Statues Depict UN in Control of Canadian Army’s Past, Present and Future
On Sunday Aug 8th 2004, the Canadian Association of Veterans obtained funding to put up and display three statues in Memorial Park in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The statues are located near the corner of Osborne St. N and Memorial Blvd, north of Memorial Park. It is located north of the Masonic Legislative building as well.
It is dedicated to Peacekeepers who have lost their lives in the service of the country of Canada since the signing of the United Nations Charter on Oct 24th 1945.
The statue is called Peacekeepers Cairn. Cairn is defined as a heap of stones set up as a landmark, monument, tombstone, etc.
The three pillars are said to represent the Army, Navy, Air Force (and supposedly also the RCMP).
The pillar on the left is 10 feet tall, has a 45 degree beveled top to show a symbol from the front of a Peacekeeping medal depicting three soldiers. One soldier is an unarmed United Nations Military Observer, holding a pair of binoculars. A second soldier, a woman, shoulders a radio, while the third stands guard with a rifle. Above them flies a dove, the international symbol of peace. This side of the medal also bears the inscriptions PEACEKEEPING and SERVICE DE LA PAIX (translated to service out of peace), together with two maple leafs. The word“PAST” is engraved vertically into the front.
The center pillar is 12 feet tall with a 45 degree beveled top to show the United Nations symbol engraved into the stone. The symbol of the words UN on the top of a map of the world with what I construe as, it consits of longitude and latitude lines. The logo has a border of leaves, 7 on the left and 6 on the right. The word “PRESENT” is engraved into the pillar vertically.
The pillar to the right of center statue is 8 feet tall with the same bevel as the others and showing the Peacekeeping medal, reversed side. The medal’s reverse shows the cipher of Her Majesty the Queen on a maple leaf surrounded by two sprigs of laurel and the word CANADA. The word “FUTURE” engraved vertically into the front of the pillar.
Click HERE for the source (description of symbolism of peace medal).
So in essence the cairn depicts the Canadian Army’s past, present and future is aligned with UN peacekeeping missions and that the Canadian Armed Forces is essentially an army for the British Monarchy. After all that should come as no surprise to civilians who know section 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada which defines the “Canadian Forces” as the armed forces of Her Majesty
Are UN peacekeeping missions really about peacekeeping?
Canada has been in over 30 major peacekeeping missions since 1956 but are the peacekeeping missions all about perpetuating peace? It’s hard to tell unless one gets information first hand from a Canadian soldier or a veteran that’s been on a UN peacekeeping mission. The Canadian Awareness Network had a private interview with a veteran who was deployed to Cyprus and Bosnia under a UN peacekeeping mission. Here’s a quote of what he has to say about UN peacekeeping missions,he would like to remain anonymous:
“I have done a couple peacekeeping missions,I did Cyprus in the middle east. That was more of a peacekeeping mission there for sure. But then we go to Bosnia thinking it’s the same type of deal like Cyprus but it wasn’t.” He was there to give food to civilians.
He then told me in Cyprus there was very little combat saying, “in the middle east… it was one killing in the whole 7 or 8 months that you were there where in Bosnia there were peacekeepers getting shot at everyday… United Nations said it was peacekeeping but you know in the eyes of the soldiers it was definitely far from that. From what they’re trying tell the media and what it actually was to me were two different things.” He describes it to be missions that involve combat of defense He said many soldiers killed their selves from the trauma’s they endure.
An article from OpenCanada.org goes into detail how UN peacekeeping mission can be full out war below:
Steve Saideman | June 13, 2012 OpenCanada.org
“…Peacekeeping missions have always risked violence, and we will continue to see violence in the future, even if less than before. The key factor that needs to be considered, which is frequently ignored, is this: When it comes to peacekeeping efforts, the enemy forces have a say in how things play out – and theirs is the deciding vote.
What does this mean? In any conflict that peacekeepers might enter, there are multiple sides and usually more than one set of actors hostile to the accord. (After all, if an agreement produced consensus, there would be little need for outsiders to intervene.) These “spoilers,” as they are known, may or may not resort to violence, but the threat that they may do so means that the outside interveners must be prepared to be violent themselves. This is basic deterrence logic: You need to be able to threaten to impose costs to deter a potential aggressor, AND you need to use force if deterrence breaks down.
The dramatic failure of the UN mission in Rwanda as the genocide started was partly due to the weakness of the UN peacekeeping effort. The genocidaires chose to be violent, voting for war against the rest of Rwanda. They started it off by killing a number of peacekeepers. As the UN mission was poorly equipped, it did not defend itself, nor did it protect anyone else. Indeed, the lesson drawn by potential spoilers from Mogadishu and Rwanda is this: Start by killing the peacekeepers, who may then flee.
Those nostalgic of past peacekeeping forget the violence the Canadians not only faced in such circumstances, but also deployed. In Croatia, the Canadians battled with the Croatian army, which was engaged in war crimes against the Serb populace. This was the biggest battle Canada fought between the wars in Korea and Afghanistan. History suggests, then, that peacekeeping has always been a violent enterprise, and it is probably more so these days, as spoilers learn from Somalia and Rwanda. “
Do Canadian soldiers like being involved in UN peacekeeping missions?
An article from the Globe and Mail answers the question below:
Globe & Mail
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Despite high-minded policy statements and public perception, Canada’s global role, Michael Valpy reports
It’s so hard to square mythology with reality. While 70 per cent of Canadians consider military peacekeeping a defining characteristic of their country, Canada has turned down so many United Nations’ requests to join peacekeeping missions during the past decade that the UN has stopped asking.
In 1991, Canada contributed more than 10 per cent of all peacekeeping troops to the UN. Sixteen years later, its contribution is less than 0.1 per cent.
On this month’s fifth anniversary of Canadian troops being sent to Afghanistan and one year after assuming responsibility for the counterinsurgency campaign — a war by any other name — in Kandahar province, one of the country’s biggest unanswered questions is: What is Canadian military policy? It’s certainly not to be the global leader in peacekeeping the country once was.
Little more than a year ago, Colonel Michael Hanrahan, the Canadian Armed Forces’ top expert on peacekeeping, was offered the job as chief of staff of the UN’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations. His Ottawa superiors nixed the idea. There is, in fact, not a single Canadian officer in the UN’s peacekeeping headquarters.
“In view of the multiple security challenges we now confront, we should be extremely skeptical about arguments that the days of peacekeeping are over and our armed forces are now only in the business of fighting insurgents and targeting terrorists.”[quote from Fen Hampson, director of the Norman Paterson School]
Yet several academics who study Canadian military and foreign policy see patterns of anti-UN bias among senior army officers and a preference for operating beside the United States. The anti-UN bias comes from their experience in UN peacekeeping missions of the past, and their U.S. preference is based on top-grade logistics and tactical support that the U.S. military can offer their own troops.
One Canadian academic, who asked to speak anonymously because he works for the military, said he had been told confidently by a senior army officer that Canadian troops would never take part in another UN-led operation. But Prof. Roland Paris, a specialist in international security at the University of Ottawa, is less convinced that Canada is deliberately turning away from the UN. He cites previous cycles of troughs in Canada’s peacekeeping involvement.
In any event, the patterns seen by Mr. Heinbecker, now director of the Centre for Global Relations, Governance and Policy at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont., suggest traditional UN peacekeeping operations are a thing of the past, that they have become more akin to the mission in Afghanistan.
“They are almost all complex missions now. They involve combat. Very often the UN is expected to get involved before the fighting is over….”
As the above article mentioned, Canadian armed forces have slowly declined in participating in UN peacekeeping missions. But does that mean they are not under UN control? The article above also made mention that Canadian army prefers to work along side of the US army. Ultimately the US army is under full control of the UN. U.S Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified and stated that the UN and NATO have supreme authority over the actions of the U.S military, reported by Infowars in 2012.
So does the UN peacekeeping cairn in Winnipeg hold a little bit of truth of Canada still participating with the UN?
In one way or another, yes.
Is the UN all about peacekeeping? No!
Islam Karimov, the Uzbek dictator who likes to boil people alive was given a “Cultural Diversity” awarded by the UN. The UN has declared Fidel Castro, the longtime Communist dictator of Cuba, the “World Hero of Solidarity”. Castro killed thousands and thousands of people during his rule, torturing some to death . Even way earlier in history 26.3 million Chinese died between 1949-1965 under the regime of Moa Zedong’s red China. In 1971 the United Nations General Assembly voted to allow Mao Zedong’s red China into the UN.
The UN was established in 1942 after the second world war by international bankers and political world leaders. The UN is the forefront to establish a “new world order” one world government under UN control, under the guise of protecting human rights and doing peacekeeping. The term “new world order” was first politically used and publicly introduced by former U.S President George H. W. Bush at the United Nations General Assembly in 1991.