Canada and the United Nations

What role, if any, should Canada play as peacekeepers in the world?  Do not necessarily advocate for the country that you researched.  Consider not only where Canada should go but also what role they should be playing there.  How much should be peace-keeping or can we move into peace-making?  How much of our role should be training?  Complete your own post and respond to two others.

41 thoughts on “Canada and the United Nations

  1. As peacekeepers, Canada should play the role of helping other countries that are going through really violent times. With that being done, it creates allies for Canada just in case anything does happen to us, and it also benefits us because other countries have different resources that Canada may not have.

    In my opinion, I think Canada should do both peace-keeping and peace-making because of what was already said for making allies and getting resources, but it can also help with the countries helping us in the United Nations. It may be dangerous but it helps us in the long run.

    1. Ok, but where should Canada send peacekeepers in your opinion?Many countries are going through really violent times, and they need help right now, but which country we may help is a fatal decision. You can’t help everybody at the same time, because each mission requires a lot of money and plans.

      1. I’m still going strong about sending Canadian peacekeepers to Colombia because it’s a small and safe mission and sometimes you can’t always go big. The little things matter too. And even if you’re just babysitting, it’s always better to be safe than sorry. Things might go bad a little but not as bad as Mali.

    2. I think we shouldn’t say “other countries that are going through really violent times”, as that doesn’t narrow it down in the slightest. We need to focus on one place at a time, because if we just generalize who we should help as countries that are going through violent times, then we have no place to start, no clear goal in mind. So many countries are in violence right now; if we try to join in on every single dispute in the world, where do we stop? Where do we draw the line and say “I’m sorry, but we can’t help you.” We don’t have the funds, the resources nor the people to send to every country going through a violent time. We have to pick and choose our battles, not generalize and decide to help all of them, because there’s too many places who could use outside help. As much as we want to help everyone, we have to put our own country first. Keep in mind that to fight with someone means that we’re fighting AGAINST someone else. So, alongside making allies, we also make enemies. So it’s a win-lose. Fighting costs money and lives, and though we make allies, we have to be sure that who we’re fighting for is going to help the world in someway, so it’s so, so important to clearly choose a country to help.

  2. There are so many places in the world that require Canada’s help, our resources and skills are capable of changing the tides on wars and conflict between two or more groups of people. However, in my opinion I still think that Canada should go to Mali. The people there have just suffered so much and it is just so violent there that the conflict has to be stopped. Canada can get so much recognition as well, as it requires working alongside with France who is well known to be quite powerful in the UN, in a country who already has so many peacekeepers there. Canada would probably really be playing the role for keeping the peace, no armed battles etc. as it would most likely cause more conflict instead of calming it.

    1. I don’t like the idea of Canada going to help another country in trouble and then get recognition for it. The humane thing to do, helping someone when they’re in trouble and getting attention and allies because of doing something nice for someone else.

    2. I don’t think we should be sending our peacekeepers in dangerous places full of violence like Mali because allot of our peacekeepers aren’t well trained to handle these situations. We should start by sending them to country’s that have problems but with lower cases of violence so that our peacekeepers can get some training on how to handle civilians before throwing them into a violent country. If we start putting new peacekeepers in Mali for their first mission, there’s a very strong chance that they might become a victim to violence too and it may lead to their death. If we start throwing away peacekeepers in these dangerous situations without the proper training, we could be sending them to their death and we need to think about how that could affect the families of these peacekeepers. Also, if these peacekeepers do come back alive they could most likely suffer from PTSD. Having to see people die everyday and not being able to help them can have a huge toll mentally on someone. The main reason our peacekeepers come back with PTSD is because they lack the proper training and we are exposing them to all this violence and death which can also cause them to become violent during the mission or when they come back to Canada and they start to become violent towards their families. So even if the situation in Mali is bad I don’t think we should be sending our peacekeepers there without the proper training and experience to handle these situations.

      1. It would be more efficient and helpful to aid the countries who deal with smaller problems, kind of like how a person does the easy questions on a test first and saves the harder problems for last so they’ll have more time to solve it.

      2. But the Canadians who become peacekeepers know what the risks are when going on missions. They know what may or may not happen, that they may be sent to dangerous places like Mali and they may see or do things they don’t want to see or do. But they signed on to be peacekeepers to help people and know the risks.

  3. I feel like Canada should go to Columbia, because I fine there’s more violence there. And it needs to be stopped. The FARC have been fighting for the poor in Colombia to protect them from government violence, which is a good thing but they’re not doing much to help. So Canada should go to Colombia to help and to be looked at like a helpful country. I think Canada’s a greedy country in a way, so they need to be a big help and go help out Colombia.

    1. I agree with you on that Canada should go to Colombia, on the other hand I don’t agree with you that Canada should go just to be looked at like a helpful country, but rather for the facts of Colombia. Like how safe it will be for our troops, whats the violence rate, etc.

  4. From the country my group did, I think they should not just stick to one place but move around all over and do a little bit everywhere and leave some people behind who feel dedicated and feel like they’ve found their place they can help the most. Their doing great work right know beside some of the peacekeepers losing track, and abusing their work. If they only focus on one country at a time than I think the other country’s will feel angry and feel like their not important enough to have their help and attention. If I was in trouble and someone I though had my back went to someone else first and not me I would feel upset. From what they’re doing right now, I don’t have any better advice for them to do. Their doing really good work in my opinion by trying to build school, getting people stuff they need and over all showing them they care by being there. Peace-making I think is not really our place to decide if we can make it or not. I’m not saying I want to leave their country alone, but maybe just talking to the two different leaders in war about what it would take to be in peace, might be better.

    1. Okay, so sending the soldiers all around to help every country in need at least a little bit is what you are saying. Could potentially work, but maybe not. If the Peacekeepers just get up and leave at random times when they have done their part, leaving only a few in their wake, it means the job still wouldn’t be done, and any potential or maybe even unknown enemies could come and wipe out the rest because of the low amount of soldiers that were “left behind”,compared to what there was. In my opinion, it would be far to risky to leave only a couple soldiers here and there, definitely after possibly arousing conflict. Mali for instance would be a highly dangerous place to do this procedure, as everyone is in conflict there and fighting each other, leaving soldiers in this place without full support would be a suicide mission. However, I do think it could be a good idea, but only if it is done properly, as any mistake could cause extreme numbers of fatalities.

    2. While sending soldiers everywhere is a noble idea, I wonder how much it could cost Canada in the long run. While we have 600 peacekeepers and a proclaimed $450 million to go into UN efforts, which seems massive, to put things into perspective, countries such as Mali already have approximately 11 000 peacekeepers already there from various countries. If we divided our efforts in searching to be more inclusive, would be be able to equally ration out our resources among several territories, or would there be so little attention given to each area that our effort falls flat? As much as I wish we could devote attention to each crisis, I think Canada’s best plan of action would be quality of change over quantity of areas.

    3. The idea is good, but do we have the funds or the resources to send peace keepers to any place in the world going through some sort of feud or war? Maybe we should focus on the worse-off places first, and make our way gradually around to each place.

    4. I feel like moving people around to different areas can be a really bad idea, all of our focus should be on one country. They way I think about it is if you distribute all your soldiers around equally how are you supposed to help one country if you have like twenty others that you have to think about. Say if I wanted to join improv and Basket ball, but they are both on the same day, so I decide to do both and go to both practices. I can ether be kind of good at both or really good at one.

  5. There are some countries that are in desperate need of help. Canada can play the role of giving the people in need access to our sources such as our source of good drinking water. I think Canada should go to south Sudan, they have next to no livestock therefor no food, no fresh water and in great need of our resources. Although, yes, there were some cases of sexual assault in this area caused by some peacekeepers. Maybe the way that I think we can stop this is to have each peacekeeper go trough either a test, or have the government go through their criminal records. I also feel like it would do much better for the peacekeepers and the civilians of south Sudan to not have the peacekeepers away from their families for more than 5 months because then loneliness will set in! There is nothing we can’t do, I would like to challenge that fact and help south Sudan in any way that Canada possibly can.

    1. I really like your idea of testing the though process of the peacekeepers going to the troubled and violent countries. And bringing the peacekeepers back after 5 months away from their family would probably stop them feeling lonely and doing some hurtful and traumatizing events to the people they were sent there to protect and help.

    2. Honestly Karley, I do agree that we should do the best of our ability to help South Sudan, but, I want to know more about the sexual abuse and how we can prevent it from happening. What kind of test can be done? Because I don’t think that test will stop our peace-keepers from committing sexual abuse, nor does going through criminal records because even if they have a clean record, they have that time in peace-keeping to change that.

    3. You mentioned that they have very poor resources, although I agree with you that South Sudan needs peacekeeping, I don’t think it would be the best for Canadian soldiers to go. Yes it is important to help other countries but we must first look after our own citizens. I was also curious about what test you think that the soldiers should go through?

    4. I think before our peacekeepers can travel to aid a country such as South Sudan, the allegations of sexual assault need to be addressed and some form of law or regulation put in place. However, I feel that perhaps just a test may not be the way to go about it. In Canada, there are already tests administered for those legally allowed to carry a firearm, such as law enforcement officers, which question the individual on their mental state, their well being, as well as any disabilities or mental illnesses the person might have. If the peacekeepers have already taken these tests in order to obtain their position, and continue to commit these acts of sexual assault, it’s obvious that more needs to be done. As much as we all wish that combating loneliness and psychiatric evaluations would solve the issue, this has more to do with a societal change that needs to occur. It’s a proven statistic that many sexual offenders will commit sexual assault or rape more than once, and that almost all of these individuals never see the inside of a jail cell in their lifetime. To see change, Canada needs to be prepared to make peacekeepers legally accountable for their actions, and prosecute offenders swiftly and without hesitance if they chose to commit such acts of sexual violence against the civilians who need their help.

    5. I’d like to challenge you for a moment on the sexual assault; I find that doing criminal record checks and/or tests will not be enough to solve this problem. There could, and probably is, people who have a squeaky clean criminal record and whom would pass this test that we could give them, only to get over there and commit sexual assault anyway: it isn’t like an illness that you can identify and pluck out: it’s an action that somebody chooses to do of their own accord, and it’s impossible to judge who will do something like that. As an alternative, I suggest we keep closer track on our men, recognize any signs that might pop up, if any do at all.
      But, I agree that Canada should help in any way that it can.

    6. I really like your idea of helping them with their food stock. Helping the civilians should be the major part about peace keepingI

  6. Personally, Canada should focus on the civilians and their struggles. All over the world, innocent people suffer from the war that they have no part in, having to flee from their own homes due to enemy forces that had raised enough havoc to completely destroy their only place of sanctuary. Children shouldn’t have to be caught in the crossfire, but they are, and that’s what concerns me. How will the silver lining become true, if their futures (“children are the future”) are being slaughtered right in front of them?
    I believe that a section of peacekeepers should be put to defend the innocent- in any country that they are placed in- helping them with their problems and issues they have in relation to the current battle going on. If they are protected, maybe then there could be a better chance in survival. And maybe then, the death tolls will lower its numbers.

    1. Very good point Alora, I do agree with you about helping the designated countries issues and children. But if so much children and civilians are getting killed, wouldn’t it put our peace-keepers in danger. We would just be sending our own people to die. Is it worth doing it?

    2. This is a very good point, the civilians could definitely benefit from a peace keeping mission. Above all else, people and children in each of these places are in danger, and our peace keepers could help tremendously.

    3. This is a very good point. I think that we need o send our peacekeepers to help protect the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire of these wars between rebel groups or between their own governments sometimes. We need to protect the future generations and all other people, if we don’t what will happen to these country’s in the next couple years. If they are killing innocent people and children we need to send our most experienced peacekeepers to help defend these people in desperate need of our help.

  7. The peacekeepers are one of the solutions that the government is to help people who are affected by wars, in my opinion the Canada should continue giving international support to Syria, and as people who live in this country should help by donating clothes and groceries. But I think it is necessary yes, the presence of the armed forces in Syria, because it is necessary to defend the places that were recovered and analyze some way to achieve others who still are on the hands of terrorists. The Canada already participates in missions of peace a long time, and it serves as a positive point for the country. We must all mobilize in favor of this cause, in fact there are hundreds of people needing our help!

  8. Despite advocating for Mali to the best of my ability during the project, I initially supported Canada sending peacekeepers to South Sudan. The obvious poverty, struggle and misfortune there, on display in the video on Darfur, seemed to need the support of peacekeepers, to tend to the starving and homeless, and help defend the civilians. However, there was one aspect of the proposed mission that didn’t sit right with me. With thousands of peacekeepers currently there, there have been criticisms of the forces not doing enough to help rather than harm. And with Mali, which I now support Canada’s involvement in, with such violence in a small country, to the point where peacekeepers have lost their lives, it’s no wonder that several countries have contributed their forces to dismantle the conflict. But, with over 11 000 peacekeepers currently in Mali, it becomes apparent that the current strategy just isn’t working. In truth, peacekeeping as a whole just isn’t working with the current system.
    There is still much to be earned from Canadian peacekeeping, in the way of recognition, power, and a pat on the back… But there is no easy answer to where our country should send its forces, because, regardless of where they set foot, if our nation-wide narrative is not to care about the conditions of countries in terror, or how to properly aid them in their *unique* situations, nothing will improve.

  9. Canada should play as peacekeepers in Central African Republic. The situation there is very critical, and people are getting murdered every day. Well, we have other countries that really need help too, but if we help Africa right now, we could change it to a better place, and even become a rich country. Our role in there should be protect people and find a way to end the Christian-muslin battle with both peace-making and peace-keeping acts. But that might be a hard job, because the main problem isn’t just nly the rebels killing people, but the peacekeepers abusing the africans. We must send peacekeepers and switch peacekeepers every 2 months, this should decrease the rate of peacekeepers abusing africans.

  10. As a relatively peaceful country, and as peacekeepers, I personally believe that Canada should focus on Central African Republic or the Democratic Republic of Congo, on more of a mission to protect and keep peace instead of up in the straight-forward fighting. I believe that this would be the best option for our troops, and the best use of our time, equipment and money. If we cannot manage to keep the peace between two groups of people, what hope do we have of ending a war between two groups? So we start smaller, we make a difference where we can, in keeping the peace and bettering living conditions for people who need them, and then, when all this is done and all the people are taken care of, only then do we go and join the bigger battles. Protecting and helping the citizens should be Canada’s top priority.

  11. As peace keepers, Canada’s top priority should be the safety of the citizens to recover from the allegations of sexual assault.
    My group did Columbia and I think it is a good place to start peacekeeping. It is the most safe and they wouldn’t be at risk. It would be a good thing to keep our troops alive, not only for the obvious reason that you don’t want people to die but that more soldiers in more dangerous parts of the world that needs peacekeeping, the better.

    1. I agree that the Canadian peacekeepers should go to Columbia since it’s a less violent place. I feel like it would prepare themselves for the worst. They would know what would help and what wouldn’t as in what would help the civilians. The whole point of me saying yes to your idea Heaven, is that it might be a practice run, starting off easy before going to the big stuff.

  12. Personally, I feel that peace-keepers can make a big difference in the world, specifically in the Central African Republic. There is a lot of violence there, with illness and mortality at an all-time high. The government has turned against their civilians. They are not providing fair trials. They are taking people off the streets and accusing them of criminal activity, without proof or allowing them a fair chance to defend themselves. They are throwing tons of people in prisons with horrible life conditions, diseases, starvation and dehydration. Malaria is an endemic. Women’s health conditions are terrible. The maternity mortality rate is 1 in 4 women. 1 in 4 women are dying during child birth. Although, the past peace keeping missions have failed due to allegations of sexual assault, I feel there is a lot we could do to change this and to reinforce this peace keeping mission. We could have double the amount of peace keepers and switch them out every year. By knowing when they will be going home, maybe they won’t feel the need to sexually assault anyone. We could also inforce psychiatric assessments every year before the peacekeepers are deployed to be sure that there are no psychological problems that may affect the work that they do. Whether or not these precautions are taken, the Central African Republic could definitely benefit from this peacekeeping mission.

  13. From earlier missions, I think that a lot of peacekeepers should stick to helping out countries that have a safer environment. In most missions they’re all dangerous and peacekeepers die. The country that I think needs help and has a safe environment is Colombia. Their role would be to monitor peace between the Colombian government and the largest rebel group in Colombia, FARC. Currently there was a peace deal presented and it got rejected and I’m not really sure how the FARC are going to act upon this because they were the ones causing destruction but also the ones to come up with the peace deal. They’ve surrendered but Colombia is too hurt to accept anything from them but that shouldn’t matter because the actions that came from the FARC were because they banded together to fight against inequality in Colombia at that time but they also went too far with the things they’ve done. But if FARC calmed down, then the Canadian peacekeepers should monitor here.

  14. Our Canadian soldiers, (I’m sorry about this) shouldn’t do peace keeping missions. Yes I’m for making peace, that’s what we need in this earth. In my eyes I see all my best friends and my brother accepting a job to go to Mali. I picture my brother coming back home having to get treatment because he see’s innocent people getting killed every single day in a corrupt nation that at any moment in time he could be killed for just trying to be helpful. I see myself going to my friend’s house to see them not smile when I make a stupid joke. Imagine having a women in front of your eyes being raped, you have a loaded weapon but you can’t do anything.

    1. I’m with you on this, Thunder. It hurts to think about my family members being put into a situation that they have no control over, to have them try their best to help but they can’t. Just the thought about loosing my uncle (basically my brother) to a mission gone bad hurts me. It really does go to show that you have to cherish every moment you have with a person before it’s too late.

  15. I think we need to find out what place needs peacekeeping the most. It’s a lot of money and these are people going in to try to help things in the country. It’s a dangerous mission in most cases so I think we need to choose wisely. We don’t want people to go out there to die only to find out their help was needed somewhere else more. War anywhere is something we want to stop it’s a desperate situation in all these places ,but as we saw with our assignment some places need peacekeepers more than others. Which is why I believe we need to pick the best one for both the places situation as well as the peacekeepers that are sent there.

  16. I think as peace keepers Canada should focus on places like Columbia that have a safer environment for the people we send in. we also need to focus on one place at a time because if we start sending peace keepers to a bunch of different places around the world some areas more dangerous than others we won’t be able to use the full potential of our peace keepers if their all separated into different country’s. we should focus on one place at a time and start with the safer ones so as our peace keepers are being sent there they can learn and have better training for other peace keeping missions later in more dangerous areas. That’s why I think that we should send our peace keepers to Columbia because they will be better prepared on how to deal with the civilians of what to do and what not to do so when they go into more dangerous country’s they will have a better understanding.

    1. It would also be very expensive and our country isn’t the richest on earth. If we do send peacekeepers somewhere it should be somewhere where we know for sure we can help this country and its people.

  17. Colombia would be the best place to begin sending peacekeepers first. It is the less dangerous and we have the greatest chances of success at helping the people. I’m not saying Mali doesn’t need our help but Colombia needs help too and it would pose the least amount of danger for our peacekeepers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *