Canada is a historic peacekeeper in a world that struggles to keep peace.

Given the changing nature of conflict, the shortcomings and inconsistencies in Canadian peace and security policy, and the presence of new and emerging threats, what should Canada do? Deciding how best to proceed is not about finding the correct technical solution - your decisions will reflect your beliefs, values, and assumptions.

In the final section of this discussion guide, three broad approaches are presented as a starting point for your deliberations on what actions you think Canadians should consider in addressing the issue of international peace and security. In addition to a brief overview, we have provided two series of arguments -- in favour and against each approach -- to help you consider different perspectives.

These approaches are not comprehensive, definitive, or mutually exclusive. They are meant to stimulate your thinking about the most important steps to take, the choices you are prepared to commit to, and why. You are not being asked to pick one approach. Rather, we invite you to use these approaches as a starting point for considering other options or combinations of approaches.

Approach One

Emphasize strengthening traditional military alliances and work with key partners in adapting to changing conflict.

Canada's interests are best served through traditional security alliances - such as NATO and NORAD - and not through holistic commitments to multilateralism, human security, and universal peace initiatives. Canada's traditional partners share similar security situations, cultural and political norms, and foreign policies. By working with like-minded nations and avoiding reliance on decentralized, multilateral engagements that require significant international cooperation, Canada can better focus its conflict and security operations. Recognizing the increasing inability of existing multilateral institutions to respond to new threats at home and abroad, Canada would shift its defence and foreign policy away from broad multilateralism and toward alliance-based coalitions. Alliance-based security and operations are flexible and involve committed and trusted partners, with clear end goals.

Key actions would include strengthening Canada's security alliance with the US through NORAD; missile defence; port, maritime, and border security; counterterrorism initiatives; and maintaining a firm commitment to NATO. Canada would, however, avoid becoming entangled in UN operations that do not have a clear benefit to Canadian security, and pursue multilateral operations abroad only when the mandate is clear and they receive strong support from Canada's traditional allies. 

Arguments in favour

√  Today's security threats are fast-moving, international, and put Canada at risk. Multilateral institutional responses (e.g., the UN) are simply too slow and complex to deal with new challenges to security and the changing nature of conflict. Canada needs to concentrate on key trusted partners and allies who can move quickly to address the changing security environment.

√  The UN record on conflict and security initiatives abroad is mixed in part because of weak commitment from other nations. Working with traditional partners and allies reduces these commitment problems and minimizes ‘mixed motives.'

√  Canada's current abilities do not match its commitments. By narrowing our commitments to emphasize traditional security alliances, Canada would be better able to fulfill its current peacebuilding commitments and contribute to future ones.

√  Canada must be able to defend its fragile borders, especially the Arctic, from security threats. With this approach, Canada's military would be better able to protect its borders and sea passages because of its strong alliance with the US and defence cooperation with its allies.

Arguments against

× Canada is weak, militarily, in comparison to many of its traditional allies, particularly the US. Canada may be too small to fund a significant military force that can engage in substantial operations at home or abroad.

× Canadians may be opposed to an approach so focused on traditional alliances, particularly given other commitments to multilateralism, international institutions, and peacekeeping.

× Canada's traditional alliances necessarily include the US. Canada could risk its reputation internationally by tying its actions too closely to the US, which has of late pursued many unilateral security goals. If Canada had followed the US into Iraq, for example, we would likely now face high military costs and reduced international respect.

× Commitment to our allies might mean we become further involved in traditional conflicts and lack the resources to adapt to new threats, particularly those coming from non-state actors. Canada would be better to focus its efforts on re-training its military so that it can address the changing security environment.

Questions

1.    As global power shifts and becomes less certain, is it in Canada's interest to focus on traditional military alliances rooted in old realities? Are organizations like NATO and NORAD still relevant?

2.    Does this traditional approach address the real sources of conflict? Are there other non-military methods of addressing some root causes of conflict, such as poverty and inequality?

3.    Does this approach take us too far away from what Canadians see as their position in the world?

4.    Does peacekeeping fit within this approach, and if so, how?

Approach Two

Emphasize our commitment to multilateralism, international cooperation and the rule of international law.

Canada would emphasize its moral authority, playing a lead role in establishing new international treaties and initiatives (such as R2P, the International Criminal Court, and the Human Security Agenda), and focus on peacekeeping and peacebuilding operations abroad. Under this approach, the establishment of universal international norms through the UN and elsewhere is vital to international security - and a key element of Canada's philosophy on creating a more secure global environment. This approach builds on Canada's international stance as a Middle Power: unable to commit the personnel or hardware of a larger nation, but capable of playing a lead role in more focussed, or ‘niche,' settings, Canada would concentrate "resources in specific areas best able to generate returns worth having, rather than trying to cover the field" .

Key actions would include a continued focus on establishing universal international peace and security; promoting international cooperation, contributing to international development, and making a robust commitment to multilateral peacekeeping. Canada would restructure its military so that it is better suited for peacekeeping and peacebuilding operations, not continental defence or ‘major power' conventional engagements. This would mean that Canada would develop and train its forces to uphold the R2P doctrine, among others. Canada would also increase its presence in the UN and push its allies to adopt R2P, the ICC, and other international multilateral initiatives.

Arguments in favour

√ This type of approach is generally more consistent with what survey data show to be the preferences of most (but not all) Canadians, as opposed to approaches that favour combat missions or other interventions that are not approved by the United Nations. Canadians by-and-large were happy with Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's decision to stay out of Iraq, and have mixed feelings about Afghanistan.

√ Country-specific occupations and agendas such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq do not sufficiently address the new security environment. We need to get beyond a single-minded focus on terrorism, work away from state-state conflicts, and take a more universal, holistic approach to international peace and security.

√ Canada has a good track record of leadership in multilateral initiatives such as the Ottawa Treaty, ICC, and R2P. We have credibility and could lever this to strengthen international norms.

√ By specializing in particular roles, such as peacekeeping, and by creating clear boundaries within those roles, Canada would be able to punch above its weight, focus military spending, and be more effective in implementing specific foreign policy initiatives.

Arguments against

× Interventionism sometimes does more harm than good. The UN and the Human Security Agenda have a mixed record on multilateral initiatives, which are often expensive and make little progress toward nation-building or lasting peace and security. By taking part in such initiatives, Canada would foot the bill on potential failures.

× Multilateral security is slow. Peacekeeping, as we have traditionally known it, is becoming an outdated concept, and in many cases there is no peace to keep. Canada faces real security threats and would be better to focus on key issues, not holistic missions abroad, in taking on those threats.

× Choices made by multilateral institutions may not reflect Canadian interests or values. For instance, decisions taken by the United Nations Security Council members (who have different interests, values, and security concerns than ours) might differ from those we would take. And we do not want to become involved in major operations in countries that pose little threat to or relevance for Canada.

× Growing expectations in the international community for successful peacebuilding and peacemaking operations have exposed Canada's weaknesses and limited resources. We simply do not have the capacity to contribute meaningfully to the demands of the new security environment, or even to meet our current commitments.

Questions

1.    Can Canada's security be strengthened through greater multilateralism?

2.    What level of public funding will be required to provide the military capability and hardware Canada would need to uphold commitments made through R2P?

3.    Will Canadians always agree with sending forces to intervene in cases of genocide?

4.    Where should Canada focus its efforts in building international norms?

Approach Three

Emphasize continental security at home and non-interventionism abroad.

Taking a non-interventionist approach, Canada would focus on continental/homeland security, avoid becoming entangled in alliances with other nations outside of its continental partnership with the US, and stay out of risky wars and foreign interventions not related to direct territorial self-defence . As described by Eric L. Nordlinger of Brown University, non-interventionism is a three-tiered ‘isolationist' policy, featuring "a minimally effortful national strategy in the security realm; moderately activist strategies to advance liberal ideals among and within states; and fully active economic diplomacy on behalf of free trade" . This approach would avoid foreign policy that may produce ‘blowback' or lead to expensive, drawn-out situations abroad such as the one Canadian troops face in southern Afghanistan. A non-interventionist approach, while accepting that Canada is a Middle Power without the hard-power capability of bigger nations, would leverage Canada's assets (e.g., diplomatic experience and expertise, powerful trading partners, and valuable natural resources) to strengthen its security.

Key actions would include retooling the Canadian military for continental defence and realigning our strategic military partnership with the US to best support that defence; revisiting NAFTA so that it improves cross-border trade; reducing barriers to international trade; enforcing stricter immigration security; shifting funding away from international commitments toward port, border, and coastal security and defence; and reinvesting in our foreign service so that we can better build international norms that reflect our values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

Arguments in favour

√  The new, changing security environment is too complex for slow multilateral institutions like the UN to deal with. Alliance-based coalitions that favour hard-power approaches also have their problems, as the sticky situations in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate. Canada faces real security threats at home and should focus on defending itself against those threats. We should avoid involvement in expensive foreign missions abroad under the auspices of ‘national security.' We should focus on protecting our Arctic sovereignty, our borders, and the safety of our citizens.

√  Overseas operations are expensive. Under this approach, Canada will have the means to emphasize diplomacy and call for disarmament, demobilization, and the renunciation of violence, and focus its foreign policy resources on diplomacy, homeland security, new trade relationships, and the like.

√  Canada would be able to avoid 'outsourcing' its sovereignty to any multilateral institutions or alliances that do not always act in Canada's best interests, such as the United Nations Security Council.

Arguments against

×  Some Canadian political experts argue that internationalism has become a national trait of Canadians, one that would be very difficult to uproot without undermining the national identity of the country - in other words, non-interventionism is not likely to be popular with enough Canadians to make it a mainstream approach.

×  After so strongly advocating for intervention in the face of gross violations of human rights, it would be difficult to maintain international legitimacy in favor of retrenchment. A non-interventionist foreign policy means Canada-led initiatives such as R2P would be up to other countries to enforce.

×  Canada would have to renege on its current commitments to NATO - and this would cause serious harm to our reputation and credibility among our trusted allies. Failures in NATO and elsewhere could detract from, rather than enhance, our security.

Questions

1.    Can Canada have influence internationally if it does not contribute, financially or otherwise, to addressing global problems - like poverty? Is it enough to just focus on trade?

2.    Will greater continentalism secure Canada's interests and security over the longer-term?

3.    Is this strategy too interest-focused? Will Canadians want to abandon their international humanitarian role in favour of security in our own backyard?

Conclusion

Canadians - that's you. What do you think? The approaches provided above should give you some ideas, but are by no means exhaustive. They're a starting point - a point from which you can ask questions, consider options, and develop your own views. How can Canada position itself in a world where conflict is changing?

This issue, like any foreign policy issue, is complex. The world often doesn't wait for policymakers to draft statements or for leaders to sign agreements. Navigating the best course for Canada, even with the tools we have, is difficult.

Canadians also face many questions on key, Canada-specific issues: should we continue our commitment in Afghanistan past 2009? How should Canada balance its commitment to multilateral peacekeeping with its security relationship with the US? Can current approaches to conflict really make the world safer, or are interventions doing more harm than good? And under what circumstances should a state have the right to intervene in another's affairs?

As a thought experiment, imagine that you are the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs. You have to report in on Monday - to a committee, to the House of Commons, to your spouse. What ideas, insights, questions, and options would help guide your decision making? How would you address the issue of changing conflict, and what do you think Canada and Canadians should do?