babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Paul Dewar wants "stronger U.N. mandate" on Syria
May 29, 2012 - 3:31pm
*
While the U.N. has condemned the Syrian regime for shelling Houla - causing some 20 casualties - there is no credible finding yet, as far as I have seen, as to who committed the massacre of about 80 other residents, more than half of them children.
This did not stop Paul Dewar from pursuing his old policy - same as his temporary replace Hélène Laverdière (whose name he never managed to pronounce) - of trying to be one step ahead of the U.S. and (wherever possible) Harper in taking imperialist foreign policy stands.
Today, in remarks to the media, he supported the expulsion of remaining Syrian diplomats; supported the further isolation of Syria; took for granted that the Assad regime was responsible for the massacre; and said that negotiations are under way to formulate a unanimous motion of the House to put pressure on Russia and to press for what he called a "stronger U.N. mandate".
He must have bombs left over after Libya.
Some will say that this isn't Dewar, it's simply NDP policy. But Dewar has, in the past, anticipated extremely reactionary stands (like issuing a statement together with Wayne Marston praising Harper for being the first state leader to announce a boycott of Durban II) which had to be moderated or reversed altogether.
I'm hoping this is just Dewar, and not the NDP. And I'm hoping not to be proven wrong.
Better a UN mandate than a NATO one.
Define what a stronger UN mandate means?
bombs
..if i recall libya was a un mandate that used nato.
How can you hope it's Dewar and not the NDP? Of course it is. This is in line with Baird yesterday and the rest of the imperial stool pigeons which all started singing this same tune simultaneously. Syria's simply the next domino in the game. And of course they haven't even bothered to inquire/mention the bloody mess they've left in Libya. Alas, as all eyes follow the MSM agenda, even 'progressive' ones, theirs are not the only ones.."
Yes, and I suppose a NATO mandate would be better than, say, a U.S.-Canada coalition of the willing. But that doesn't necessarily make interference in a civil war, and isolation of the Syrian regime, something that Canadians should be grandstanding for.
I don't know - Dewar said it, I didn't. But I think we can guess, from previous statements, that it means more interference on behalf of the "West", and more egging on Harper (as if he needs it) to support interference and taking sides, and not less:
"Canada should immediately recall our ambassador from Syria."
“This morning we were pleased to hear Minister Baird finally recognize the role of democracy promotion,” said Laverdière, “but this needs to be done hand-in-hand with conflict prevention. We hope he will take this very seriously in the coming weeks.”
Etc. etc. Oh, and then there was Libya.
I hope he had the fake picture from BBC's initial report to show the nature of the atrocity. The NDP could have been talking for weeks about the escalation of foreign intervention and the arms being shipped into the area. That is what has left no possibility of a peaceful transition to democracy. The people voted this year for a peaceful process and the West including the NDP doesn't give a flying fuck what the people of Syria voted for. They know better and they will arm the "good" guys to ride in on their "white" horses to save the day.
fake picture?
BBC Uses Fake Photo for Houla Massacre
http://rabble.ca/comment/1349527
Are you suggesting that this could be another false flag sword operation orchestrated by the Gladio Gang and their Qa'eda pals with propaganda assists from lapdog newz media, U?
see 'Syria' thread:
http://rabble.ca/comment/1349794
Hollande, Harper, Baird, Dewar et al sing from same imperialist songsheet:
"It is not possible to allow Bashar al Assad's regime to massacre its own people. I want what happened in Libya to be perceived as proof that foreign intervention is possible in Syria. Homs today is Benghazi yesterday,' Francois Hollande
wowser...nothin is too low in their desire to have it all.
Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition:
Canada is becoming a military security economy and the NDP is cheering on the war mongers. it is obvious they will never ask why we need offensive attack planes only which brand and model because they keep wanting to use the RCAF to "protect" the world.
Killing babies is nothing new in the propaganda game. More and more it seems that the powers that run the world are reverting to the playbook from the period just before and during WWI.
That great era when America "liberated" Cuba and the Philippines from the Spanish. Hearst would be proud of the BBC and the rest of the war peddling press.
Clearly the NATO countries have been pouring gas onto a fire for 6 months and now they want to be hired to put out the blaze.
RE: Dewar, the NDP and Libya all over again..
I don't know how many times and how many ways they have to demonstrate they are simply a subservient satellite's servants to the imperial court, before people finally get it so we can call a spade a spade or a lackey a lackey and move on to something better.
I once watched a video of a couple of chimpanzees throwing bits of fruit to attract some chickens, which they then whaled away at with sticks and branches with great glee and gusto, as the chickens made a noisy retreat. This was repeated several times - the monkeys throwing down the fruity bait then whacking away with their sticks and laughing uproariously as the same stupid chickens went for the fruity bits over and over again.
It seems the phenomenon is not so unusual..
But the fruity bits are soooo yummy!
I'm listening. What is it that people don't get?
What something better do you see people moving on to?
Well if I were to take a guess at the answer, it would be that our political system is heavily populated by stooges, or something like that. And regular folks don't normally abide with gangs of thugs who conspire to commit murder, and so perhaps people might just consider moving on from all of that for starters. Moving on from sycophants like Dewar, the party, and the type of politics he represents so well.
I agree that our political system is heavily populated by stooges. But I think most people get that. I don't think that's much of a revelation.
I'd love to see Dewar moved to another position and give foreign affairs to someone who can take it in a better direction. I think it's possible that that could be made to happen via an intelligent campaign of interested people.
But I ask again, what is it that people don't get?
And what something better do you see people moving on to?
SJ is correct. Dewar, Layton, Mulcair, Laverdiere, no difference partiers all - lesser evil still evil. Libya? Israel? You support that? If not stop voting for it. If you want more of the same just keep on voting for it. If not - make something better. Lots of models/examples for change: Quebec students are one. Venezuela is another. Otherwise just keep scratching in the shit looking for the tasty bits and hoping the stick hits the others not you. Cluck, cluck, cluck..
I know NDPP said that, but personally, I don't think that's the issue. I think the issue is for progressive people to unwaveringly expose and oppose support for imperialist murderers and gangsters, wherever that support might manifest itself - such as, in the foreign affairs critic of the NDP.
It was that kind of staunch opposition which led to the overwhelming adoption by the 2006 NDP convention in Québec City of a resolution demanding immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan. Of course, that was just the beginning of the battle within the NDP against stooges like Dawn Black and others, who tried everything in their power to subvert and sabotage that resolve. But it was much better than nothing. Imagine if the NDP had continued to spew Jack Layton's shameful line of the 2005-6 campaign, that all we want is to have the matter debated in Parliament.
Likewise, it was that kind of staunch opposition which forced Layton to abjure Dewar and Marston's sycophantic support for Harper's boycott of Durban II. And there are many other examples.
Dewar should be denounced as a spokesperson for aggression and imperialist intervention, for starters. If it turns out that he has support - that he is speaking for the caucus, or the leader - then the struggle should be taken to that level. What we don't want is that the only opposition to this thug should be found in the pages of babble. But, it's a start.
What do you think, wage zombie?
I largely agree with this, although my approach would be a bit different. I don't care much about denouncing Dewar as an imperialist stooge...what's important to me is that his performance as foreign affairs critic is not acceptable and we need someone who can take it in a better direction. Ideally we could find a place for Paul Dewar where his values will align more with the values of the base.
I'm not a Dewar fan and I voiced that frequently during the leadership debate. But our coalition is going to have to be wide enough to include people like Paul Dewar or else its not going to be wide enough to win. I don't want to compromise on values but if we can be inclusive without doing so then that seems like the way to go.
So I agree with what you're saying needs to happen but I don't think it's about calling Paul Dewar names, it's about getting the NDP foreign policy on track, and currently it's way off track.
You are right that this should go beyond babble. I think in order to be successful such an initiative would have to be member-driven though. That's how it works with member-based organizations. And that makes it a lot tougher because many people who could really help push this have no desire to become members.
Currently the NDP does not really have the infrastructure in place to manage conversations like these, which is a separate (although related) issue.
Can you provide more details about how these are useful models for change?
I support the Quebec student protest and I will go to solidarity protests here in BC. I think it's great, and I think it can have a significant effect on public opinion and policy. Do I think there is any chance the Quebec student protests will lead to systemic change? Like a dissolution of the government? No, I don't.
What is the model that Venezuela provides? How is it applicable to Canada?
The thing is, I'm not the one you need to convince. When the Occupy was going on in Vancouver I was down there most days. I go to protests just to be a body. If there's a revolution happening I will have heard about the action weeks in advance as it's being planned and I'll be there that day and beyond.
But none of this is mutually exclusive from being an NDP supporter. I can do both. I'm going to try to do anything that I think will have an effect, and I'm going to use my own sense of reason to figure out what those things are.
Yes, I agree with you. Everything is under control. Democracy is a sham. It will bring about nothing but incremental change. I'll take whatever incremental change that's within reach while I do what I can to hasten the revolution.
But I'm waiting to hear the magic plan. What's the alternative? I stop voting and supporting NDP and then all of a sudden utopia is here?
If we can't even convince the NDP to stop bombing sovereign countries then where does the popular movement come from that's going to change poilicy.
I'd happily abandon the NDP if anyone could convince me that results could be better achieved another way...but frankly I've seen nothing compelling to suggest this.
I think I agree with you about it having everything to do with getting NDP foreign policy on track rather than Dewar. If again, like Libya, we see a unanimous NDP vote to support bombing or invade Syria, it will be Washington or Tel Aviv driven, not 'member-driven', in any case. Deal with the big problem of the organ grinders' agenda first - the monkey's will follow from there.