|
 |
|
CDFAI DISPATCH: FALL 2004 (VOLUME II, ISSUE III)
|
|
Promoting new understanding and improvement of Canadian foreign and
defence policy.
Canadian
Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute
Phone: (403) 231-7624
Fax: (403) 231-7647
E-mail: subscribe@cdfai.org
|
 |
|
|
|
Message from
the President – Robert S. Millar
|
|
Just before the festive season in 2004 CDFAI is issuing another
Dispatch newsletter. As 2004 draws to a close, the Institute can look
back on a year of progress in working toward our vision of a Canada
that has a respected, influential voice in the international arena,
one that is based on a comprehensive foreign policy, which expresses
our national interests, political and social values, military
capabilities, economic strength and willingness to be engaged with
action that is timely and credible. For the first time in decades, the
2004 Federal election had politicians discussing foreign affairs and
defence policy issues. Should those of us interested in this field be
satisfied? Of course not. At CDFAI’s Annual Conference in Ottawa in
November in association with Carleton, Laval, Queen’s, the Dominion
Institute and the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center of Scholars, there was lively discussion on Canadian interests
and values, something that has not been discussed in years.
In this issue of The Dispatch readers will find three interesting and
different perspectives on peacebuilding, modern terrorism and
asymmetrical warfare from three of CDFAI’s Fellows. I congratulate
each of the authors for their thoughts and commend the articles to
you. There is also an update on activities that CDFAI has been
involved in over the past few months and a brief look into the future.
If you have any comments on what CDFAI is doing, please contact us.
All of us at CDFAI wish each of you and your families a wonderful
holiday season and a successful new year.
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
CDFAI Fellows
|
|
Since this past July, 18 Fellows have become
involved with CDFAI. The two newest Fellows to join CDFAI are
Dr. Anne Irwin and Mr. George Haynal. Their bios are listed
below:
Anne Irwin
holds a PhD in social anthropology from the University of Manchester
and has taught courses in military anthropology both at the
University of Calgary and at the University of Victoria.
She served in the Canadian Forces Reserve from 1972 to 1987, retiring
as a Military Police Officer with the rank of Major.
She is a graduate of the Canadian Land Forces Command and Staff
College’s Militia Command and Staff Course.
George Haynal was Assistant Deputy
Minister for the Americas in the Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade prior to his retirement from the Canadian Foreign
Services. He is an Adjunct Professor at the
Norman Patterson School of International Affairs at Carleton, he is
Alumnus Fellow of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs,
Harvard University, as well as an Associate member and past President
of the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers.
Three short essays of about 1000 words are included in this
newsletter. Essays featured are:
-
Gordon Smith, “Peacebuilding: Do We Know How?”
-
Jean-Sebastien Rioux, “Canadian Contributions to Regime Change and
Peacebuilding in Afghanistan.”
-
Tami Amanda Jacoby, “Some Thoughts on the Nature of Modern Terrorism
and Asymmetrical Warfare.”
The following short research papers will be
published in 2005 on our website (and a limited number of hard copies
will also be distributed) on subjects of the Fellows’ choosing.
-
Jean-Sebastien Rioux, “French Canada and Canadian Foreign and
Defence Policy” to be published in March 2005.
-
David Carment, "Peace
Support Operations, Failed States & Canadian Defence Policy"
to be published in June 2005.
-
J.L. Granatstein and Charles Belzile. “:The Special Commission
on the Restructure of the Reserves after Ten Years”, to be published
in September 2005. Plans are underway for a conference to be
held in the Fall of 2005 in conjunction with the Centre for Military
and Strategic Studies of the University of Calgary upon publication
of this report.
-
Elinor Sloan, “The Origin and Evolution of the Canadian Forces’
Strategic Capability Investment Plan” to be published in December
2005.
The Fellows Program is intended to achieve two
primary goals: to give our Fellows a greater opportunity to
reach a wider public audience and to add the talent of our Fellows to
CDFAI’s other expert resources. Persons interested in being
considered for CDFAI Fellowship should contact Dr. David J. Bercuson
at
dbercuson@cdfai.org.
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
EDITORIAL BOARD
|
|
A CDFAI Editorial Board has also been established to review research
submissions. The Editorial Board Members include:
-
John
Ferris, University of Calgary
-
James
Fergusson, University of Manitoba
-
Jim
Keeley, University of Calgary
-
Elinor
Sloan, Carleton University
-
Frank
Harvey, Dalhousie University
-
David
Bercuson, University of Calgary
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
CONGRATULATIONS
|
|
Dr. David J. Bercuson - Officer of the Order of Canada
On December 10, 2004. David Bercuson was awarded the Officer of
the Order of Canada. Dr. Bercuson is one of Canada's most respected
historians. Professor of history and director of the Centre for
Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, he has
provided insightful commentary on many facets of contemporary Canadian
history. He has written numerous books and has been active within
several professional organizations, including the Canadian Historical
Association and the Organization for the Study of the National History
of Canada. He has also served as a consultant to the Minister of
National Defence and to filmmakers. In 2002, he was awarded the J.B.
Tyrrell Historical Medal from the Royal Society of Canada. Dr.
Bercuson was the recipient of the 2004 Vimy Award which was sponsored
by the Conference of Defence Association Institute (CDAI).
 Dr.
Jack Granatstein –10th Annual Pierre Berton Award
Dr. Jack Granatstein was named the winner of the 10th Annual Pierre
Berton Award for popularizing Canadian history. The gala award
ceremony took place on November 25 at Historic Fort York. The
Toronto-based historian said he was honoured to be the 2004 winner,
adding that “Canada has changed greatly as a nation in the last
half-century. Now more than ever it is vital for Canadians to know
their history and to recognize their role in shaping the future.” Dr.
Granatstein is a Distinguished Research Professor of History Emeritus
at York University, Toronto. He is also an Officer of the Order of
Canada.
Top
of page...
|
|
|
|
CHANGES AT CDFAI
|
|
Congratulations to Ms. Jo-Anne Ring, who joined the CDFAI staff
as Executive Assistant in November. Jo-Anne has a BA in
Communications and Management Studies from the University of Waterloo,
ON.
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
ANNUAL CONFERENCE
|
|
Defining
the National Interest
Thank you to the attendees who participated in the ”Defining the
National Interest” conference held on November 4-5, 2004 at the Lord
Elgin Hotel in Ottawa.
“Defining the National Interest” focused on Canada’s international
interests. The conference format included panel discussions on
Canada’s economic, security and political interests led by academics,
representatives from NGOs, policy makers and business elites as well
as working group sessions. The focus of the conference was the result
of the national public opinion poll “Visions of Canadian Foreign
Policy” conducted by Dominion Institute and CDFAI in conjunction with
the conference.
The Conference was sponsored by: The Centre for Security and Defence
Studies at Carleton University; the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs
Institute; the Department of Political Studies and the Centre for
International Relations at Queen’s University; and l’Institut
québécois des hautes études internationales at Université Laval;
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: Canada Institute;
and the Dominion Institute.
CDFAI gratefully acknowledges the contributions of everyone who helped
make the Defining the National Interest conference a success!
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
GRADUATE STUDENT SYMPOSIUM
|
|
CDAI-CDFAI Graduate Student Symposium, held in collaboration with the
Centre for International Relations and Defence Management Program at
Queen’s University, the Institute for Research and Public Policy
(IRPP), and the War Studies Programme at the Royal Military College
was the most successful symposium to date.
  The
two-day symposium held at the Royal Military College, October
29-30, 2004 featured two days of presentations on security and
defence issues. This year’s symposium featured 35 presenters (more
than 55 abstracts submitted) from nine Security and Defence Studies
Forum (SDF) centres represented: Dalhousie University, Université
Laval, Université de Montréal, McGill University, Université du Québec
à Montréal, Queen’s University, University of Manitoba, University of
Calgary (Centre for Military of Strategic Studies (CMSS)), and the
Royal Military College. There were more than 100 people in attendance.
 The
symposium also featured two keynote speakers: Major General Lewis
MacKenzie (Ret’d) and Dr. David Bercuson who spoke of the future
direction of Canadian defence policy.
CDFAI believes it provided a forum for PhD and MA students to share
their thoughts on broad security and defence issues with colleagues,
academia, and policy makers from government, while having the
opportunity to listen to experts in the field.
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
STUDENT RUN CONFERENCES
|
|
Congratulations to the recipients of
three (3) grants
each of $5,000 awarded to a student run
conference with a focus on Canada’s foreign and defence policy. CDFAI
seeks to encourage such conferences by offering
an annual grant to be used for the publication and dissemination of
the proceedings of the conference.
Proceedings will be posted when they become available
following the conferences.
Centre for Military and Strategic Studies
University of Calgary
SMSS 7th Annual Conference:
"War & Security"
February 4th-5th,
2005
Centre for International & Security Studies
York University
"The Ethics of Building Peace in International Relations"
February 3rd-4th,
2005
Laurier Centre for Military, Strategic & Disarmament Studies
Wilfrid Laurier University
"Guest Speakers on Darfur"
January 31, 2005
Top
of page...
|
|
|
|
SECURITY AND DEFENCE
FORUM CONFERENCE
|
|
 The
Security and Defence Forum (SDF) of the Department of National Defence
is mandated to develop a domestic competence and national interest in
defence issues of current and future relevance to Canadian security.
The Centre for Military and Strategic Studies (CMSS) at the University
of Calgary (U of C) is one of twelve university-based Centres of
Expertise supported by the Security and Defence Forum (SDF) program of
the Department of National Defence (DND).
To further the mandate of the SDF program, and building on the
strengths drawn from the annual SDF conferences of the past, the
Centre for Military and Strategic Studies hosted a conference on
November 25-27, 2004 to bring the 12 Centres together at the
University of Calgary for a two day intensive conference to share
relevant ideas and research, educating and strengthening our
understanding of Canadian security and defence issues.
Entitled “Defence and Security Studies In Canada” this conference
provided a forum for debate and discussion of Canadian security and
defence issues. CMSS believes that bringing together experts and
students from SDF Centres across Canada has significant impact upon
both the academic community and the nation in raising awareness on
Canadian defence and security issues.
The Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute (CDFAI) was pleased
to support the event. The institute believes it will significantly
increase communication among the SDF institutions, an aim they
strongly support.
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
MS.
SHARON HOBSON- 2004 ROSS MUNRO MEDIA AWARD WINNER
|
|
On November 19, 2004 the Conference of Defence Associations (CDA), in
concert with the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute awarded
Sharon Hobson the 2004 Ross Munro Media Award.
Ms Hobson has consistently demonstrated the finest qualities of a
journalist who specializes in defence issues. The quality of her
reporting, her knowledge of the subject matter and fairness of her
accounts set a standard by which her colleagues may be measured.
Sharon Hobson has been the Canadian correspondent for Jane’s Defence
Weekly for the past 18 years, and seven years ago became the Canadian
correspondent for Jane’s Navy International, and Jane’s Defence
Upgrades. In 1996, she began writing for Jane’s International Defence
Review. She has written a monthly column on the navy for Canadian
Sailings, and has written features for the Financial Post and Canadian
Defence Quarterly. Ms Hobson co-authored, with Rear-Admiral Dusty
Miller, The Persian Excursion, a book on the Canadian navy in the
Persian Gulf War.
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
ROSS LAIRD ELLIS MEMORIAL LECTURE IN MILITARY AND STRATEGIC STUDIES
|
|
 On
May 10, 2005 the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute
will co-sponsor the Ross Laird Ellis Lecture in conjunction with the
Centre for Military and Strategic Studies. The lecture series is named
after Ross Laird Ellis, a militiaman who rose through the ranks to
become the Commanding Officer of the Calgary Highlanders in the course
of the Battle of the Scheldt Estuary in World War II. Open to the
general public and University of Calgary faculty and students, the
purpose of the Ross Laird Ellis Lecture is to provide Canadians with
access to relevant and reliable information on Canadian defence and
foreign policy.
Steven Silver, Writer/Director of The Last Just Man will be this
year’s lecturer. This feature documentary tells the story of General
Romeo Dallaire, the UN Force Commander during the Rwandan genocide of
1994. The film has won three Geminis and over 12 international awards
including Audience Awards at The Double Take, Hot Docs and Hampton’s
film festivals and the Gold Plaque at the Chicago International
Television Competition.
The Ellis Lecture will be held in the Burlington Theatre at the
Glenbow Museum.
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
Article:
Peacebuilding: Do We Know How?
|
|
by Gordon Smith
Weak states, failing states, failed states, post-conflict
reconstruction of states – have you noticed how much more frequently
such fundamental problems of governance in other parts of the world
are cited? There has always been a problem with governments that were
unable to deal with humanitarian or environmental crises. Haiti is a
recurring example. There is nothing new about governments that cannot
protect their citizens’ human security. The breakdown in Somalia goes
on. It is not clear that we are having more of these cases, but there
is an increasing sense in public opinion that something has to be
done.
Then there are the crises that are actually caused by governments’
actions or deliberate inaction (e.g. Darfur). A distinguished
commission, with Canadian sponsorship, produced a report entitled The
Responsibility to Protect. Their argument rather neatly turned around
the question of the “right to intervene” into a responsibility of
governments to protect their citizens. The Secretary-General of the
United Nations has commended the report and urged that further work be
done on the outstanding questions the Commission was unable to resolve
– above all on the international authority required for intervention
when states are unwilling or unable to protect their citizens.
What has changed in the last few years are other reasons why those of
us living in comfort and security in countries such as Canada must
take an interest in these cases of impending or actual state
breakdown. In the past, many Canadians were moved by images and
stories of despair to argue we should do something to help. This has
commendably motivated a large number of NGOs to act and led to CIDA
providing substantial resources for relief. Now, however, these states
are seen as fertile ground for terrorists to train, recruit or just
hide. The prospect, indeed likelihood, that terrorists will lay their
hands on or fabricate nuclear, but also biological, weapons, and then
use them, makes these states a source of real threat.
While the threat is perceived as being primarily directed at the
United States, it is significantly broader. The threat is not only to
the developed West but also to developing countries (e.g. Indonesia).
Commentators on the US National Security Strategy President Bush
produced in 2002 focused on the case for pre-emptive and preventive
war, and the authority the US declared it had to launch either without
any form of international consent. Actually this doctrine is nothing
new, although it was stated in a particularly unequivocal manner. Much
more surprising was the statement that the biggest threat to our
southern neighbour came not from other states seeking to challenge the
US military, but from terrorists operating from failed states.
It makes sense that more should be done, including by Canada, to
improve governance including building democracy around the world. The
United Nations Development Program has been reoriented to give
governance a much higher priority. It is widely accepted that without
good governance, there will be no development. The Nobel prize winning
Amartya Sen makes a direct link between democracy and development.
Farid Zakaria argues that rules based liberal systems are essential
for democracy and development. It seems that Prime Minister Martin
would like to emphasize these themes with a transformation of Canadian
development assistance.
But what should actually be done? Is there one model or a number of
models? Or is every case different? What can we learn from experience?
What is most important in reversing the process of failure, and where
does one start after a state has already failed? Wanting to do good,
to make a difference, is laudable but will not assuredly lead to the
desired results. There is only just starting to be a literature of
research to build on. Frank Fukuyama has just published a very
sobering analysis of how difficult peacebuilding is; he emphasizes
institutions cannot be exported and that political culture is
critical. Jim Dobbins of RAND has edited an excellent book on the US
experience from Germany and Japan in the post WWII era to the current
day. More needs to be done. First, it would be constructive to pull
together the Canadian experience.
Second, we do know some things. Security is a sine qua non. Without
security there will not be democracy or development. There are a
number of dimensions to security, including military and police. The
demand for police training is huge; the numbers of policemen willing
to serve abroad is high. Yet most international missions have
difficulty achieving their numerical goals because of a lack of money.
A major part of the reason for the lack of money is that it is
difficult to count police training and assistance as development
assistance under OECD rules. This needs to be changed.
Third, police are only one part of the criminal justice system, the
effective functioning of which is of critical importance. This means
an early priority must go in to judicial training and corrections
training. Here too there are problems with the rules about what can be
counted as development. Everybody, of course, wants to be able to
maximize what they report they are doing for development.
Fourth, there are also important lessons to be learned as to when
elections should be called. It is clear elections can be too early,
and they can be too late. Criteria can be developed to guide this
decision. It seems clear that it is generally better to call local
elections – which can be fought on issues –before general elections –
which can underline splits on ethnic or other divisive grounds. The
point is, we need more research, more drawing on past experience.
Finally there is the issue of values. We are quick to condemn American
exceptionalism, with its belief that God has given the US a unique
role in the world to spread democracy, freedom and the benefits of the
market economy. But we sometimes fall into a similar trap by saying
the world needs more Canadas, that we should project our distinct
values abroad. There are, of course, universal rights (as agreed in
the UN context) and most would argue values which flow from them.
Ensuring these are upheld is one thing. Persuading others that we have
unique virtues they should adopt is quite another.
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
CANADIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO REGIME CHANGE AND PEACEBUILDING IN
AFGHANISTAN
|
|
by
Jean-Sebastien Rioux
Canada has been involved in military operations in Afghanistan and
the Arabian Sea since the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the United
States and the invocation of Article V collective defence stipulation
of the North Atlantic Charter (stating that an attack on one member is
an attack on all members), and the adoption of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1368 on 12 September 2001 condemning the attacks.
Moreover, the Chrétien government sent the greatest contingent of
troops and materiel overseas since the Korean War (1950-53) during a
one-year period when Canada commanded the Kabul-based International
Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) from July 2003 to July 2004.
Finally, Afghanistan was, until the Iraq war in 2003, Canada’s
greatest single-country foreign aid commitment in history – a
commitment of almost $400 million to date.
Canada’s commitment to regime change in Afghanistan began as a
contribution to the “War on Terror” that began after September 11th
2001. While the Chrétien government was often criticised for having
been slow to aid the United States, some elements of the Canadian
government did respond swiftly to the 9-11 attacks: for example, the
Commander of HMCS Iroquois immediately took his ship to a blocking
position off the coast of Halifax should other hostile aircraft
attempt to penetrate North American airspace, and Canadian commanders
at NORAD were the first to order fighter aircraft into positions over
US airspace. After President G.W. Bush launched Operation Enduring
Freedom on October 7th, 2001, Canada sent the HMCS Halifax to the
Arabian Sea; she was soon joined by the Iroquois, the Charlottetown
and its support ship and helicopters. While Canada did not officially
send any ground forces during combat operations inside Afghanistan,
that naval task force supported and protected American sea and
amphibious forces during the short war to overthrow the Taliban
regime, which fell in late November 2001.
In December 2001, Canada was one of 61 donor nations to participate in
the Bohn Conference for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. The
conference’s main goals were to decide on actions to be taken to
secure and rebuild Afghanistan. The participating nations agreed to
several important steps: first, to invite Hamid Karzai and others to
establish an interim administration for six months, until a Loya Girga
– or traditional gathering – could name a transitional administration.
Next, a timetable for the adoption of a Constitution was set – to be
written by a second Loya Girga gathering. Third, donor states were
encouraged to participate in the Afghan Reconstruction Fund – which
Canada did, pledging an astonishing amount of over $300 million
dollars, making Afghanistan our largest aid recipient by far at the
time. Finally, it was agreed that an International Security and
Assistance Force (ISAF), under British command, would impose a
security umbrella in and around Kabul so the Afghan interim
administration could begin functioning. It is important to note that
the United Nations Security Council adopted resolutions supporting all
these decisions and tasks.
The ground operations in Afghanistan, however, were not finished as
American troops, stationed mostly in the South and East, “hunted down”
remaining Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. The first Canadian ground
combat troops arrived in Afghanistan following the Bohn Conference,
not to participate in the multinational assistance force in Kabul, but
rather to take part in the US’ Enduring Freedom actions around
Kandahar and in the mountains near Tora Bora. The elite JTF2 commandos
reportedly joined the American forces in Kandahar by December 2001 ;
they were later pictured bringing back prisoners in January 2002. A
few months later, soldiers from the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light
Infantry (PPCLI) suffered four deaths resulting from a gross error by
an American pilot; Canadian snipers also helped Americans during the
vast Operation Anaconda in the spring of 2002. Canadians were not used
to seeing their troops in combat like this, and once the six month
deployment was up, the soldiers returned home and were not replaced.
After the return of the 3PPCLI in August 2002, Canada retained a
presence in Afghanistan via its foreign aid and the opening of its
first Embassy in Kabul. This interlude, as it happens, was just that,
because in early 2003 several events conspire to bring Canadian troops
back to Afghanistan. First, the United States was on the verge of
invading Iraq and Prime Minister Chrétien had resolved to stay out of
that conflict; moreover, as our European allies had always been in the
lead and in command of ISAF, Canada was asked to participate. The
Prime Minister decided – apparently against the advice of his military
staff – to commit over 4000 troops and a mission commander for a
twelve month period, provided that the responsibility for ISAF be
transferred from the current multinational structure to a full-fledged
NATO-led mission. This decision, however, did not come without some
political costs for the Chrétien government; for example,
Major-General Cameron Ross, who was the director of the International
Security Policy branch at National Defence Headquarters, resigned in
protest.
Nevertheless, the first Canadian contingent to return to Afghanistan
in the summer of 2003 consisted of 1,900 troops from the Royal
Canadian Regiment, making Canada the largest single contributor to
ISAF, with Canadian Major-General Andrew Leslie coming in as second in
command of the NATO force. After their six month tour, the soldiers
from the RCR were replaced, in late January 2004, by a battle group
from Valcartier, Québec, organized around the 3rd battalion of the
“Vandoos” (3R22R) and with Canadian Lieutenant-General Rick Hiller in
command of ISAF. Canada’s one-year tour as mission leader went very
well, as this author would note on a field visit during June 2004, as
the international community was busy securing and rebuilding
Afghanistan, but also concerned with running Afghanistan’s first
democratic elections.
What are the prospects for peace and security in Afghanistan? For the
first time, the Canadian government initiated a “3-D” policy for
Afghanistan, where “Defence” (Canadian soldiers); “Diplomacy” (Foreign
Affairs Canada) and “Development” (the Canadian International
Development Agency – CIDA) attempt an integrated approach on the
ground in Afghanistan – and now, elsewhere. This author has observed a
strong willingness for these actors to work together in Afghanistan,
but Canada had the upper-hand at that time as it commanded ISAF and
thus had the “muscle” to work with the other departments. As far as
the Afghan people are concerned, the overwhelming consensus of the
officers and soldiers I spoke with was that the feeling was very
positive compared to other places they had served. The fact that the
presidential elections were held last October without a single violent
incident may augur well for the future of this war-torn and war-weary
country.
Photo Caption: The
author, in green on the right, at a chance meeting with
Laval University student
Cpl. Jérémy Boivin
who is
serving in Afghanistan as a reservist.
Photo credit: Paul
Turcotte of CIDA.
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE NATURE OF MODERN TERRORISM AND ASYMMETRICAL
WARFARE
|
|
by
Tami Amanda Jacoby
In the latter half of the Twentieth Century, terrorism has
proliferated throughout the world in such diverse locations as
Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine, Argentina,
Colombia and Germany. Terrorists have increasingly adopted religious
and/or scriptural sources to legitimize suicide operations, the
ultimate sacrifice directed against infidels, which by their very
nature involves the death of the perpetrator-turned-martyr. Modern
terrorist networks such as Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda, the Tamil
Tigers, the Hizbollah (Party of God) and the Islamic Resistance
Movement (Hamas) in Palestine, have developed strategies that
penetrate social formations and prevent the target audience from
sheltering itself from their devastating embrace. What are the
implications of this type of terrorism for protection systems and
future fault lines for conflict in the contemporary era?
In an era of global telecommunications, mass movement of peoples,
religious revivalism, growth of non-state actors and a growing abyss
between the haves and have-nots, the Westphalian state system is in
crisis. This crisis is particularly acute in the area of national
security. “No longer are there definable battlefields or fronts.
Indeed, the distinction between civilian and military ceases to exist”
The deterioration and reorganization of traditional fault lines for
conflict breaks with centuries of European war fighting dominated by
the Napoleonic tradition, i.e., offensive combat and a decisive battle
against the enemy’s professional standing army (the blitzkrieg attack)
with weapons designed to project force from a distance.
By contrast, modern warfare no longer squares off conventional field
forces on the battlefield. Instead, states are pitted in opposition to
anonymous belligerents, out of uniform, who merge into urban masses
and use unconventional tactics and weapons to target innocent
civilians in homes, coffee shops, centers of religious worship, on
public transportation and on the street.
Not only are the parameters for conflict more ambiguous, the actors
waging war have changed. Guerilla movements, rival clans, oppressed
ethnic groups, traffickers, computer hackers, terrorists and other
extremist groups, some with rather nebulous goals, have exported their
conflicts to western regions while retaining ties with their home
country through networks and communications. In the shelter of
expatriate communities, belligerents are indiscernible as they conduct
their routine lives in the host country while using democratic rights
and freedoms as a cover for accommodation, planning, fundraising, and
recruitment for their activities. Western industrialized democracies
have neither the wherewithal nor the intelligence to defeat these
sophisticated networks permanently no matter how heavily stocked the
state’s military industrial complex may be. Air and naval power using
high precision munitions are useless in highly populated urban areas
where combatants and non-combatants occupy the same space.
In fact, asymmetrical warfare proves that power can serve as a
liability rather than an asset as it magnifies the glaring inequities
of the global system and illuminates sites for retribution. “If power
implies victory, then weak actors should almost never win against
stronger opponents, especially when the gap in relative power is very
large”. Yet asymmetrical warfare has demonstrated that the weak win
wars.
Vital interests such as weapons storage facilities, banks, stock
markets, information systems, computer hardware, transportation
systems, water and food supplies and so on, are sites of concentrated
power and serve as easily identifiable targets. The World Trade Center
represented the epitome of modern industrial society and the immense
riches of the western world. The psychological impact of the
vulnerability of such a commanding structure to attack has led to
major angst and trepidations in otherwise tranquil societies.
Counterterrorist campaigns have been instituted in the world’s leading
industrial democracies. Canada responded to 9/11 with military
measures (Operation Apollo) and a comprehensive antiterrorism plan,
the Anti-terrorism Act (Bill C-36) of October 15, 2001. The
Anti-terrorism Act broadened the definition of terrorist activity to
include subsidiary and supportive activities that have traditionally
occurred in Canada such as fundraising/money-laundering, providing
safe haven, procuring weapons, and educating for the purposes of
recruitment to carry out terrorist activity. Bill C-36 offered a
package of sweeping legislative measures, which “takes aim at
terrorist organizations and strengthens investigation, prosecution and
prevention of terrorist activities at home and abroad”. Special
measures have been given to the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police)
such as preventative arrest, which authorizes the apprehension of
suspects under the category of a “security certificate”.
The dilemma for counterterrorism in liberal democracies is the need to
simultaneously protect society from terrorism while guarding the
democratic process and rule of law. Terrorists seek to destabilize
their targets and provoke them to overreact. To combat terrorism,
liberal democracies have vacillated between hard-line approaches using
emergency powers and armed force, versus more moderate approaches
involving diplomacy, intelligence, and the legal system.
During counter-terrorism campaigns, states impinge more heavily on
citizens and require them to surrender a degree of their freedoms in
order to provide leverage in surveying and apprehending suspects using
a range of secretive methods. This involves a greater role for
punitive agencies outside the military-industrial complex such as law
enforcement, the criminal justice system, and intelligence services.
The deliberate suspension or limitation of civil liberty on the
grounds of expediency may result in the long-term erosion of civil
liberties. Critics have pointed out that the use of “security
certificates” has undermined access of suspected terrorists to a fair
hearing if they cannot challenge the evidence against them or face
their accusers. Ultimately, modern terrorism and asymmetrical warfare
necessitate fundamental rethinking of the constraints and
opportunities of global security. Perhaps more importantly, it
requires a new understanding of the relationship between terrorism and
democracy, as liberal democratic countries teeter on the precarious
path between the punitive and democratic elements of counterterrorist
policy.
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
FUNDING
|
|
CDFAI
participated in National Philanthropy Day on November 15.
CDFAI has been awarded up to a $20,000 grant from the John Holmes Fund
towards the Ejournal and research papers.
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
ABOUT OUR ORGANIZATION
|
|
CDFAI provides Canadians with factual and
comprehensive policy analysis to promote their understanding of
Canada’s foreign policy and the state of our military preparedness
and national security by developing and sponsoring authoritative
research and education programs.
Founded in 2001 and headquartered in Calgary, CDFAI is a non-profit,
charitable research and education institute.
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE
|
|
If you would like to be included on our regular mailing regarding
conferences, lectures, contests and newsletters, please send us your
particulars via e-mail by clicking here:
subscribe@cdfai.org. All
e-mail addresses gathered by CDFAI are kept confidential as we do not
release or sell any information collected from the public to any third
party without explicit permission to do so.
CDFAI also adheres to a strict no-SPAM policy and as such, does not
forward e-mails containing information provided by third parties/and
or organizations and businesses with whom it has no official interest,
relevancy and/or affiliation.
Top of page...
|
|
|
