Unarmed Civilian Peacekeeping: What Do Canadians Think?
Randy Janzen, PhD
Mir Centre for Peace at Selkirk College
Castlegar, BC, Canada V1N 4L3
rjanzen@selkirk.ca

Abstract
Recent surveys have demonstrated that Canadians value Canada’s role as a peacekeeper and
peacemaker in an international context. Additionally, research has demonstrated decreasing public
support for Canada’s involvement in military combat interventions in other parts of the world.
However, awareness and understanding of nonviolent alternatives appear to be lacking. This survey
examines Canadian public’s awareness and understanding of unarmed civilian peacekeeping as an
alternative to sending armed troops, and whether the public would support Canada in utilizing unarmed
civilian peacekeepers (focusing on mediation, negotiation, relationship and peacebuilding activities) as
part of its response to violent global conflicts. The results reveal that Canadians believe unarmed
civilian peacekeeping would be more effective in tasks such as reducing human rights abuses,
preventing further armed conflict and promoting lasting peace. Respondents also believe the practice
would benefit Canada’s reputation as a peacemaker and leader. This paper concludes with
recommendations for proponents and advocates of the incorporation of unarmed civilian peacekeeping
into the official policy of the Canadian government.

1

Introduction
Unarmed Civilian Peacekeeping is a term used to describe a growing trend of utilizing nonmilitary personnel to perform various roles to reduce violence between warring factions. The goal of
unarmed civilian peacekeeping is similar to that of traditional peacekeeping: to prevent direct violence
through influence or control of the behavior of potential perpetrators, through the use of military or
civilian forces (Schweitzer 2009, Koko and Essis 2012). Whereas traditional peacekeeping operations,
best known by United Nations Blue Helmets, seek to reduce violence through the implicit or explicit
threat of using violence or military force against those who do not comply, unarmed civilian
peacekeepers utilize nonviolent strategies to influence parties to refrain from violence. Nonviolent
forms of influence include the power of moral authority, economic and political leverage, media
attention, specialized training in nonviolent strategies (such as mediation and relationship building), and
the power of numbers (Schirch 2006).
In the past twenty years, there have been a number of non-governmental organizations that
have implemented unarmed civilian peacekeeping missions throughout the world, including countries
such as the former Yugoslavia, Guatemala, Israel/Palestine, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, South Sudan,
among other locations. The largest of these organizations include Nonviolent Peaceforce and Peace
Brigades international. Although several European nations such as Germany and the Netherlands are
developing units of specially trained civilians to conduct civilian peacekeeping (Schirch 2006), no such
capacity currently exists within the Canadian government or military. Additionally, the United Nations
has recognized the efficacy of unarmed civilian peacekeeping and in recent years has participated in the
research and support of unarmed civilian peacekeeping practices (United Nations 2012a, United Nations
2012b).

2

Why Unarmed Civilian Peacekeeping: Recent Historical Trends and Preliminary Research
Since the end of the cold war, national and international responses to war and large scale
violence have transformed considerably (Evans 2004, Paris, 2004). The centuries-old notion of “victor’s
justice” has morphed into innovative strategies of peacebuilding and reconciliation, which not only seek
to deter the direct violence of warfare, but also to understand and remediate the underlying social and
economic determinants of the violent conflicts. This trend has been accompanied by new research that
has demonstrated that nonviolent campaigns are more likely to achieve their goals than violent ones
(Chenoweth and Stephan 2011), that acts of reconciliation are more successful than conventional
counter insurgency strategies in reducing terrorism (Chenoweth and Dugan, 2010), and that third party
military assistance (such as Canada’s role in Libya) generally leads to an increase in violence against
civilians (Wood et al 2013).
Paralleling the new emphasis on peacebuilding and the recent research supporting nonviolence
is the evidence that utilization of and support for violent strategies is on a consistent and globally
pervasive downward trajectory (Pinker 2011, Human Security Report 2010), as measured by a variety of
indicators, including the reduction in the number of wars and war related deaths and public support for
the military. Additionally, research has provided convincing evidence that humanity in general is
developing a growing intolerance to all forms of violence, including war (Pinker, 2011). This trend is
exemplified in Canada by a recent poll showing that Canadians generally do not support their military to
be used for active combat in places such as Afghanistan and Mali (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
2013).
Najjab (cited in Armstrong 2011) demonstrated that the reverberations of strategic nonviolent
practices can be manifest throughout a society. During the nonviolent movement of the second
intifada, research indicated domestic violence decreased; as men and women worked collaboratively in

3

strategic nonviolent campaigns; men learned the benefits of nonviolence and women became
connected and empowered - essentially breaking the cycle of domestic violence. When the nonviolent
campaigns ended, the rates of domestic violence increased again. Howes (2013) summarizes these
trends by positing that military practices that rely on the use or threat of violent methodologies have
remained largely unchallenged for centuries. These practices, however, have faced considerable
scrutiny in the past 20 years due to peace research – convincing many that practices such as torture, the
death penalty, the war against terrorism and even conventional warfare in general, are ineffective.
Unarmed civilian peacekeeping strategies include a variety of nonviolent techniques that are
implemented in order to reduce the violence perpetrated by warring parties. Unarmed civilian
peacekeeping strategies include: strengthening ceasefires by providing a deterrent presence
(interposition), monitoring and reporting human rights abuses, protective accompaniment of human
rights and civil society leaders, building relationships with and between disputants, providing “safe
zones” for civilians, rumor management, and partnering with local civil society groups to build strategies
for long term violence reduction (Muller and Buttner 1996, Schirch 2006).
Although unarmed civilian peacekeeping is a relatively new phenomenon, burgeoning research
has demonstrated its efficacy on a number of different levels. Unarmed civilian peacekeeping has been
shown to be less expensive than traditional peacekeeping and more effective at breaking the cycle of
violence and in achieving lasting peace (Schirch 2006). For example, Nonviolent Peaceforce played a
crucial role in the brokering and monitoring of the October 2012 Peace Accords between the Philippine
government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front – accomplishing this without weapons (Nonviolent
Peaceforce 2012). A recent study on their mission in Philippines demonstrated that communities with
an unarmed civilian peacekeeping presence received measurable benefits. Community members
reported a greater sense of security and safety, improved ability to manage conflict during and after the

4

peacekeeping presence, and increased capacity to build community relationships (Nonviolent
Peaceforce 2011). Philippine undersecretary Rafael Seguis adds that civilian communities caught in war
zones were particularly welcoming of peacekeepers who came without weapons, as many of the citizens
had been traumatized by recurring confrontations between armed groups (citied in United Nations
2012a). Evaluation of the Nonviolent Peaceforce operations in South Sudan indicates that the civilian
population benefited from the presence of unarmed civilian peacekeeping by learning ways to deal with
cattle conflicts without violence, and by mitigating the effects of rumors which in the past had lead to
violent confrontations (Nonviolent Peaceforce 2013).
Unarmed peacekeepers gain the acceptance and engagement of local civil society members in
the process of achieving lasting peace in a way that traditional peacekeeping operations cannot (United
Nations 2012b). The importance of peacekeepers creating space for civil society to contribute to the
overall peace effort is captured by Guehenno, who states: “The journey from war to sustainable peace
is not possible in the absence of stronger civilian capacity. Without this capacity, there may be breaks in
the fighting, but resilient institutions will not take root and the risk of renewed violence will remain”
(cited in United Nations, 2012b).
Testimonies from Sri Lankan peace activists attest that their unarmed civilian peacekeeping
mission there saved the lives of many local leaders (Schirch 2006). Before the peacekeepers established
their presence, many local leaders were killed or disappeared. However, international accompanier
presence deterred violent attacks from militants; even though the foreigners did not carry weapons.
Wallace (2006) goes further by suggesting that, based on her interviews in Sri Lanka, local militia
members were not only deterred from committing killings and kidnappings but actually “transformed”
by the commitment to nonviolence that was displayed by the unarmed peacekeepers. Wallace (2006)

5

suggests that the effectiveness of unarmed civilian peacekeeping would be significantly improved if
missions received funding comparable to current United Nations peacekeeping operations.

Purpose of study
There is currently an active movement within Canada to have unarmed civilian peacekeeping
incorporated into the Canadian government’s foreign policy and practices, through such organizations
as the Canadian Department of Peace Initiative and The Civilian Peace Service Canada. While growing
empirical evidence supports the effectiveness of unarmed civilian peacekeeping, some lobbyists suggest
that such evidence is not sufficient to mobilize politicians and policy makers to change long-held
practices; strong public support is a necessary antecedent (Barry et al 2013, Rock et al 2012). With this
in mind, it is important to note that there is no literature to demonstrate whether unarmed civilian
peacekeeping has any support, let alone recognition, from the public in Canada or any other jurisdiction.
Therefore, determining whether the Canadian general public understands and supports the concept of
unarmed civilian peacekeeping may provide valuable information to those who hope to see this practice
utilized more formally by our government.
The purpose of this study is to explore and describe Canadian public opinions on unarmed
civilian peacekeeping. Included in this investigation is an analysis of demographic relationships to
opinions expressed; however, no a priori hypotheses have been stated. Therefore, instead of drawing
conclusions from the statistical analyses, analyses will be discussed in terms of possible further
hypothesis testing research.

Methodology

6

Ethical approval for this study was granted by Selkirk College Research Ethics Committee. The
telephone survey was conducted in May 2013. 400 Canadians were randomly selected based on land
line telephone numbers, in order to achieve 95 percent confidence intervals of 4.9 percent.
A list of fourteen questions (collecting nominal and ordinal data) was developed to address
three broad research questions for respondents: a) are Canadians familiar with the concept of unarmed
civilian peacekeeping? b) do Canadians think unarmed civilian peacekeeping is an effective strategy to
reduce violence? and c) are Canadians supportive of their government adopting unarmed civilian
peacekeeping as part of its foreign policy?
Participants were asked whether they were familiar with the concept of unarmed civilian
peacekeeping. The telephone survey question was formulated to test recognition or familiarity of the
concept (surveyors defined peacekeeping for the participants and then explained the difference
between conventional and unarmed civilian peacekeeping) rather than ability to define it, as recognition
was considered more realistic. This is based on a preliminary literature review on public support of
unarmed civilian peacekeeping, which determined that outside of small activist circles, Canadians are
unfamiliar with the terminology (Godbout 2012). Additionally, it is doubtful many Canadians would
recognize the term unarmed civilian peacekeeping, as there is ongoing discussion even among
practitioners and scholars as to how to arrive at an agreed-upon nomenclature (T. Wallis, personal
communication, November 30, 2012).
After the definition of unarmed civilian peacekeeping was given, participants were presented
with seven tasks of peacekeeping, and asked whether they thought the task would be better
accomplished by traditional or unarmed peacekeeping operations (See Table Three). Participants were
also asked to rate their support (on a scale of 1 to 5) of outcomes if Canada were to formally adopt
unarmed civilian peacekeeping as part of its foreign policy (See Table Four). Following this, participants

7

were asked if they would support diverting federal funds currently used for conventional peacekeeping
operations to support the establishment of an unarmed civilian peacekeeping service (see Table Five).
Finally, participants were asked if they had any additional comments or opinions they wanted to
express. Demographic variables of age, education and gender were also collected.
Pearson Correlation Coefficient and Chi Squared Analysis were used to determine any
statistically significant relationships between participant demographics and responses.

Results
Table One displays the demographic breakdown of the survey participants according to the
variables of gender, education, and age. Table Two displays the participants’ response to the question
of whether they recognize the concept of unarmed civilian peacekeeping, after having received a
definition by the surveyor. A sizable minority (40 percent) of respondents stated they were familiar with
unarmed civilian peacekeeping. Demographic breakdown revealed that younger respondents and men
were more likely to be familiar with the concept (add statistical significance and add education here)
Table Three displays participants’ perceptions comparing the effectiveness of unarmed versus
conventional peacekeeping, utilizing seven outcomes, or measures of operational success, such as the
ability to prevent further conflict. Testing for relationships between responses and demographic
variables revealed scattered statistically significant relationships. Among them were several statistically
significant associations between the variables of gender and education and five of the seven outcome
variables (see Table Three). However, age and previous knowledge of unarmed civilian peacekeeping
appeared to have little correlation with the outcome variables.
Table four displays the participants’ opinions on a number of potential consequences if Canada
were to adopt unarmed civilian peacekeeping as part of its foreign policy, using a 5 point scale. The

8

responses to the five questions were fairly consistent, with the average responses (mean) ranging from
3.54 to 4.18, demonstrating that in general, participants agreed that adopting unarmed civilian
peacekeeping would have positive consequences for Canada.
Table Five displays respondents’ opinions on whether they agree to diverting funds from
traditional peacekeeping operations to support the establishment of a Canadian unarmed civilian
peacekeeping service. Opinions were more varied, (mean 3.12) but were significantly correlated to age
and education.
263 participants provided additional comments and opinions. A qualitative analysis of these
responses generated a number of clusters or themes - four of which consisted of a minimum of fifteen
responses. The first theme comprised 26 comments that generally supported the topic of unarmed
civilian peacekeeping, as captured in the following: “Good idea to go non-armed” and “This is an
innovative idea”. Twenty-six other comments comprised a second theme: support for Canada’s current
peacekeeping operations and armed forces. This support was captured in comments such as the
following: “proud of our legacy of peacekeeping” and “very proud of Canadians playing the role of
peacekeepers”. A third theme that emerged (16 comments) was a sense of concern that unarmed
civilian peacekeeping would put Canadians participating in unarmed peacekeeping operations at risk: “It
is crazy to have peacekeepers not able to protect themselves” and “unarmed seems dangerous for the
peacekeeper”. A final theme (15 comments) is reflected in suggestions that Canada should put more
focus on domestic issues rather than foreign conflicts: “There is enough poverty here in Canada – we
should be helping our people first.”

Discussion
In general terms, the survey demonstrates a higher than expected familiarity with the concept of
unarmed civilian peacekeeping and overall agreement that unarmed civilian peacekeeping would be
successful in achieving goals such as reducing violence and improving Canada’s image. However, results

9

were less decisive with regards to support for the funding of an unarmed civilian peacekeeping force at
the expense of Canada’s current peacekeeping operations. The following section expands on this
discussion under the headings of: Canadian Public Familiarity with Unarmed Civilian Peacekeeping;
Demographic Correlations with Support for Unarmed Civilian Peacekeeping, Unarmed or Armed: Which
is Better; Benefits of Unarmed Civilian Peacekeeping are Acknowledged; and Final Thoughts.
1. Canadian public familiarity with unarmed civilian peacekeeping
The significant minority (40 percent) of participants who stated they recognized the concept of
unarmed civilian peacekeeping is initially a bit surprising, considering the specific topic almost never
makes its way into the mainstream media (Godbout 2012). Perhaps this percentage is supported by
participants’ recognition of the tenets of unarmed civilian peacekeeping – mediation, relationship
building and accompaniment – all of which may be becoming increasingly familiar to the Canadian
public. With the surge in Canadian capacity in international mediation (Hoffman 2013), proliferation of
community-based programs in public schools and peace studies education in public and post secondary
institutions (UNESCO, 2002), it stands to reason that awareness of nonviolent practices are seeping into
the awareness of average Canadians.
2. Demographic Correlations with Support for Unarmed Civilian Peacekeeping
Pearson Correlation Coefficient and Chi Squared Analyses demonstrated a number of statistically
significant correlations between demographic variables and opinion. However, no overall pattern
seemed to emerge. For the questions on which method (unarmed versus armed) would be more
effective, women and people with higher education were more likely to support unarmed peacekeeping
(see Table Three). With regards to describing potential benefits of unarmed civilian peacekeeping,
younger respondents and women were more likely to support unarmed peacekeeping as well (see Table

10

Four). Participant familiarity with unarmed civilian peacekeeping was only correlated with one of the
twelve variables (Prevent further armed conflict) from Tables Three and Four.
It is not surprising to report that respondents who reported higher education, younger age or
female gender were more likely to support unarmed civilian peacekeeping as other research indicates
that older people and men are more likely to support our traditional military (Clements 2012, Headley
and Reitzig 2012). However, these individual correlations were not consistent and further hypothesistesting studies are warranted to further understand how demographics are associated with support for
unarmed civilian peacekeeping.
3. Unarmed or Armed: Which is Better?
Table Three reveals Canadian opinions on comparing the effectiveness of unarmed versus armed
peacekeeping. In six of the seven questions, unarmed peacekeeping was considered to be more
effective than conventional armed peacekeeping. Additionally, in the same six of seven cases, the
majority of respondents believed that unarmed civilian peacekeeping was either more effective or
equally effective (range 53% - 71%). In fact, at least two thirds of respondents believed that unarmed
peacekeepers would be equal or better than traditional peacekeeping in attaining longer term goals of
reducing global violence, achieving lasting peace and breaking the cycle of violence in protracted
conflicts.
Unarmed peacekeeping did not receive majority support on only one outcome: the ability to allow
humanitarian aid to reach those in need. Almost half of respondents believed that armed peacekeepers
would be more effective. This result may reflect the impact of recent high profile cases of humanitarian
workers being abducted by armed militant groups. The Canadian public sentiments are probably
reinforced not only by media images of civilian abductions by militants, but also by positive images of
armed peacekeepers posing with happy children who are receiving much needed rations. Canadians

11

strongly identify their armed forces with the task of delivering humanitarian aid (Sjolander 2009).
Chenoweth and Stephan (2011) argue that our faith in the military as a means to conquer malevolent
forces is embedded in our collective culture.
4.

Benefits of Unarmed Civilian Peacekeeping are Acknowledged

Table Four demonstrates that in general, respondents believed that adopting unarmed civilian
peacekeeping would have a positive impact on Canada. On outcomes ranging from Canada’s image as a
peace maker, a leader and innovator, respondents offered support for the notion of adopting unarmed
civilian peacekeeping into Canada’s repertoire.
However, Table Five demonstrated a reticence to back a specific and tangible step to adopting
unarmed peacekeeping. When asked about diverting funds from traditional peacekeeping to finance an
unarmed civilian peacekeeping strategy (Table Five), the mean score (3.12) is relatively low. In fact, over
one-fifth of respondents strongly disagreed with the proposed funding rearrangement. There are
several different perspectives to explain this stance. First of all, Canadian support for their armed forces
in general, and Canadian peacekeeping missions specifically, is very high (Berdahl and Raney 2010,
Sjolander 2009), and peacekeeping is still deeply seen as entrenched in military operations – one that
involves the use of arms (Earle 2009). Perhaps, then, the responses displayed in Table Five are more
reflective of a fear of diverting resources away from something that is honored and revered rather than
a lack of support for financing unarmed civilian peacekeeping. Future research may warrant the
exploration of how Canadians or others would support the incorporation of unarmed civilian
peacekeeping in ways that did not involve a perceived weakening of traditional mechanisms. On the
other hand, perhaps more effort needs to be focussed on challenging entrenched societal attitudes
which steadfastly support military over nonviolent strategies- attitudes which Chenoweth and Stephan
call outdated (2011). Finally, the responses may simply reflect a lack of understanding that unarmed

12

civilian peacekeeping is actually a cost-effective alternative to traditional armed peacekeeping.
Regardless, the implications of these responses to the question of diverting funds are noteworthy for
advocates of incorporating unarmed civilian peacekeeping into Canadian foreign policy.
5. Final Thoughts: What We Have now is Working; Peacekeepers need Arms for Protection
The open-ended comments that participants offered at the end of the survey warrant further
reflection. As noted in the previous section, the final open-ended comments overall supported the
findings of the survey questions that unarmed civilian peacekeeping is supported by Canadians. In
addition, two other major themes emerged: concern that being unarmed would place Canadian
peacekeepers in harm’s way, and strong support for current conventional peacekeeping operations.
Firstly, the concern about the danger of unarmed civilian peacekeeping may simply be a function of
poor understanding of the actual role of unarmed civilian peacekeeping personnel. Comparing the
danger levels of armed versus unarmed peacekeepers would be difficult as mission circumstances vary
greatly. Two thousand two hundred and thirty one United Nations (armed) peacekeepers have been
killed since 1990 (United Nations, 2013) as compared to only four unarmed civilian peacekeepers in the
same time frame (M. Duncan, August 3, 2013, personal communication).
Although a meaningful comparison of these figures is difficult due to the disparate denominators
and differing conditions in which the two forms of peacekeeping operate, it is worthwhile to further
discuss the four unarmed civilian peacekeeping deaths. All of the four unarmed civilian peacekeeping
deaths since 1990 were of members of the International Solidarity Movement, an organization that
provides a peacekeeping role in Palestine. However, Goy (2012) aptly notes that International Solidarity
Movement is an organization that combines peacekeeping with the additional roles of advocacy and
solidarity. According to Goy’s research, advocating for an oppressed group and “taking sides” in one’s
peacekeeping role significantly increases the level of danger in which peacekeepers are placed. These

13

activists’ tactics have included nonviolent action, civil disobedience and confrontation of armed soldiers.
For these reasons, other major unarmed peacekeeping groups like Peace Brigades International and
Nonviolent Peaceforce adhere to strict policies of non-partisanship and abidance with local laws. This
author was unable to identify any deaths of unarmed civilian peacekeepers since 1990 with
organizations that adhere to these two principles. Therefore, in the absence of reliable methods to
compare death rates of armed versus unarmed peacekeepers, it is nonetheless significant to note that
no deaths have occurred since 1990 among nonpartisan unarmed civilian peacekeeping groups.
Nonetheless, the results of this survey demonstrate that the perceived danger of unarmed civilian
peacekeeping needs to be addressed in order to gain greater public support. More research needs to be
conducted to compare the levels of danger between unarmed and conventional peacekeepers, coupled
with more education about the relative safety of engaging in unarmed civilian peacekeeping.

Conclusions
Recent history has recorded a number of significant trends that impact how nations respond to
violent conflicts in other parts of the world. These trends include the following: a global reduction in
most forms of direct violence (including fewer wars and war-related deaths) accompanied by a growing
global intolerance of violence; new evidence supporting the superior effectiveness of nonviolent
strategies over traditional military options; and a shifting emphasis away from “victor’s justice to
reconciliation and peace building which address underlying social and economics determinants of
violent conflicts. In such a global context, it is therefore paramount for nations to re-evaluate long-held
practices which rely on the traditional belief that armed response is necessary and efficient in solving
large scale conflicts. Such a reflection must consider evidence-based research on effective and
improved outcomes, as measured by financial resource utilization and human costs, including suffering
and death.

14

Unarmed civilian peacekeeping is one such option which has grown in use in the past twenty
years. Recent research has demonstrated the effectiveness of utilizing specially trained and unarmed
civilians in achieving the goals of peacekeeping, at a reduced cost and with improved longer term
outcomes, particularly with regards to breaking cycles of violence.
This survey of 400 Canadians demonstrates a substantial segment of the Canadian population
state they are familiar with the concept of unarmed civilian peacekeeping. This relatively high level of
familiarity is perhaps the result of the proliferation of nonviolent practices and education in our
Canadian institutions, including public and post secondary education, criminal justice and family welfare
systems.
While current opinion polls reveal that Canadians are generally against war in general, and do
not support their troops engaging in combat missions, there is less information available to determine
what alternative solutions might be endorsed. This study provides the unique demonstration that
Canadians in general, support the utilization of unarmed civilian peacekeepers as part of their
government’s foreign policy. The respondents believed that unarmed civilian peacekeeping would be
more successful than traditional armed peacekeeping in preventing further armed conflict, preventing
human rights abuses reducing small arms trade and breaking the cycle of violence. Respondents also
indicated that adopting unarmed civilian peacekeeping would improve Canada’s image as a peacemaker
as well as a leader and innovator on the global scene. Two important issues to be addressed, as
identified by this study’s respondents, include the fear that unarmed peacekeepers could be placed in
situations of undue danger, and ongoing support for traditional peacekeeping missions.
This study provides relevant issues to ponder for proponents of a Canadian unarmed civilian
peacekeeping service. While there is now growing evidence of the effectiveness of nonviolent
techniques, evidence-based research is usually insufficient in and of itself to lead to policy change –

15

public support is usually a key factor. This study demonstrates that public support is present in Canada.
However, the author suggests public support could be further consolidated by considering three
important issues. Firstly, concerns regarding the perceived dangers of unarmed civilian peacekeeping
need to be addressed in public education campaigns, while future research needs to demonstrate
further empirical evidence of the safety of peacekeeping without arms. Secondly, because of strong and
entrenched public support for Canada’s traditional peacekeeping legacy, those promoting the
incorporation of unarmed civilian peacekeeping into Canadian foreign policy will likely achieve greater
success by working with the conventional peacekeeping establishment, rather than apart from it. This
would include commitment to maintaining and establishing working relationships with United Nations
Peacekeeping personnel as well as Canadian peacekeeping personnel. The promotion of unarmed
civilian peacekeeping that is set in an “anti war” context may be interpreted in a negative light. Thirdly,
Canadian expertise in negotiation strategies such as unarmed civilian peacekeeping already exists
(Carment 2013, Hoffman 2013), thereby offering tangible support for practical ways to achieve this goal.
Canadians view themselves as peacemakers in the international area. However, rather than
simply being content with perceived past successes, it is time to invigorate this peacekeeping image with
innovative and evidence-based practices while ensuring Canada’s legacy as a peacekeeping nation
continues. Because of Canada’s robust democratic infrastructure and the willingness of politicians and
policy makers to represent the views or the public, there is considerable potential for public influence on
foreign policy.

16

References
Armstrong, S., 2011. The ascent of women: Our turn, our way – a remarkable story of worldwide
change. Toronto: Random House.
Berdahl, L., Raney, T., 2010. Being Canadian in the world: Mapping the contours of national identity
and public opinion on international issues in Canada. International Journal, 65(4), 995-1010.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2013. Weak support in poll for sending Canadian troops to Mali.
[online]. Available from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/02/09/mali-canadian-combattroops-poll.html
Carment, D., 2013. Canadian mediation capacity under-utilized and under-examined. Press Release,
Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, April, 2013.
Chenoweth, E., Dugan, L., 2010. Rethinking counterterrorism: Evidence from Israel. Social Science
Research Network. Available from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1664282
Chenoweth, E., Stephan, M., 2011. Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Clements, B. (2012). Public opinion in Britain towards military action in Libya: A micro-level analysis.
Politics, 32 (2), 109-119.
Coy, P.G. (2012). Nonpartisanship, interventionism and legality in accompaniment: Comparative
analyses of Peace Brigades International, Christian Peacemaker Teams, and the International Solidarity
Movement. The International journal of human rights, 1-19
Earle, N., 2009. Foreign policy and Canadian commentary on the Afghanistan war. American review of
Canadian studies, p. 162-171.
Evans, D., 2004. Before the war: Reflections in a new millennium. Kelowna, BC: Northstone Publishing.
Godbout, K., 2012. What do Canadians think about our military? A review of the literature.
Unpublished document, Selkirk College.
Guehenno, J-M. (2011). Civilian capacity in the aftermath of conflict. Report to UN Secretary General,
February, 2011.
Headley, J., & Reitzig, A. (2012). Does foreign policy represent views of the public? Assessing public and
elite opinion on New Zealand’s foreign policy. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 66 ( 1), 70-89.
Hoffman, E., 2013. Introduction. Canadian foreign policy journal, 19 (1). 6-12.
Howes, D., 2013. The failure of pacifism and the success of nonviolence. Perspectives on Politics, 11,
(2), 427-446.
Human Security Report, 2010. The causes of peace and the shrinking costs of war. Available from:
http://www.hsrgroup.org/human-security-reports/20092010/overview.aspx
Koko, J., Essis, E., 2012. Determinants of success in United Nations peacekeeping operations. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America.
Müller, B., Büttner, C., 1998. Optimizing peacekeeping, peacemaking and peacebuilding through
nonviolent intervention? A methodological and systematic operationalisation. Minden, Germany:
Institute for Peace Work and Nonviolent Conflict Transformation.(Translation: Robin Kendon).
Nonviolent Peaceforce, 2013. Unarmed civilian peacekeeping: Building a nonviolent peaceforce.

17

Unpublished document.
Nonviolent Peaceforce, 2011. Preliminary Assessment of the work of the Nonviolent peaceforce in the
Philippines. Unpublished document.
Nonviolent peaceforce. 2012. Nonviolent peaceforce lauded for its contribution to the peace process.
Nonviolent Peaceforce quarterly newsletter, 1 (2), 3.
Paris, R., 2004. At war’s end: Building peace after civil conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pinker, S., 2011. The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. New York: The Penguin
Group.
Schirch, L., 2006. Civilian peacekeeping: preventing violence and making space for democracy. Upsalla,
Sweden: Life and Peace Institute.
Schweitzer, C., 2009. Strategies of intervention in protracted violent conflicts by civil society actors.
Doctoral Dissertation: Coventry University.
Sjolander, C. T., 2009. A funny thing happened on the road to Kandahar: The competing faces of
Canadian internationalism. Canadian Foreign Policy, 15 (2), 78-98.
United Nations, 2012a. Broadening the concept of peacekeeping: The contribution of civil society to
unarmed protection of civilians. New York. High Level Briefing at the United Nations, March 23, 2012.
United Nations, 2012b. Unarmed civilian peacekeeping: Has its time come? Geneva. Briefing and
Dialogue, September, 20, 2012.
United Nations, 2013. United Nations peacekeeping: Fatalities by year. Available at:
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/fatalities/documents/stats_1.pdf
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2002). Mainstreaming the culture of
peace. Paris: Culture of Peace Coordination, Bureau for Strategic Planning, UNESCO. Available at:
http://www.peace.ca/CCOPPmainstreaming.pdf
Wallace, M., 2006. Confronting wrongs, affirming difference: The limits of violence, the power of
nonviolence, and the case of nonviolent intervention in Sri Lanka. Dissertation (PhD). Brown University,
Providence, RI.
Wood, R., Kathman, J., & Gent, S. (2012). Armed intervention and civilian victimization in intrastate
conflicts. Journal of Peace Research, 49 (5), 647-660.

18

Table 1
Demographics

Education

Gender

Age

High school or less

27%

Some college or university

11%

Completed college/technical school

28%

Completed university

34%

Male

53%

Female

47%

18-39

37%

40-59

37%

60+

26%

N = 400

Table 2
Recognition of Unarmed Civilian Peacekeepers: Participants responses when asked whether they
were familiar with the concept of unarmed civilian peacekeeping
Gender
Total

Unarmed civilian
peacekeepers are
specially trained
peace professionals
that are put in
similar situations as
armed
peacekeepers.
Before this
explanation, had
you heard of
unarmed civilian
peacekeepers?
Total N = 400

Age

Education (N=376)

Male

Female

1839

4059

60+

High
school
or less

College
or
trade
school

Completed
university

Yes

40%

47%

34%

45%

39%

35%

28%

37%

47%

No

60%

53%

66%

55%

61%

65%

72%

63%

53%

400

190

210

150

146

104

118

127

131

19

Table 3
Armed or Unarmed Peacekeeping Missions: Which type is more likely to:

Result in lower human rights abuses¹ ²

47

32

Prevent further armed conflict¹ ²
Allow humanitarian aid to reach those in need¹ ² ³
Work towards longer term goals of reducing global violence¹ ²

37

47

8

12

7

10

6

12

3

59

27

Work towards longer term goals of reducing small arms trade¹ ²

1.
2.
3.

41

40

13

46

36

Achieve lasting peace¹ ²

25

59

10

5

Break the cycle of violence in long drawn-out wars¹ ²

28

56

11

5

denotes statistical significance with gender (<.05, Chi Squared Analysis)
denotes statistical significance with education (<.05, Chi Squared Analysis)
denotes statistical significance with recognition of UCP (<.05, Chi Squared Analysis)

20

Unarmed
Both
Not sure

9

8

Armed

Table 4
If Canada incorporates Unarmed Peacekeeping into our international defense policy, on a scale of 1-5, what impact will this have on:

Canada's image as a peace keeper ² / Mean: 4.18 / SD: 1.081

4 5

Canada's image as a leader ³ / Mean: 3.85 / SD: 1.127

5 6

1.
2.
3.

25

31

37

27

37

Negative impact 1
2

Canada's image in terms of innovation ¹ / Mean: 3.85 / SD:
1.065

4 5

The cost of peacekeeping missions ² ³ / Mean: 3.54 / SD:
1.112

7

Thie likelihood of other countries requesting Canada's
assistance with peace keeping missions¹ ² ³ / Mean: 3.94 / SD:
1.112

23

3

32

34

25

4
Positive impact 5

4 7

19

31

denotes statistical significance with age (<.05, Pearson Correlation Coefficient)
denotes statistical significance with gender (<.05, Chi Squared Analysis)
denotes statistical significance with education (<.05, Pearson Correlation Coefficient)

21

22

30

35

6

39

Table 5
Do you agree with the Canadian government diverting resources from its conventional military budget to fund a Canadian unarmed civilian
peacekeeping force?

Strongly disagree 1
2
¹ ³ / Mean: 3.12 / SD: 1.431

21

10

23

23

22

3
4
Strongly agree 5

1.
3.

denotes statistical significance with age (<.05, Pearson Correlation Coefficient)
denotes statistical significance with education (<.05, Pearson Correlation Coefficient)

22