point of view and helps to ensure that few problems will spill over into the Canadian state (Harting and Kamboureli, 661).
Granatstein Beaver
Granatstein Beaver in his paper, “War and Peacekeeping”, presents the idea that due to the advantages of its geographic position and historic relationships Canada has never really had the need to develop its own standing army. In fact Beaver states that ever since the 1950’s Canada’s military budget has been in steep decline along with a reduction in the number of troops actually enlisted in the army itself (Beaver, 10 – 12). Furthermore, as a direct result of declining budgets outdated equipment became an almost ubiqutous aspect of Canada’s military with obsolesce becoming a defining factor for Canada’s supposedly “advanced” military strength (Beaver, 10 -12).
Beaver goes on further to explain that the task of peacekeeping during the 1960’s, 1970’s etc, seen as an obligation by the military due to its allegiance to various alliances and coalitions, was initially disliked due to it being noted as a ” distraction from the primary task of training to fight the Soviet Union in Central Europe” (Beaver, 11). It must be noted though that the task of peacekeeping was seen differently by the Canadian public as Canadian troops not being war mongers but quasi-neutral peacekeepers in that Canada’s actions were altruistic in order to keep the peace so to speak when in fact it was nothing more than the result of an obligation on the part of Canada’s military (Beaver, 11).
Towards the end of the paper Beaver presents several arguments almost indicative of Canada’s declining military capabilities namely its aging systems, declining budgets, shrinking enlistments and the fact that on the basis of its geographic position Canada really doesn’t need a large standing army. In fact Beaver goes on to subtlety present the notion that the participation of Canada in various peacekeeping missions is in fact a necessity for the military in order to make itself seem more relevant in order to continue to exist since for all intents and purposes there is little justification for it in the present.
David Jefferess
David Jefferess in his article, “Responsibility, Nostalgia, and the Mythology of Canada as a Peacekeeper” explores the apparent Canadian cultural idea of Canada being a peacekeeper. In his article he explores the actions embarked on by Canada nearly a decade ago when it began joint operations in Afghanistan along with the U.S., he states that the actions of Canada then were interpreted by various lawmakers and members of the general public as being “unbecoming” of its “traditional” role as a peacekeeper (Jefferess, 710). Jefferess argues against this by utilizing the arguments of Eric Hobsbawm by stating that “national tradition is ‘invented’ in the sense that such traditions seek to inculcate certain values and norms that ‘establish continuity with a suitable historic past” (Jefferess, 711).
In a way this can be interpreted as certain precedents in history or in society being used out of context in order to justify a particular ethos or ideology. In fact Jefferess explains that Canada’s peacekeeping identity is in fact similar to the sanitized history developed by Britain in order to portray its imperial greatness without taking into account the brutality of colonialism that resulted from imperial expansion (Jefferess, 711). The cultural predilection of thinking of Canada as peacekeeper is thus created out selective interpretations of Canada’s history which in effect create the myth of Canada’s peacekeeping tradition.
Similarities and Differences in the Articles
One of the inherent similarities of the Harting and Kamboureli paper to the work of Beaver and Jefferess is that it presents the idea that the myth of peacekeeping embedded in Canadian society and the reality of the actual situation are actually two distinct concepts. As it was stated earlier the idea that has been developed in the Canadian cultural myth of peacekeeping has been one of altruism, “the white man’s burden, that Canada is in fact helping for the “greater good” but the truth of the matter is, as stated by Harting and Kamboureli “peacekeeping is a strategic representation and management of knowledge of the Other and thus allied with violence, and the truth that the instrumentality of peacekeeping conceals the fact that peacekeeping converts its ‘forward’ nature into an image constructed in the semblance of a project that is of benefit to Others” (Harting and Kamboureli, 662).
A more simplistic interpretation of this particular statement can be derived from the concept of ethos and how it is used to justify causes. The concept of ethos can be described as a form of guiding beliefs that are an inherent part of a community or nations character. It is used as guide that influences a person’s behavior to such an extent that by examining the ethos behind a culture you can determine how they will react based on a given situation. In this particular case the ethos developed is the idea that Canada is a peacekeeper and as such it has an inherent responsibility to guide the “lesser” cultures towards a more “progressive” path of development and thus this justifies armed intervention. In essence this is the argument presented when justifying Canadian peacekeeping operations and the Canadian public accepts this to be true. In the case of ethos what must be understood is that it is “artifice”, meaning that is created, manufactured, made, constructed etc.
It can be considered a type of surface image which may in fact have an entirely fictitious relationship to what is actually true. For example, a teacher could show up in class one day wearing cowboy boots, a ten gallon hat and a long sleeved t-shirt with a large image of a cactus on the front, the next day he can wear an average suit and tie while the day after that he could wear a Scottish kilt, bagpipes and one of those patterned hats. The reason this is mentioned is due to the fact that despite the different outfits he wears the person and the ideas that are being presented have not changed at all however what is changed is the perception of the audience regarding the idea being presented. The same can be said for ethos wherein the method in which the idea is “packaged” drastically changes the perception of the audience towards accepting the idea itself or the validity of its statements.
It is in the way that it is packaged and presented to the public that changes the perception of the public to the idea that is being presented. In essence this is what Harting and Kamboureli are trying to state in that what the public sees is an argument for freedom and altruism through peacekeeping operations however what it is in reality is a self beneficial action conducted to protect Canada’s own national interests such as national security, continued positive relationships with its allies and the image of Canada as a global power.
The article created by Beaver and that of Harting and Kamboureli are actually similar in that they present the idea that the myth of peacekeeping embedded in Canadian society and the reality of the actual situation are actually two distinct concepts. The one difference between the two is that while Harting and Kamboureli justify their arguments by delving into the myths behind Canadian peacekeeping and how it is justified through the use of ethos and the need to maintain Canada’s national interests both domestically and internationaly, Beaver approaches the topic from a more factual point of view by pointing out relevant data regarding the current decline of the Canadian military budget, its aging equipment, Canada’s geographic position, historical precedent and the fact that its participation in peacekeeping missions is not so much in defence of Canada’s security but in its desire to continue to exist (Beaver, 1-12).
Beaver’s arguments are actually quite justifiable, when examining the overall relevance of a military to a nation that is unlikely to be attacked, is in a geographically “safe” area and is situated right next to a comparatively peaceful giant whom Canada has friendly relations with, the only resulting conclusion is that there is little justification for a large standing army. In fact upon further study of the various works of Beaver his book, “Who Killed Canada’s Army?”, specifically argues for the creation of a small highly trained and well equipped military rather than the current ill-equipped and underfunded army that Canada has today.
The military though is able to continue to gain support for its existence through various peacekeeping missions as a result of public support which propagates an inefficient system. What must be understood is that this is inherently detrimental as emphasized by Beaver when he presents his arguments in relation to the “militia myth” and connecting it to his argument of sending ill-equipped and undertrained soldiers into military battlefields only to be slaughtered as seen in the case of World War 1 (Beaver, 1 – 6).
The arguments presented by Jefferess are slightly dissimilar to that of Beaver, Harting and Kamboureli; Beaver has stated that myth of peacekeeping is a result of the military’s attempt at being perceived as relevant while on the other hand Harting and Kamboureli present that notion that it is a result of the development of ethos in order to protect national interests both domestically and internationally. Jefferess on the other hand has a completely different notion wherein he explains that the creation of the ethos behind the justification of the myth of Canada as a peacekeeper was created as a result of selective and nostalgic interpretations of Canada’s past and the desire for distinction by the Canadian masses.
This has created as a result a distinct predilection to imagine that Canada has always been a peacekeeper and that it has the inherent responsibility to continue in this particular role. In this particular case the ethos that was created was a direct result of justifying present and future actions of peacekeeping on the previous actions of Canada in various historical events. What must be understood is that ethos is not something that is inherent but rather something that has been created and manufactured with a surface image in order to fulfill a particular purpose. It is often utilized as a method of convincing people or justifying a particular set of actions and as such it is crafted in such a way so as to be convincing, believable and thus adaptable.
For example when ordering someone to go into battle you do not tell them that the possibility of them dying is high rather you tell them to fight for national pride, democracy, freedom etc., even though the fact of the matter is that person will most likely die. In a sense ethos is a device utilized in order to manipulate public perception regarding truth in such a way that it promotes a particular idea on the basis of the common good but in fact it was created in order to carry out a particular action. In this particular case the manufactured ethos is the justification of actions based on altruism and past endeavors yet when taking into consideration various arguments related to Canada’s true justification for peacekeeping actions (national relevance, obligation to alliances etc.) it can be seen that the ethos created for this specific purpose is in effect based on false premises.
Examining the Research
An examination of all 3 research articles reveal that the works of Harting and Kamboureli as well as Jefferess use considerable amounts of research in justifying their various arguments as evidenced by that various uses of citations as well as the rather lengthy bibliography in both. On the other hand the paper of Beaver doesn’t appear to contain any specific sources but rather seems to be more along the lines of a self interpretation of events based on historic documents. In other words while the arguments utilizes by Harting and Kamboureli as well as Jefferres have a basis on the arguments of other similar peers the work of Beaver seems to be more inclined towards his own views and doesn’t take into account the findings of other researchers.
Conclusion
From what has been presented in this paper it can be stated that the public perception towards the reasons behind peacekeeping and the reality of the actual situation are actually two distinct concepts, one where development of a distinct public ethos has created an almost false belief in the justification behind peacekeeping actions. Based on the work of Beaver what is needed in the case Canada is a change in the way in which the military perceives its method of survival, the development of falsely based ethos as seen in the works of Harting and Kamboureli and Jefferress are inherently detrimental to what public perception towards peacekeeping operations should be and only helps to cause continued deaths for soldiers in Canada’s military.
What must be understood is that it is in my personal opinion that while it is admirable that Canada is participating in peacekeeping operations it really has no realistic need to do so, rather what it should be doing is concentrating on enhancing its current military infrastructure into a small yet advanced army in order to better utilize its resources rather than send army units into areas wherein they have to utilize aging and outdated equipment as stated by Beaver.
Works Cited
Beaver, Grandelstein.(1995). War and Peacekeeping. Vol. 74 (6): 1 – 12.
Harting, Heike and Kamboureli, Smaro.(2009).Introduction: Discourses of Security,
Peacekeeping Narratives, and the Cultural Imagination in Canada. University of Toronto. Vol. 78 (2): 660 – 682.
Jefferess, David.(2009).Responsibility, Nostalgia, and the Mythology of Canada as a Peacekeeper. University of Toronto. Vol. 78 (2): 710 -725.