The NDP's failure to understand Darfur and "peacekeeping"
The NDP's leader and defence critic say some truly silly things.
The federal NDP says Canada should take a lead role in any United Nations mission to stop the bloodshed in Darfur, even if that means reducing its commitment in Afghanistan.
NDP leader Jack Layton pointed to a weekend poll that suggested public support for Canada's Afghan mission is wavering...
"Our view is that this is exactly the kind of peacekeeping role that Canadians have always supported," Layton said yesterday. "Canada invented the concept of UN-led peacekeeping forces under (then diplomat [no he wasn't; he was a politican and Secretary of State for External Affairs] Lester) Pearson" in the 1950s...
Liberal Senator Romeo Dallaire, the former general who led the doomed UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda, has called for Canada to play a lead role in a proposed 20,000-member UN peacekeeping force...
Mr Layton is clearly not aware that the UN's Suez peacekeeping mission (UNEF)—Pearson's concept—had nothing to do with protecting people. Its mission was simply to place troops between the armed forces of two states, Israel and Egypt, in order to discourage a resumption of hostilities.
NDP defence critic Dawn Black...said that once Canada fulfils its Afghan commitment in February, "we may want to look at returning to a more traditional kind of work that we could do and do very well in Darfur."
Ms Black wants Canada to do "traditional" peacekeeping in Darfur. Clearly she is unaware that what those in favour of intervention want is no such thing. Rather they want a UN Charter Chapter VII mission with a mandate to take action and use force on its own: in other words "peacemaking" (as in Afstan) rather than "traditional peacekeeping".'
There are also the slight problems that China and/or Russia will almost certainly veto any UNSC Chapter VII resolution, and that Sudan would not accept such a force even if it were approved. Which would mean an invasion, which no-one who could do it (US, EU, NATO) has the slightest willingness to do.
The best hope is that Sudan accept a Chapter VI "peacekeeping" force. But it probably won't and the effectiveness of such a force would be pretty doubtful anyway.
I doubt Mr Layton or Ms Black know any of this. But who cares about facts when trying to make political hay? And how ironic that the story appears on VE Day—a day that is a reminder of a real tradition.
And I wonder how many people know that both the NATO ISAF and US Operation Enduring Freedom in Afstan have the unanimous endorsement, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, of the Security Council. Certainly not Mr Layton or Ms Black. Our media certainly never mention the fact. Perhaps it is inconvenient for their view of the world.
Update: An astute analysis at Army.ca of a column in the Ottawa Citizen by Susan Riley on the politics of Afstan.
The federal NDP says Canada should take a lead role in any United Nations mission to stop the bloodshed in Darfur, even if that means reducing its commitment in Afghanistan.
NDP leader Jack Layton pointed to a weekend poll that suggested public support for Canada's Afghan mission is wavering...
"Our view is that this is exactly the kind of peacekeeping role that Canadians have always supported," Layton said yesterday. "Canada invented the concept of UN-led peacekeeping forces under (then diplomat [no he wasn't; he was a politican and Secretary of State for External Affairs] Lester) Pearson" in the 1950s...
Liberal Senator Romeo Dallaire, the former general who led the doomed UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda, has called for Canada to play a lead role in a proposed 20,000-member UN peacekeeping force...
Mr Layton is clearly not aware that the UN's Suez peacekeeping mission (UNEF)—Pearson's concept—had nothing to do with protecting people. Its mission was simply to place troops between the armed forces of two states, Israel and Egypt, in order to discourage a resumption of hostilities.
NDP defence critic Dawn Black...said that once Canada fulfils its Afghan commitment in February, "we may want to look at returning to a more traditional kind of work that we could do and do very well in Darfur."
Ms Black wants Canada to do "traditional" peacekeeping in Darfur. Clearly she is unaware that what those in favour of intervention want is no such thing. Rather they want a UN Charter Chapter VII mission with a mandate to take action and use force on its own: in other words "peacemaking" (as in Afstan) rather than "traditional peacekeeping".'
There are also the slight problems that China and/or Russia will almost certainly veto any UNSC Chapter VII resolution, and that Sudan would not accept such a force even if it were approved. Which would mean an invasion, which no-one who could do it (US, EU, NATO) has the slightest willingness to do.
The best hope is that Sudan accept a Chapter VI "peacekeeping" force. But it probably won't and the effectiveness of such a force would be pretty doubtful anyway.
I doubt Mr Layton or Ms Black know any of this. But who cares about facts when trying to make political hay? And how ironic that the story appears on VE Day—a day that is a reminder of a real tradition.
And I wonder how many people know that both the NATO ISAF and US Operation Enduring Freedom in Afstan have the unanimous endorsement, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, of the Security Council. Certainly not Mr Layton or Ms Black. Our media certainly never mention the fact. Perhaps it is inconvenient for their view of the world.
Update: An astute analysis at Army.ca of a column in the Ottawa Citizen by Susan Riley on the politics of Afstan.
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 3:42 p.m.
1 Comments:
Yes, because lefties are all pussies right?
That kind of comment makes me want to puke
Post a Comment
<< Home