Will the NDP/Liberal Coalition's Foreign Policy have Canadian Troop deployed to the Congo?
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/December2008/02/c5714.html
"A delegation of Congolese Catholic church leaders will call on Canada to take a more active role in promoting an end to the conflict in the Congo and to contribute to reinforcement of the UN Peacekeeping Mission."
"Paul Dewar, MP (NDP Critic Foreign Affairs and Vice Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Prevention of Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity) and Keith Martin, MP (Liberal) will also speak at the press conference. Members of the Congolese delegation will speak in French, and the two MPs will speak in English."
http://www.embassymag.ca/page/view/coalition-12-3-2008
"In interviews with Embassy Tuesday morning, both Liberal Foreign Affairs critic Bryon Wilfert and NDP Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar signalled the coalition's foreign policy would emphasize multilateralism, human security and Africa. "
"We are the party of peacekeeping, [the ban on] landmines and the International Criminal Court," Mr. Wilfert said. "I think there is certainly a willingness to do more of that."
"The continent of Africa has been forgotten recently, and that's something that is a focus of the new government for sure," said Mr. Dewar."
Recently policy statements from both parties have stated Canada will return back to peacekeeping, will the focus of this will be the Congo or perhaps Sudan?
Should Canada take an active role in Africa?
Will Canada take part under the UN Chapter 7 mandate mission?
Will the Canada be involved in two missions at the same time?
_________________________________________________________________________________________There's another old saying, Senator: Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
Comments
Actually, unionist, I'm going to disagree with you about Canada 'getting out' of Afghanistan. Canada, having entered on false pretext, has an created an obligation for ourselves there.
That obligation has nothing to do with our current role, conducting search-and-destroy missions for the American-supported side in a civil war. That must end. But if we can rebuild infrastructure in stable regions, and protect civilians in less stable ones, we should.
Actually, unionist, I'm going to disagree with you about Canada 'getting out' of Afghanistan. Canada, having entered on false pretext, has an created an obligation for ourselves there.
I understand your point. Since I first started posting here (3 years ago) - when I still had to argue that we weren't there saving women and children - I said Canada must get out, pay reparations for the damage and crimes we have committed, and return if and when invited to do so by some recognized government of the Afghan people which is not the creation of foreign occupiers.
I have no problem with helping a neighbour. The first step, however, should be to stop the home invasion and then see if the neighbour wants our help.
In any event, this thread is about potential participation in U.N. peacekeeping in Africa. You will agree with me that whatever we are doing in Afghanistan, it is not U.N.peacekeeping, right?
There is a UN mission in Sudan.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmis/
"The Security Council, by its resolution 1590 of 24 March 2005, decided to establish the United Nations Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS) to support implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed by the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army on 9 January 2005; and to perform certain functions relating to humanitarian assistance, and protection and promotion of human rights."
Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/EGUA-7LKR5C?OpenDocument
"The Council had before it a letter dated 31 October 2008 from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council (document S/2008/703), the annex of which -- from the Department of Peacekeeping Operations -- discusses reinforcements requested for the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) in light of the persistent crisis in the eastern part of that country. The requested surge reinforcements total 2,785 military personnel and 300 in additional formed police unit strength."
"In order for MONUC to fulfil its mandate in those conditions for the coming months, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations requests the following additional capabilities:
-- Two infantry battalions of 850 troops each to help stabilize the situation in North Kivu province, along with two special forces companies of 150 each to allow the Mission to rapidly respond to crises;
-- Additional air assets, including 18 utility helicopters with 260 personnel, two C-130 Hercules aircraft with 50 personnel, to be based in North and South Kivu;
-- A rapid/reaction force providing the surge needed by the Mission until the first phase of the disengagement plan is completed;
-- Additional information analysis capability based in Goma, including external imagery/electronic equipment and associated analysis structure, requiring approximately 50 personnel;
-- One engineering company of 175 personnel, to provide support to the above surge assets;
-- A total of 200 military training instructors/advisers, to enhance Forces armées de la République démocratique du Congo (FARDC) effectiveness; and
-- Two additional formed police units of 150 each to be deployed in North Kivu.
If the armed groups and the FARDC comply with the disengagement plan and return to the implementation of peace agreements in good faith, it is envisaged that the above surge capacity would be required for approximately nine months."
There is a UN mission in Sudan.
My mistake, I misspoke, of course you're right. I was thinking of the role played by the OAU in peacekeeping on the ground
In any event, to return to your own topic question: Do you see a problem with Canada deploying troops to Congo if invited to do by the U.N.?
My initial concern is that the current MONUC is under a chapter 7 mandate, which has a lot of interesting issues such as detainees, rule of engagements, command and control.
Other areas of concern are:
a. Can Canada support two missions at once?
b. Can we stop a civil war?
c. Will the mandate allow action outside the DRC political boundaries?
d. Will CIDA be able to an effective organization?
http://www.ndp.ca/platform/otherpriorities/canada
"Canada's Role in the World
Jack Layton and the New Democrats will:
Provide robust support to the United Nations and its work in conflict resolution, peacekeeping, and global co-operation.
Participate in international efforts to bring peace, justice and stability to the Darfur region of Sudan and to the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Re-establish Canada as a leader for global peace and disarmament by renewing efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, ban cluster bombs, and control trade in small arms and light weapons.
Work with partners for peace and justice in Israel and Palestine, within a framework of respect for UN resolutions and international law. This means recognition of the right of both Israelis and Palestinians to live in peaceful co-existence in viable, independent states with negotiated, agreed-upon borders; no settlements remaining in the Palestinian state; an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian land; an end to loss of life of innocent civilians; and an international peacekeeping presence."
Well it appears that we could end up in the Sudan and Congo regions of Africa according to this NDP policy statement.
I appreciate the sentiment behind Dewar and Wilfert's plans but I'm wary about sending in troops to enforce a "peace agreement" that is essentially wallpaper - and designed to fail.
The UN mission in Rwanda in the 90s was doomed from the start, trying to enforce a "peace accord" that was viewed by at least one faction as a stalling measure to allow forces to regroup.
Once again we have a nominal "power sharing" agreement that has lead to dysfunctional government. The "rebels" (ie. the Rwanda governments invading forces) use this dysfunction as an excuse to resume conflict.
I think the Congo conflict has to end, and I think Canada should play a role. But sending Canadian troops to enforce an absoluetly unworkable settlement is a recipe for disaster all around.
As someone who has Serviced in many UN Shitholes we are doing better work helping kill the Taliban in Afghanistan then we would ever do in Congo or any of those other African Sewers...better to leave them alone and sort thier own problems out....think of it as Population Control!
Sniper
One Shot One Kill!
Webgear wrote:There is a UN mission in Sudan.My mistake, I misspoke, of course you're right. I was thinking of the role played by the OAU in peacekeeping on the ground
In any event, to return to your own topic question: Do you see a problem with Canada deploying troops to Congo if invited to do by the U.N.?
Unionist, I am curious about your position on international intervention by Canada. Why do you all of a sudden support Canada's involvement in Sudan if the UN is involved there? Sudan has stated many times that they don't support or welcome the UN's involvement - so isn't this also like a home invasion? There are many countries with a say on UN deployments with atrocious governments - why do their decisions somehow make an intervention into a country that does not want it valid?
http://standcanada.blogspot.com/2008/10/ndp-on-darfur.html
"Jack Layton and Canada’s New Democrats are united in their support for all efforts to end the violence against civilians in the Darfur region. We continue to support the work of STAND and the Sudanese Diaspora to keep the Sudan crisis on the Canadian government’s agenda. New Democrat MPs, including Alexa McDonough, Paul Dewar, Tony Martin and Bill Siksay, have consistently spoken out about the need for the Canadian government to do much more for the people of Darfur.
Paul Dewar (MP for Ottawa-Centre) is the NDP foreign affairs critic and has been our lead on Darfur. As you may know, he has been instrumental in moving the issue forward in the House of Commons by initiating a study at the Foreign Affairs committee. Paul is also vice-chair of the parliamentary group against genocide and has been active on Darfur in that capacity as well.
There is a growing concern among everyday Canadians that their public and private investments may be directly or indirectly contributing to the crisis in Darfur. NDP Foreign Affairs critic, Paul Dewar noted, "Knowing what we know about Darfur, business as usual is unconscionable." Despite opposition from Conservatives, the Foreign Affairs committee last year adopted an NDP motion to undertake a study of Canadian funds invested in Sudan and explore legislative initiatives to regulate such investments in light of the worsening crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan.
In May of this year, we have called on the Harper Conservative’s take leadership. Jack stated that "this is exactly the kind of peacekeeping role that Canadians have always supported. Canadians would want us to be in Darfur. That sentiment is found right across the country."
Our Party wants Canada to take a lead role in any UN mission to stop the bloodshed in Sudan's Darfur province. Canada could and should commit immediately to the following measures:
- a. support the United Nations Mission to Sudan (UNMIS)
- b. offer Canadian troops to complement the advance party requested by the UN
- c. push for a stronger UN resolution on Sudan
- d. offer logistical support to the United Nations-African Union hybrid force carrying out its mandate to protect the population in Darfur.
New Democrats will continue to speak out on both Canadian and international inaction on Darfur and will lend our support to all efforts to bring peace to this tragically, neglected region."
I certainly wouldn't object to well-armed UN forces protecting civilian refugee camps but even that would cause problems. The Rwandan-backed forces have repeatedly attacked UN refugee camps, claiming that interwahame militias were hiding within. I don't think sending UN forces into the midst of an ongoing conflict without any way to end their mission is a viable solution.
What the Congo needs is a stable government with the international support to protect its boundaries. Kagame's Rwandan government should be put on notice that the international community won't tolerate Rwanda's ongoing and illegal invasions of DRC.
Of course, that would never happen.
Unionist, I am curious about your position on international intervention by Canada. Why do you all of a sudden support Canada's involvement in Sudan if the UN is involved there?
Ghislaine, I want to be polite to you, so I'll ask you this: Where - ever - any time - even once - even 1/2 a time - ever - anywhere - any time - did you see me "support Canada's involvement in Sudan if the UN is involved there"???????
I do not support Canada going anywhere near Sudan, whether the UN invites us or not.
But from a communications viewpoint, I'm extremely curious how you could have formed a contrary opinion about my views.
Please quote my exact words - EXACT WORDS - where I said I might maybe for one second support Canadian involvement in Sudan under any circumstances whatsoever.
Thanks for listening. Apologies are always graciously accepted in advance.
Recent massive human suffering and the escalation of hostilities by the Nkunda army in eastern Congo have provoked a spate of high-visibility policy statements where some powerful Western interests are calling on the "international community" to strengthen the MONUC military occupation of Congo, while other powerful interests from the new humanitarian order are calling for the European Union to send in a rapid reaction force.
Congolese sources everywhere confirm the widespread involvement of MONUC soldiers in guns-for-minerals swaps and sexual violence; sources repeatedly accuse MONUC troops of delivering weapons back to militias to justify MONUC's one billion dollar a year occupation of Congo.
"MONUC was giving weapons to the militias," says yet one more Congolese official. "MONUC had their own ambitions. It was about gold. The peace that was achieved in Orientale around 2006 was not achieved by MONUC; the National Police Force from Kinshasa and the integrated FARDC brigades achieved it. MONUC was frustrating the peace."
In the new Congo war documentary by Dutch filmmaker Renzo Martens, ENJOY POVERTY, we see South African mining staff of AngloGold Ashanti confirming MONUC's pivotal role in securing the company's access to gold in Orientale. The entire "humanitarian" enterprise must be properly situated in the political economy of profit-based charity, resource control and racial injustice.
MONUC doesn't need more guns, it needs fewer guns (but arms dealers keep shipping them in), and Congo doesn't need more foreign mercenary forces posing as "peacekeepers" but secretly serving narrow, undisclosed interventionist agendas on behalf of multinational corporations.
Ditto for Darfur. In an "explosive" new book by progressive activists that mildly exposes some of the hypocrisies of the Save Darfur movement we find the authors calling for greater military intervention and sneering at others who have criticized and rejected military intervention for being what we might call the new, old humanitarian warfare in Africa.
The book, Scramble For Africa: Darfur-Intervention and the USA, cites ad nauseam all the usual propagandists that are monopolizing the English language mass media, publications from the far right to progressive left, on Darfur. These experts include Alex De Waal and Eric Reeves - and the International Crisis Group - but there are plenty of citations and references to journalists who peddle the establishment inventions and thereby black out the forces of Western control.
By page xvii of the preface, the authors - who have no experience anywhere near Sudan - have become the prosecution, judges and jury of their own private international court: "That [President Omar al-Bashir] is a major war criminal is beyond doubt," they wrote, "as is the fact that he should face trial for his substantial violations of international human rights law." The American authors, it seems, are also in the business of overthrowing governments: "Given the litany of abuses for which [the Government of Sudan] is guilty," they wrote, "there would be little to mourn in Bashir's overthrow, and such a move-depending, of course, on the actors involved, and its prospects for success-could be cautiously supported."
In other words, it's fine for white people from the United States to organize the overthrow of sovereign governments, as long as we selectively chose the "right" people for the job. The authors never similarly condemn "leaders" from the United States, Canada, Israel or Europe, and they never suggest that President Bush should be overthrown, or that Donald Rumsfeld, or Henry Kissinger, or General Norman Schwarzkopf, or Maurice Tempelsman, should be prosecuted for war crimes. The book makes no mention of covert operations or private military companies operating in South Sudan or Darfur, and while it illuminates the Bush Administration's collaboration with the Khartoum government, it is nothing more than a cheerleading tool for the opposing power blocks, including the massive so-called "humanitarian relief" operations. Such is the racial obliviousness of the new humanitarian disorder.
But Darfur's cheerleaders and Khartoum's enemies are not so neutral as they appear....
Ghislaine wrote:Unionist, I am curious about your position on international intervention by Canada. Why do you all of a sudden support Canada's involvement in Sudan if the UN is involved there?
Ghislaine, I want to be polite to you, so I'll ask you this: Where - ever - any time - even once - even 1/2 a time - ever - anywhere - any time - did you see me "support Canada's involvement in Sudan if the UN is involved there"???????
I do not support Canada going anywhere near Sudan, whether the UN invites us or not.
But from a communications viewpoint, I'm extremely curious how you could have formed a contrary opinion about my views.
Please quote my exact words - EXACT WORDS - where I said I might maybe for one second support Canadian involvement in Sudan under any circumstances whatsoever.
Thanks for listening. Apologies are always graciously accepted in advance.
My apologies unionist, this is what I read:
"
Canada must stay out of Sudan, where it has no business whatsoever (except maybe helping the U.S. expand its sphere of influence in north-east Africa).
Canada should indeed consider participating in MONUC (United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo), if invited to do so by the U.N. "
I then saw you acknowledge that there is a UN mission in the Sudan and I interpreted the two statements as meaning you would support Canada's involvement in Sudan, if invited to do so by the U.N.
No where did you say you supported involvment in Sudan. I will phrase my question more accurately then, if Canada were invited to help UN missions in the Congo and Sudan would you support both or only in the Congo? If so, why?
Actually, unionist, I'm going to disagree with you about Canada 'getting out' of Afghanistan. Canada, having entered on false pretext, has an created an obligation for ourselves there.
That obligation has nothing to do with our current role, conducting search-and-destroy missions for the American-supported side in a civil war. That must end. But if we can rebuild infrastructure in stable regions, and protect civilians in less stable ones, we should.
I used to agree somewhat with you. That was in 2004. Canada has now been in Afghanistan longer than any war since the Battle of the Fields of Abraham. Things are getting worse not better, and I have no faith in the government of Afghanistan as an effective partner. There is talk they may decide not to hold elections anymore. How many more Canadian soldiers should die, in your opinion, to prop up that corrupt loser government?
No where did you say you supported involvment in Sudan. I will phrase my question more accurately then, if Canada were invited to help UN missions in the Congo and Sudan would you support both or only in the Congo? If so, why?
Thanks for the apology, Ghislaine, it is accepted of course.
Sudan has been suffering from civil war since 2003, with unknown numbers of people dead and displaced. The U.S. and some of its lackeys have screamed "genocide" about this conflict, where clearly no reputable scholar nor international body shares that self-serving assertion by George W. Bush. It seems obvious to me that Bush's aim (and that of some pro-U.S. lackeys of his) is to get a toehold in that country for strategic and economic reasons. Sudan has clearly said that they don't want this kind of "help", but will accept OAU peacekeepers (if and where there is peace to keep). Under the circumstances, even if the U.N. asked us to participate, my vote is "no way".
As for Congo, I have no detailed knowledge to indicate that U.N. peacekeeping would be a ruse to serve some foreign interests, although I'm open to learning more about this. Millions have died in recent years as a result of civil conflict and invasion. If Canada can play a role to help mediate the conflict, at U.N. request, I'm for it.
Does the government actually represent the people?
Yes, as a matter of fact. Sudanese government members today represent all sides of that country's conflicting interests over the years. They've laid their down weapons and joined this government to make it work. They've had problems with terrorist factions marauding over the borders from neighboring Chad and surrounding countries ever since oil was discovered in large amounts.
To Unionist:
Do you believe the people of Sudan are against peacekeepers in their country? Does the government actually represent the people? And if not, why does it matter whether or not they're in favour of it?
I believe George W. Bush, Stephen Harper, Gordon Brown/Blair and others spend a lot of time sending troops and bombers to other countries because they know best what the "people want".
International law says that we keep our filthy mitts off other countries. If the people don't like their governments, they get rid of them. We don't.
Examples: Iraq. Afghanistan. Viet Nam. Etc.
I'm opposed to the premise that the 'international community' can protect the human rights of displaced peoples by abusing the human rights of the remainder, effectively choosing winners and losers.
The geopolitical intricacies of competing first world colonialist priorities and the machinations of third world hellholes at the UN conclude with ethnic cleansing winners prosecuting ethnic cleansing losers for 'war crimes' at the International Court of Kangaroo Justice when the lot of them are equally guilty.
International law says that we keep our filthy mitts off other countries. If the people don't like their governments, they get rid of them. We don't.
What if people would like to get rid of their government but are unable to because the government has too much military might? What if there are rebel groups terrorising the people and the government is not strong enough to protect them? And what about intervention that does not attempt to topple the government?
I don't support the idea of the West going into a country, eliminating their head of state, and imposing one who will be compliant to the West a la Afghanistan. But I also don't support the idea that we should just sit around while people are being slaughtered and brutalised and pretend it's not our problem.
What if people would like to get rid of their government but are unable to because the government has too much military might?
You mean, like the Canadian people who hate Harper but can't unseat him because of his draconian government? Yes, of course, I support a China-Iran-North Korean-Taliban expeditionary force coming in and liberating us.
Oh, you say that's not the same? Whereas Afghanistan and Iraq and Viet Nam and Nicaragua and Grenada and Panama and Iran and Kosovo and ... really really really did want to be "liberated"?
Whom will you put in charge of deciding when to invade and when not to invade?
Oh, wait, it's the United Nations. And the United Nations and international law say, "don't invade unless they're attacking you". Darn. We have to keep suffering under Harper.
What if there are rebel groups terrorising the people and the government is not strong enough to protect them?
Then when the government requests assistance, we consider when and how we should or should not assist.
When the government does not request assistance, we return to square one (keep your filthy mitts off).
And what about intervention that does not attempt to topple the government?
Like, when the Taliban and Chinese and Revolutionary Guard come here uninvited, set up military strongholds in PEI and Red Deer, but don't do an all-out attack on Ottawa? Yeah, I'm cool with that.
But I also don't support the idea that we should just sit around while people are being slaughtered and brutalised and pretend it's not our problem.
So when will you be invading Iraq and Afghanistan to help expel the U.S., NATO, etc.? Or are you pretending that the brutalization and slaughter of those people at the hands of the West are not our problem?
Nato's illegal, bloody, colonial occupation of Afghanistan has little to do with terrorism or teaching little girls how to read. It's about Peak Oil: an invasion led by the US in the primary goal of building oil pipelines from the Caspian Basin. Remember Greenspan's (or was it Kissinger's?) recent words about Iraq: "Of course, it's all about oil." So it this.
Global Research has some excellent articles about this.
You mean, like the Canadian people who hate Harper but can't unseat him because of his draconian government? Yes, of course, I support a China-Iran-North Korean-Taliban expeditionary force coming in and liberating us.
Oh, you say that's not the same? Whereas Afghanistan and Iraq and Viet Nam and Nicaragua and Grenada and Panama and Iran and Kosovo and ... really really really did want to be "liberated"?
Assuming that there was a situation in Canada as dire as the one in Sudan or the DRC, I would absolutely support a non-aggressive military intervention (as in an intervention which was intended to protect civilians and not topple the government) from another country to help us out, regardless of the government's stance.
Then when the government requests assistance, we consider when and how we should or should not assist.
When the government does not request assistance, we return to square one (keep your filthy mitts off).
Apparently you consider state sovereignty to be much more inviolable than I do. As far as I'm concerned, so long as the people being brutalised would like protection, it isn't really relevant what the host government wants. Human rights trump state's rights, period.
So when will you be invading Iraq and Afghanistan to help expel the U.S., NATO, etc.? Or are you pretending that the brutalization and slaughter of those people at the hands of the West are not our problem?
I've never advocated "expelling" anyone. My focus has clearly and consistently been on protecting civilians. Protecting civilians should be a starting point to bring about a negotiated, lasting solution to the conflict. The key difference in this case is not that it's "not our problem", but that I can't envision a scenario under which a foreign army or armies went into those countries to fight the U.S. and produced anything other than a significant increase in bloodshed. Certainly even if something is in principle a good idea, if it's not going to produce a positive result than it's not something we should follow through on.
Wow, Webgear, way to mix apples, oranges, and kumquats.
There is no U.N. "peacekeeping" mission in Afghanistan or Sudan.
Canada must get out of Afghanistan and stop committing war crimes and crimes against humanity there.
Canada must stay out of Sudan, where it has no business whatsoever (except maybe helping the U.S. expand its sphere of influence in north-east Africa).
Canada should indeed consider participating in MONUC (United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo), if invited to do so by the U.N.