OTTAWA—As the Dutch government prepared to deploy its military to Mali in late 2013, parliamentarians in that country were given an extraordinary document.

In a 14-page letter presented to Parliament, the ministers of defence, foreign affairs, security and justice set out in detail the risks, costs and strategy for the mission.

It acknowledged the challenges, offered a blunt assessment of its partners — concluding the Malian military was barely capable and that some regional security partnerships were “relatively ineffective” — and laid out the strategy for what it called a “comprehensive” approach to help resolve the conflict.

Now, as Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government prepares to announce the deployment of up to 600 Canadian soldiers on a peace mission, there are calls for cabinet ministers to be equally upfront with politicians and Canadians.

“There’s no more serious decision of a government than to put the lives of our brave women and men in uniform on the line,” NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair said last week.

“They have the obligation to bring that into Parliament with full disclosure and have a debate and allow people to vote,” Mulcair said.

“It’s extremely dangerous, and we have to know that it’s not window dressing, that it has an objective, it has a beginning, it has an end and what’s going to be done exactly by those Canadian troops,” he said.

The Senate committee on national security and defence reproduced the Dutch letter in its recent report that examined UN deployments, saying it was revealing for its “clarity and transparency.”

“The clarity of the letter and the willingness to define the challenges, including the end date for the mission, contributed to the government earning the trust of all parties in support of the deployment on the most dangerous of all UN missions to Mali,” the defence committee said in its report.

The Star has reported that the deployment is likely headed to Mali though cabinet has yet to make a final decision.

With such a sizable troop deployment, Sen. Daniel Lang, chair of the Senate defence committee, said the Liberal government has an obligation to bring it before Parliament for a full discussion.

He said the government must be “open and transparent” on the mission’s objectives, the scope of the commitment and the time frame. “Unlike Afghanistan, where we just kind of slid into a situation that we were not prepared for and became involved in the longest war that Canada has ever gotten involved with,” Lang said.

The Senate committee report recommended that the federal government table a “statement of justification” outlining the size of the mission, its goals, risks, costs and rules of engagement and its term.

The Dutch letter set out the “national interest” in deploying the force to Mali, something Lang said the Liberals must make clear with their coming announcement.

“What is the objective . . . We better fully understand why we’re there,” Lang said.

“When they send those men and women over there, the sons and the daughters, they better do it in the context (of) would they do it to their own son or daughter,” Lang said.

The Dutch letter is remarkable for the details it provided about the mission. And it was more than a courtesy. Such notification about military deployments is required under that country’s constitution.

It set out the rationale for the deployment, outlining the strategic interests of the Netherlands to deploy to the African nation. Under the title “grounds for participation,” the letter notes how regions of Mali are a “breeding ground” for extremism and a sanctuary for terrorist training camps. Mali is also an important staging post for human trafficking

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

It did not sugar-coat the challenges. For example, it offered this damning assessment of the Malian military — “its combat capacity is minimal; morale and discipline are wanting; leadership is poor and in some cases the command structure has broken down.”

It offered the same damning assessment of the police and justice sector, concluding that “corruption and nepotism are rife.”

It set out Dutch ambitions for the mission, to “help tackle the root cases of the conflict,” an ambition that required a “comprehensive approach.” It explained how the Dutch would work with the United Nations mission, along with the French who are also active in Mali.

It provided a breakdown of the troop commitment and said the size of the contingent was determined “by the wish to make a coherent contribution and the proper robustness for self-protection,” the letter stated.

Surprisingly, it described in detail the responsibilities of various elements of the mission. The letter highlighted, for example, how helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles and the work of 90 special forces soldiers doing long-range patrols would come together to provide intelligence.

It explained, too, how senior Dutch officers would retain command of troops, a procedure “adopted in part as a result of lessons learned from previous missions.”

It judged improvised explosive devices to only a moderate threat, warned that health risks were high and said if Dutch units came under attack, they would be able to protect themselves and, if needed, could call on UN or French forces for backup.

“Operations will be co-ordinated daily to take account of the latest threat assessment,” the letter states.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said last week that his government will be upfront to explain its reasoning around the upcoming Canadian deployment.

“It’s about informing Canadians to making sure that they understand why we’re making a decision and then how we’re also looking to do it as well,” Sajjan said.

“Any time we send our troops, it’s extremely important to me and to the prime minister . . . we will thoroughly explain this,” he said.

Read more about: