Democratic Republic of Congo

There has been a huge conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo for quite some time. In the 10 years following the outbreak in 1998, 5.4 million have died due to the war. Many people are still displaced within the country or are refugees. This has been the world’s deadliest conflict since WWII, and it continues.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/87/the-democratic-republic-of-congo

This conflict is due to many things; regional security, struggle for power and control, struggle for control of resources, and the humanitarian mess. The history of the DRC shows that there are many neighboring countries that have been involved, namely Rwanda and Uganda as well as others. These countries fight for the land, resources and people who can benefit them. Both the rebels and the Congolese military fight for power and get nowhere, they are both corrupt. The DRC is very rich in resources such as gold, diamonds and most importantly coltan; which other countries wish to exploit because of its value and importance for electronics.

http://www.jiia.or.jp/pdf/gambari.pdf

Although Canada has contributed 440 military personnel to the mission and is presently spending $33 million a year to support the peacekeeping force, it is hesitant to really commit itself to solving the conflict in the DRC. The UN has requested a Canadian commander to lead a peacekeeping mission, but because this may lead to the request for even more Canadian troops to be sent over, the decision to send Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie is being put off. Canada has not been very involved with DRC peacekeeping since the 1990’s, and isn’t quite ready yet to involve itself in “Africa’s War”.

Geoffry York, "The Bleak Calculus of Congo's War Without End," The Globe and Mail, (27 March, 2010).

As I have mentioned in my previous blog, following the human security agenda would require that Canada fully support missions to help keep peace and safety in the DRC. Canadian foreign policy does not operate on the human security agenda, proof of that being its lack of commitment in previous years, and its hesitation to send any troops out of fear that more may be requested. Canada is not looking for a leadership role to end this conflict because it does not have the interest or the capacity to do so.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/if-canadas-military-is-itching-for-a-fight-it-wont-be-in-the-congo/article1542689/

Human Security Agenda: East Timor

The “human security agenda” is a foreign policy which focuses on the safety of ordinary people whose security is threatened, rather than the security of the state, as policy was during the Cold War period. For 25 years East Timor had been under Indonesian rule until, in 1999, the referendum vote for political autonomy in East Timor (78.5% wished to separate) was followed by a violent outbreak by anti-independence militia groups. While countries such as Australia, Britain and New Zealand that embraced the human security agenda were quick to send troops, Canada hesitated. Their response was “slow cautious, and minimalist” despite Axworthy’s (Canadian foreign minister) enthusiasm towards the policy. Chretien however, did not share this enthusiasm. Sending troops to East Timor was not in the interest of Canada as anything more than a symbol, and limited its involvement to diplomacy. In contrast, Australia had mobilized troops in march 1999 for possible action, followed by Britain and New Zealand all committing 2000-4000 troops each. Canada waited to hear from the UN before making any move. On the same day that Habibie (held office in East Timor at the time) asked for UN peacekeeping to intervene, Chretien promised 200 troops, in total about 600Canadian Forces personnel to be assigned to the East Timor mission. Canadian troops only got to East Timor by the end of October that year, two months after others had been there. Canada’s Labour Force also refused to handle products from Indonesia, but Canada’s contribution was very small, and not willing to subject their own troops to hostile fire. The “human security agenda” does not provide a viable foundation for Canadian foreign policy because, although in theory protecting those who are threatened sounds great, in practice it involves risking the safety of a states own people, and if it is not in their interest to aid others, they would rather protect their own. As Roland Paris stated, the human security agenda is an “honorable” goal, but involves far too great a commitment and not very useful when making a foreign policy.

Sources:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~rgwhitma/classweb2/history%20and%20conflict.htm

T.S. Hataley and Kim Richard Nossal (Queen’s University), “The Limits of the Human Security Agenda: The Case of Canada’s Response to the Timor Crisis”