Archive for the ‘Canadian Defence’ Category

Perhaps it is time for a review and update of Canada’s role in nuclear weapons elimination.  It may be time to have a debate of such as:

A Canadian Declaration on the Control, Verification and Eventual Elimination of Nuclear weapons

Preamble.   The IPNDV consultation represents an opportunity for Canada to continue to deliver its government mandated “pivot to peace operations’ in regards to international peace and stability, specifically in the area of nuclear weapons control.

However, getting rid of all nuclear weapons does not un-invent the technology or the knowledge for reconstitution of a nuclear threat. Certainly getting rid of existing nuclear weapons is a necessary step but may be impractical in the near term. An overriding need is a new global ethic regarding nuclear weapons to deal with this reality.

This ethic must certainly deal with the treaties, prohibitions, control and verification regimes, safeguards and global pressure, but in parallel, we have to deal with the nature of conflict, the evolution of national and global identities, the responsible use of power, and the mimetic structures that pass on cultures and values of hate, violence, or conflict from generation to generation. Structures that often fuelled by poverty, corruption or extremist politics. We must transcend our identities, live beyond national interest, beyond differences, to the level of global citizen, to that of human being. We are one family.   We must change the language of conflict from “war and enemies and anger”, to a language of “peacemaking, humanitarian operations, reconciliation, of stopping violence and relieving suffering”.

We need to acknowledge the truth that under no interpretations of the laws of armed conflict is the use of nuclear weapons either legal or acceptable in any way.

We also need to consider a new global ethic regarding responses to conflict in the global community to reduce, such as the usage risk of nuclear weapons. We need to codify and consolidate a body of law and convention obligating robust peace operations as a precursor to military intervention, and make military intervention a truly last resort. We need to fund and resource such a capacity.

Whereas, we believe that nuclear weapons are unusable within the laws of armed conflict.

Whereas, we believe that the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons defines the best of human existence for all mankind.

Whereas, in the interim, we believe in the strongest verification regime possible for all nuclear weapons states.

It is therefore recommended that Canada formally adopts a principle of non indifference regarding nuclear weapons. Canada cannot remain indifferent to the threat that nuclear weapons represents to mankind.   Canada should not refuse to do what Canada can do.

  • Canada support and seek leadership of UN forums working towards the verification and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons.
  • Canada lead a “renewal initiative” for nuclear weapons treaty verification, adherence and enforcement strengthening to all existing treaties and conventions regarding nuclear weapons, such as involving the NPT.
  • Canada leads a “renewal initiative” involving the development of relational meta environment approaches to address state security needs for nuclear weapons and to build integrity for the primacy of peaceful human values and global human security.
  • Canada create institutions capable of peace operations what can support field verification operations, ideally within a department of peace.
  • Canada lead an initiative to codify “laws for peace operations” in pre, during and post conflict phases, as a strict precursor to invoking “laws of armed conflict” and military intervention.
  • Canada may also consider mandating DND to develop training and expertise, and create deployable units to support verification requirements.
  • Canada consider declaring itself a nuclear weapons free zone.
  • Canada endorse and recognize cities joining Mayors for Peace (Mayors for Peace is a network of over 5500 cities.  The organization was founded in 1991 by the then Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It calls upon cities to stand together for nuclear abolition and world peace. The leadership provided by the Cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an important reminder that these are not abstract threats, but a matter of life and death for cities.)

 

 

Paul Maillet  Colonel retired

The government has got itself in an interesting dilemma. If we procure the super hornet, this may be all we will get, and may only be a question of adding aircraft numbers as we go along. Is there a first step violation here?

To me, there has to be some critical strategic and historical thinking about all this. To fly the F35 to 2070 is 55 years. 55 years ago we were just seriously entering the jet age. If the evolution of drones or other advances do not overtake the F35 long before 2070, I would be very surprised.

Here is something to think about. Considering the argument of the age of competitors, we should consider that over half the cost, and increasing rapidly, is the avionics suite; all the computers, sensors, radar, countermeasures, communications, data links and weapons. Current aircraft are not flying with original 25 year old electronic suites, not by a long shot. This means that the airframe and engine are becoming more and more just a platform for the weapons and avionics, and not the critical path. So any competitor could theoretically be upgraded to near 5th generation capabilities, and retain the airframe and engines. I suggest that geometry will not remain a deciding factor for stealth much longer.   The question becomes; which platform is best suited for such evolution. Is this the Super Hornet, the Gripen, Typhoon, Rafale? The F35 is certainly not optimized for such as range, speed, manoeuvrability or weapons capacity.

A lot of money is at stake here and we would be prudent to be very cautious. There is no immediate fighter threat to Canada here, and we can always do our share and contribute to international military and peace operations in many other ways.

I attended a panel discussion recently on this topic and noted an appeal for ideas to deal with the issue. I was struck by the universality of inspirational comments, the language of terrorism or enemies, and the almost reflex response of dealing with risk, radicalization or violence from the perspective of “identification and response”, in punitive or treatment approaches, “appeals to behaviour” regarding religious tenants or values, or community obligations. For all the good words, I felt more concern than hope in the room. There is a saying; “you cannot drink the word water.” In this regard, I felt a need for something practical to emerge.

I view language as critical here. In my view there needs to be more awareness of Rosenberg’s theory of Non violent communication. Labelling people as enemies, terrorists or violent extremists is, in a sense, an act of creation that leads us down a path to violence and war, with an implicit licence to invoke lethal force. This means more military, more weapons, more suffering and more collateral damage. That said I do agree that many struggle to find peaceful solutions.   Surely we can do better.

There is another saying; “those who would kill; know that harming others will not bring an end to your suffering.” Perhaps this is an interesting way to view those who choose violence, as also victims of suffering.   It was agreed that causes of such behaviour were everything from numerous, to incredibly complex,  to completely unknown.   However, it can be known that suffering and impermanence exists for us all, the question may become one of how we can all deal with suffering in our lives.

So what is practical in this reality? To start perhaps we need a better balance between controlling wrongdoing and building peace. This means appreciating the difference between positive and negative peace. This means a keen awareness of mimetic structures at play. Mimetic structures are how we pass on cultures of peace or cultures of violence. People have a predisposition to mimic their cultural or family values and beliefs in order to belong or survive.

What is practical in building communities of peace? Perhaps we need an approach of the “whole person” and “whole of community.” Perhaps we need an understanding that one can only build peace, by beginning with “peace within”, before expecting to create “peace between” others in our communities.

This opens many doors. The door to building life practices in people, that seeks to cultivate a “mind of peace”, inner peace, equanimity, mindfulness, presence; and practices and techniques for the understanding of, and dealing with, suffering and trauma in its impermanence and pain, in all the roots of conditions or causes that are not-self.

Also there is the door to building community practices. This may involve training all (children, youth men, women, elders) in the basics of building peace, such as non violent communication, conflict resolution, reconciliation and closure, ethics and ethical decision making, good values, and living well in the company of each other. At a higher level building good governance, human security, economic viability and social needs such as health, education, wellbeing.

Also there is the door to building a group of peace practitioners in the community, especially in the youth. Peace practitioners that lead by example, with capacities around principles of being presence in arising conflict or issues, impartiality, advocating human rights, and have communication or dialogue skills. This may give youth alternatives to conflict through building positive purpose and meaning. Youth with peace building skills, non violent social activism, a voice, and participation in governance can be a powerful contributor to community wellbeing. Training and certifying peace practitioners is easy, and may begin with a “peace within” focus followed by skills education and experience.

So are we in the business of countering violent extremism or building communities of peace, or both? Which has priority? Perhaps the saying “I am one and only one; but will not refuse to do what one can do” has merit. We need small but visionary steps. Good luck to us all.

It is time to try something different.  Military forces can be seen as a study in cultural rigidity. In a military conference I attended this year, a session on encountering child soldiers, trauma, PTSD and moral injury, the response alluded to ”mental health briefings” as a solution to what may lead to depression or suicide. In a strong warrior culture with the suicide rates being what they are (20 per day in the US among military veterans) belies the effectiveness of briefings. “Killing is killing” and anyone doing so, for just cause or not, encounters a traumatic event. The only question is – will they then be traumatized? This is part of what I am trying to address as a peace professional in first nations work and in a current peace and reconciliation project in the Tamils and Sinhalese diaspora, who have severe trauma issues and a child soldier problem.

There is a saying regarding all this, “one cannot drink the word water”. One does not create strong soldiers by talking about push-ups. One needs to exercise and go running every day. The same can be said for mental or trauma resiliency. Briefings are insufficient without strong military life practices. This means adding or changing certain military service practices and their acceptance in military culture. This would take courage because such practices in some ways may run counterculture to a warrior ethos that is not well suited to real independent and critical thinking and living values that are necessary for wellbeing, such as compassion, inner peace and equanimity. A rebalancing of military culture that blends mental health and resiliency with military ethics certainly begins with serious thinking about “military meaning and purpose” in war and conflict. If the trauma issue is to be seriously addressed, military culture should evolve to include continuous practices of wellbeing, mindfulness, breath practices, presence, and meditation. Military culture must understand the nature of suffering and trauma from the perspective of impermanence and that there are alternatives to victimization and depression. Mental wellbeing and causing harm or violence have a fundamental incompatibility. This is a significant and maybe an impossible challenge in a military culture. Good luck to us, or the consequences will be just more suicides and trauma.

 

Dear Honorable Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs;

I am very disappointed with Canada’s NO vote to the report of United Nations Open Ended Working Group to find a path for the elimination of nuclear weapons. The fact and arguments for the elimination of this cancer on the planet are well known, but surprising is the Liberal government setting aside its new commitment to peace on this issue. Also surprising is that we are not exercising leadership here. Fixing our support to peacekeeping is one thing, but people dying somewhere in a nuclear holocaust is another, and our position here is not helpful.

I am very disappointed at the lack of consistency here. You are eroding the trust and high hopes we had for change. Regaining our reputation for peace and presence in the global community does not begin with Canada’s NO to finding a path to the elimination of nuclear weapons.     The journey to a safer and more peaceful world is hard enough, and harder without Canada’s support and leadership. We can do so much good with a little courage and political will.

Trust once broken is almost impossible to regain, and nothing good politically can come from obstructing what is clearly in our best interests. The previous government did enough international obstructing and selfishness to last us all a lifetime.  Please no more.   I implore you to do the right thing. This is what the clear majority of Canadians and the global community expect. Little by little this will define or redefine Canadians as who we are, and what we hold to be the best of human existence.

Good luck to us all.

Paul Maillet

Colonel retired

Former Director of Defence Ethics

Dear friends in peace;

The notion that DND will use recent peace operations funding to training foreign militaries to wage war is not peace building, peacemaking or peace keeping by any means. It is taking sides and enabling war by others. It is not promoting or working towards peace; or even the creation of peace practitioner skills in a country. Training foreign militaries to wage war is not peacemaking. There are enough people around trafficking in weapons and war fighting.

Whether this is in the context of a just war or not, let us be honest here. This violates a core principle of peace operations and that is impartiality. Impartiality enables being able to talk to all sides involved, being trusted by all sides to be fair in peace talks or negotiations, enables the ability to protect civilians in villages, enables creating safe havens, helping refugees, caring for victims on all sides, enables humanitarian aid and development, and even can go as far as training “serve and protect” police forces. Impartiality enables presence in the crisis. Impartiality allows us to assert human rights to all parties.   Impartiality enables us to communicate and mediate.

There is a distinction here – training in killing and “search and destroy” is not what is intended here. It is not what Canadians want.

We can do much much better.

“I am who you are. When you suffer, I suffer.

We are one people on one planet.”

As both a 33 year military veteran and subsequently, since 2001, working in International Development and First Nations in the area of governance, ethics, and peace services, I certainly appreciate the challenges faced in the achievement of mandate of GAC. I appreciate the opportunity to be heard. I would like to offer brief comment on this consultation in the area or peace and security and governance.

I would like to make the point that traditional practices to international assistance must change. The four structural needs of security, economic, governance and social (health, education, housing, etc) are so interconnected and interrelated that expensive short term, narrow and project oriented applications, have limited or only temporary benefit. Transactional solutions of knowledge, material and funding transfers can only be accomplished in parallel with longer term Relational solutions that involve readiness and willingness and “whole of country” or “whole of community” approaches.

I believe we must change our assistance world view from donor-recipient, north-south, in which others bring suffering and we bring superior technology and money, to one of accompaniment. If we are “one family on this planet“ then perhaps the relationship should be one of equality and accompaniment rather than of power and teacher in a superior sense. This means less of very expensive consultant studies, and more sharing, engagement, education, tools and training at the lowest levels.

This may imply changing assistance from being results-based with goals and hard expectations based, to relational, peace oriented, direction-based that builds cultures that responds and works at the structural needs each day and makes progress as it can. Perhaps it is direction and effort each day that better defines success and sufficiency, as opposed to despair with goals that are largely unreachable and often result in failure. One cannot eradicate crime, but can work at it each day with hope.

My most recent work ending Dec 2015 involved a multimillion dollar CIDA project to build an Ethics and anti corruption secretariat in the office of the President in Tanzania. It was very apparent that dealing with elected government and public officials in isolation would not achieve the desired results without involving the meta-environment around these officials. This meant pilot projects with the corporate sector around corrupt practices and social responsibility, projects with civil society around voting for honest people as contributing to honest government, projects teaching ethics and resiliency at lower, middle and higher education; project with ethics and police and military forces; projects in government relating to wrongdoing disclosure and reprisal prevention, and projects with elected and government officials regarding ethics and conflict of interest. The idea that controlling wrongdoing must go hand in hand with building integrity; applies to peace building in that “security and justice’ must go hand in hand with “building peace and reconciliation` and development work.

Currently, we are also involved in “whole of community” peace and reconciliation initiatives with First Nations and the Sri Lankan diaspora in Canada. Our Sri Lankan approach is centered around relational solutions beginning with connecting elders, and creating a group of youth peace practitioners through training and skill development. First nations work involves building trauma resiliency practices in children and youth.

Peace and Security

If we accept a holistic working model of peace that comprises human security, economic livelihood, social needs and good governance, the foundation begins with security. Not much is possible in climates of conflict, hate, fear, war, or oppression.

First, I believe Canada needs to be more sensitive to security needs as essential to assistance. This may mean taking a larger view of 3D (diplomacy, defence, development) so that diplomacy or military activities do not work at cross purposes to development assistance.

The lack of peace has many sources, from poverty, economic depression, to youth lack of jobs and hopelessness, crime, corruption, to lack of resources when others have much, to religious or racial differences, to outright conflict or war.   Traditional constructs of violent conflict involve three phases; pre-conflict, during conflict and post conflict activities. These phases usually define certain military activities such as deployment, hostilities, and reconstruction. What is needed is a peace and development overlay to these phases of conflict, an overlay of peace building, peacemaking and peace keeping. This may involve such as: peace building (governance strengthening, ethics, anti corruption, economic development, policing, diplomacy), peacemaking (mediation, ceasefire negation, refugee assistance, safe havens, humanitarian aid, police training) and peace keeping (reconciliation, justice, development, reconstruction, monitoring). What is also needed is a development approach that first fosters relational solutions, and whole of community approaches, that connects and engages elders, women, youth, men and children in the development of such peace practitioner skills, trauma resiliency, non violent communications skills, dialogue, reconciliation and conflict resolution. This can serve to better enable the clinical trauma responses, and judicial responses regarding crimes, victims and offenders.

Transactional solutions, the military and enforced political solutions where hatred and animosities remain, are usually insufficient and temporary, without good relational solutions. This implies that training military forces and taking sides, and facilitating hostilities, may not be all that helpful to providing peace and assistance to all parties in the longer term. Real security may be better served with constabulary training at village or country levels. Serve and protect is better than search and destroy.

Therefore, essential throughout all 3D activities is attention to peace building and possibly reconciliation needs. This means that all of 3D must have a coherent approach. Peace building in a larger sense, may mean that all 3D actors have a commitment to be present in the country or crisis, to be impartial and not take sides (working with all parties), to be a strong advocate for human rights, to respect and non violence, and to have a capacity for communication and conflict resolution and mediation down to the village level. This may require the development of specialized capacities in 3D departments, or a separate federal department of institution of peace in Canada.

Recommendations:  

I would like to offer the following main recommendations:

  • That assistance be oriented to a “whole of wellbeing“ approach that includes a holistic attention to human security, economic livelihood, social needs and good governance.
  • That assistance projects be longer term and be oriented towards accompaniment relationships, which remain during implementation phases.
  • That 3D assistance activity be fully oriented towards peace. Defence security activity may be better oriented towards constabulary training and assistance, or refugee camp protection, rather than offensive military force operations.
  • That priority be given to local “whole of community” approaches that connects and engages elders, women, youth, men and children in community development and the development of peace practitioner, reconciliation and trauma resiliency skills.
  • That the Canadian government create a ministry or institution of peace to augment all 3D peace requirements for peace building, peacemaking and peace keeping including mediation and reconciliation. This may include creating a civilian peace service to field such a capacity as part of development assistance projects.

All we need is to live our cherished values, a little courage and the political will.  Good luck to us all.   

In the cause of peace;

Paul Maillet

Colonel retired

Former DND Director of Defence Ethics

Accredited Peace Professional, Civilian Peace Services Canada (CPSC)