Whenever Canadian troops deployed abroad must operate under an authority other than Canadian, which do you consider to be acceptable authorities to fall under?
Canada troops abroad should be under whose authority?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
I'd voted UN and other, the other being any international or supranational organization that may replace the UN in future.
I totally oppose Canadian troops abroad being under the authority of another country or small group of countries though.
I totally oppose Canadian troops abroad being under the authority of another country or small group of countries though.
I would prefer our Forces be under Canadian command at all times, if not, NATO & the US would acceptable. I chose not to select the UN as I don't believe the organization represents our interests necessarily.
It's pretty difficult for each country to keep its troops under its authority when you have a multi-national force present. Certainly a central authority is needed to coordinate efforts, though I get the impression from your post that you do understand that and that Canadian authority was mentioned just as your ideal scenario when no allies are present.
However, do you honestly believe that another country in which we have no vote is more likely to represent our interests than a multi-national organization to which we belong?
However, do you honestly believe that another country in which we have no vote is more likely to represent our interests than a multi-national organization to which we belong?
You do have a point there, and I certainly agree that the UN needs reform. However, we at least have a vote in the general assembly. Do we even have one member in the US House of Representatives?
As for NATO, yes we have a more equal say there, but to be fair, the county we're invading has no say in whether the war is just or not. At the UN, at least even that country has a vote, and if the majority of the General Assembly vote in favour of war, then chances are that country really, really deserves it.
No, but to get to the point of having out troops serve under foreign command, wouldn't our country generally have to declare war in the first place?
Canada has led and been led by various NATO countries in the past without problem, there is a degree of trust there above politics I believe.
Certainly.
I don't knowhow trustworthy that is. Had it not been for Chretien expecting UN approval, we would have gone to Iraq, not only Afghanistan, all on false pretense. So on that front, the UN does provide more restraint so as to ensure that when we do go to war, the reason is more likely to e more legitimate.
OK I'm failing to see the relevance of a regime that is being acted against "having a vote" about what happens. Even in the most extreme circumstances an antagonist has some recourse/choice of action before armed intervention.
For the record I don't have issues with any of the above choices once the gov't of Canada has made the decision to deploy troops be it for peacekeeping or peace making. The United States is a close ally and friend to our nation, and the same canbe said of most of NATO and of other nations where Canadian troops could be assisting, especially on humanitarian deployments like the field hospital sent to Indonesia in the wake of the tsunami a few years back. I am honestly most hesitant to trust in the UN because of the agenda some of its membership pushes.
I would very much prefer that the Canadian Forces always be under the sole and exclusive command of The Crown of Canada as advised by Her Majesty’s Government for Canada. Even during multi-national operations, we participate in those operations in the furtherence of Canadian interests and, therefore, the final say on our soldiers’ operations should be a Canadian one. The Canadian Crown is not subserviant to any other entity or organisation, and neither are the Canadian Forces as an instrument thereof.
I agree in principle. However, who decides where we draw the border lines between our armies to say which part of the country Canada is responsible for. Or when a major multinational operation is needed, sure there could be consultation, but in the end some kind of common agreement would need to be established, and in the event of something going wrong and a decision having to be made quickly, some kind of central authority may be needed. Sure we can decentralize authority so as to limit power at the top echelons, but we could never eliminate that power altogether, and on occasion, a cenrtal authority would be needed to co-ordinate our actions to avoid friendly fire, etc.
On those rare occasions when a central authority is indispensable, then what is an acceptable one?