UN extends its own Afghan mission

I wonder how much play this will get in the Canadian media:

The U.N. Security Council unanimously agreed on Thursday [March 20] to extend the U.N. mandate in Afghanistan where NATO-led forces are struggling to overcome a surprisingly fierce Taliban insurgency.

All 15 council members voted in favor of a resolution extending the mandate for the U.N. mission in Afghanistan, known as UNAMA. It also called for what U.N. officials have described as a sharpened role for the United Nations' envoy.

The resolution referred to the council's "concern about the security situation in Afghanistan, in particular the increased violent and terrorist activities by the Taliban, al Qaeda, illegally armed groups, criminals and ... the narcotics trade."

Earlier this month, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed Norwegian diplomat Kai Eide to take over from Germany's Tom Koenigs as the top U.N. envoy to Afghanistan.

Western diplomats on the council said Eide would have to take on a more active role than Koenigs did in coordinating international civilian and military activities and in working with the Afghan government.

Top U.N. officials have described the Taliban insurgency as surprisingly resilient and ruthless and recommended increasing coordination between the international community, aid agencies, Afghan government and NATO-led ISAF forces, and expanding U.N. activities across Afghanistan.

The resolution calls for "more coherent support by the international community to the Afghan government," an expanded U.N. presence in Afghanistan, and asks UNAMA to "strengthen the cooperation with ISAF at all levels [emphasis added]."

And I wonder if Jack Layton will notice that last sentence [see middle section at link] and reflect on the will of the international community as unanimously reflected through the UN Security Council. Or maybe he doesn't think it's a legitimate body--then what is the meaning of the UN in his world? Note also that the UNSC has the guts to call the Taliban's activities "terrorist"--unlike our media.

Update: Just noticed the following in the story; will Mr Layton cheer this seeming encouragement of contacts with the Taliban?

...[British UN Ambassador John Sawers] said Eide would also support Afghan "reconciliation efforts" with Taliban fighters aimed at convincing them to lay down their arms and accept Karzai's government.

Upperdate: The Ottawa Citizen mentions the UNSC action starting at the fourth parapgraph in this story; haven't seen any other Canadian media coverage. The text of the resolution is here. Another thing Mr Layton (and Elizabeth May) should read--especially these paragraphs:

“11. Calls upon the Afghan Government, with the assistance of the international community, including the International Security Assistance Force and Operation Enduring Freedom coalition [emphasis added], in accordance with their respective designated responsibilities as they evolve, to continue to address the threat to the security and stability of Afghanistan posed by the Taliban, Al-Qaida, illegally armed groups, criminals and those involved in the narcotics trade;

“12. Condemns in the strongest terms all attacks, including Improvised Explosive Device (IED) attacks, suicide attacks and abductions, targeting civilians and Afghan and international forces and their deleterious effect on the stabilization, reconstruction and development efforts in Afghanistan, and condemns further the use by the Taliban and other extremist groups of civilians as human shields [emphasis added];..

“14. Expresses its strong concern about the recruitment and use of children by Taliban forces in Afghanistan [emphasis added]...