Not allowed to recruit on campus ...
Andrew Smith
There has been controversy recently over whether or not the Canadian Forces should be permitted to recruit on university campuses. In September, student protestors at York University clashed with recruitment officers over a booth set up for a career fair. The York Federation of Students (YSF) and the Grassroots Anti-Imperialist Network (GRAIN) believe the Canadian Forces (CF) are in direct conflict with the standards of the university regarding human rights.
The vice-president of the YSF, Ahmed Habib, stated, “If they (CF) want to use that student space, they have to live up to particular standards of human rights and equity which we don’t think the Canadian Department of Defence upholds.” However, Habib’s argument is not necessarily representative of the entire student body, and it ignores the true nature of the Canadian Forces.
York estimates that the average tuition for most programs is $4,862, plus another $1,000 for books, $3,719 for residence and another $2,200 for personal expenses. This totals a staggering $11,781 per school year.
The CF will pay up to $8,000 per school year for four years and, if you choose the reserves, you are only required to work once a week (generally three hours) during the regular school year. This gives students both a part-time job and the time to focus on school. If someone is lucky enough to have a rich family, that’s great, but many students have trouble affording tuition and if the military is willing to pay, then why not?
If Mr. Habib wants to deny students an employment opportunity with the federal government, then how does that fall in line with the university’s principles? The military has every right to recruit university students since they are a government employer and are in need of qualified people. There are many trades that require university grads, ranging from doctors and engineers to less common careers such as intelligence officers and air force pilots.
With respect to the forces not living up to humanitarian standards, one should refer to the pillars of Canadian Defence as outlined in the 1994 Defence White Paper. They include protecting Canadians at home and abroad (including aid to the civil power — disaster relief, etc.), defending North America in cooperation with the U.S., and contributing to international peace and security.
Canada’s participation in the international community has been focused on attempting to restore good government and the rule of law in failed and failing states. If it is more humane to let the criminal element consume such states, then I guess Mr. Habib and other protestors are right. Given the nature of the world, however, force is often the only language that tyrants and other unsavoury people living in or controlling failed states understand.
Canada’s commitment to international law is evident with the government’s refusal to join the U.S.-led Coalition of the Willing in the invasion of Iraq. As for Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan, some may argue that the Security Council did not sanction the war and it is therefore illegal. They fail to realize, however, that China was the only permanent member of the Security Council that did not participate.
All states have an inherent right to defend sovereignty and therefore are entitled to self-defence. Article 51 of the UN charter states that “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.”
Although the Charter does not address non-state actors (terrorists), an armed attack in the form of a 747-jet airplane or a cruise missile can be equally devastating. The Canadian Forces had the right and responsibility to react to the attacks launched on U.S. soil. Some may argue that this was an American issue, and that the U.S. should then be left to defend themselves. But, if attacked, the U.S. would be more than willing to defend Canada.
Killing civilians is not the goal of the modern day armed forces. Precision bombing, Special Forces, etc. are used, and aimed at decisive, isolated and punitive strikes against military and government targets. True, there will be civilian casualties, but again we must choose the lesser of two evils. If we stand aside and allow for the horrors of ethnic cleansing and ruthless dictatorships to continue, then how would we be any more moral?
Since there is no legitimate authority overseeing the international community, countries (or religious/ethnic groups for that matter) need to rely on trusted peers to fend off aggression.
On the home front, with respect to “aid to the civil power,” Canada’s armed forces are called in to respond to natural disasters such as floods, ice storms and any other matter of national emergency. The military puts to shame any civilian relief organization since it is better equipped and has a defined chain of command with minimal, if any, dissention.
If we are truly a democratic society then every group in society should be allowed to have a presence on a university campus. It is ironic that the people who undermine the Canadian Forces are benefiting from the sacrifices made so that Canadians can sustain such a high quality of life.
University students are arguably the best candidates for military recruitment. Since students have a much better understanding of the world and are exposed to different cultures across various campuses, they are likely to make better decisions when deployed in foreign countries.
Since there is little or no chance that the human race will stop fighting and killing each other, the next logical step is to defend yourself and those who need it. It is a matter of noblesse oblige; having said that, it is important to make sure that we employ the country’s top people for such an undertaking.
Andrew Smith is a pre-masters political studies student.
