Will the NDP/Liberal Coalition's Foreign Policy have Canadian Troop deployed to the Congo?

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 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 [7]

"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."

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!

Could a moderator please delete sniper's vile and offensive post?

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?

Obviously there would have to be considerable planning, and there would need to be solid rules as to the conditions, but I completely support a role for the Canadian military in the Congo.  "Peacekeeping" isn't really the right word for it, since peacekeeping is basically just enforcing a cease-fire agreement between two warring sides.  It would have to be a humanitarian mission to protect civilians.  The atrocities that have gone on in the Congo over the past 10-12 years are apalling, and I find it quite sad that the West hasn't made a serious effort to help out.

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.

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.

Serviced you say. 

It will interesting to see where this leads in the new year. I suppose much of this depends on the actions of the coalition.

In response to Spector: while the presence of major corporations, including Canadian mining interests in the Congo, is a source of serious concern, I find the idea that we should just sit back and watch the people of the Congo get decimated, just sit back while women are brutally assaulted, to be appalling.  Certainly any further intervention or increase in UN forces would need to be carefully planned and cautiously measured, but there are people who badly need protection, and they aren't currently getting it, and I think it's horrible that our governments are doing next to nothing about it.

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?

 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?

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.

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?

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.

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. 

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.

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).

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.

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.

To repeat - who decides what the people want? You? Would they request help through an email, or maybe via Facebook?

Ah, so because those invaders and occupiers are too strong militarily, we should leave them alone and not increase the bloodshed.

Your formula seems pretty neat. It has the U.S. and NATO going places to help people, but no one helping the people against the U.S. and NATO. At least it's easy to remember.

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=1054758&p=1

Michael Ignatieff, National Post 

Published: Wednesday, December 10, 2008

"In the grim present, humanitarian intervention feels like an idea whose time has come and gone. The reasons for this are worth exploring. For 10 years after the end of the Cold War, stopping ethnic cleansing and massacre became the cause celebres of every liberal internationalist. By early 2000, the idea that all states have a "responsibility to protect" civilians at risk in other states became something approaching a principle of international law.

In this moment of apparent triumph, it was easy to forget that this idea became possible simply because intervention ceased to carry the risk of armaggedon. The interventions in Kosovo and Bosnia were possible for the West because the Russians, however much they backed the losing Serbs, were unable and unwilling to stop NATO and the Americans. The East Timor intervention was possible because Indonesia lacked a protector powerful enough to forbid the creation of a free Timor.

The crisis in Georgia reminds us that we are no longer living in an era of Russian strategic weakness. The parenthesis that allowed humanitarian interventions to occur has come to an end. In the case of Georgia, the humanitarian impulse has collided with raw and unyielding power. Russia has gone ahead and declared the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This is an obvious riposte to Kosovo's independence, and therefore a warning that further humanitarian interventions of that type will not be tolerated in Russia's zone of influence."

Let the Africans sort it out themselves.

 European, especially French benevolence, in Africa consists of backing the tyrants that will allow French companies to prosper without any consideration of how many Africans suffer. The French pick winners and losers in the national interests of France without a care for local consequences. 

The French are no better or worse than other colonialists, including China and Russia - just callously open about it - turning their guns on any interference.

African countries will never accept responsibility for their own continent if they cannot build their own capacity for conflict resolution.

One of the original architects of the so-called "responsibility to protect" doctrine, and a "human rights" apologist for the Iraq war, Iggy demonstrates he has learned nothing in the past 15 years.

He still maintains the NATO attack on Serbia was a "humanitarian" war, and sees western meddling in Georgia as an other example of humanitarianism.

His latest screed lays bare the fundamental cowardice underlying the whole idea: "humanitarian" war can only be made on small countries that don't have any powerful allies like Russia or China. 

Let's think this through. If we start saying it's okay for one country to invade another as long as an Important Person reports that that's what "the people" want then the US invasion of Iraq was perfectly moral, the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan was perfectly moral, Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland was perfectly moral. In each of these cases the invading nation produced "really smart people" who claimed that the citizens longed for "liberation".

It's the White Man's Burden. The Holy Crusade. The War on Terror.

Even if it bears Stephen Lewis's face, it doesn't change its essence.

========================== Join M. Spector's tagline Satyagraha!

Why would you trust the same people who used "humanitarianism" as a cover for imperialist aggression to use the same "idea" again? If people misuse an idea you don't throw out the idea, but you do throw out the people.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

"Rape is currently being used not only as a consequential act of war - which would be bad enough - but as the very instrument for the waging of war itself, and where up to 70 per cent of women in targeted villages have been the victims of indiscriminate sexual violence. In a prescient statement of a crime foretold, even before this renewed violence Lewis described what is currently happening in the Congo as an act of "criminal international misogyny, sustained by the indifference of nation states and by the delinquency of the United Nations."

If Canada's leadership in the responsibility to protect doctrine, affirmed by the UN Security Council, is to find expression - and if the recent commemoration of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women is to be acted upon - it is imperative that Canada, in concert with the international community, address and act upon the worst ongoing humanitarian catastrophe since World War II.

Regrettably, Canada, together with the international community, continues to ignore the compelling lessons of history - in the Congo as well as in Darfur - that genocide occurs not only because of the machinery of death but also because of crimes of indifference, because of conspiracies of silence - because of bystanders facilitating the perpetrators.

Indeed, what made the genocide in Rwanda so unspeakable was not only the horror of the genocide itself, but that it was preventable. No one can say that we did not know. We knew, but did not act. Just as no one can say today that we do not know what is happening in Darfur - or in the Congo. We know but we are not acting."

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/554265

@ Webgear

African issues cannot be solved by non-African states.  No amount of 'international community' involvement will resolve anything.  The white colonial cavalry rode through there in the past, and undertaking more of the same sort of intervention isn't the answer.  I'm not sure what the solution is to be honest.  The AU might be better positioned to respond to crisis areas if they had a robust, superbly trained and equipped standing peacekeeping force, or peacemaking force if necessary, which is backed up by an AU security treaty and a permanent war crimes tribunal comprised of legal authorities from AU countries.  This is not to say that support cannot come from outside the AU AOR in the form of funding or technical assistance.  Direct military intervention by western nations in African affairs, either by colonial powers or through UN authority has been a failure and will continue to be.

Slumberjack, I agree with some of your points.

I am only providing statements from the Liberals and NDP members on the topic.

I have stated before that Canada should not become involved in Africa especially the conflict in Sudan.

I actually agree with The Bish that simply saying "let them sort their own shit out" isn't a real answer. I don't think people in the West (who've grown rich from colonialism) can simply walk away now and say, 'not my problem'.

More importantly, these comments fail to recognize that the "international community" is involved. Rwanda recieves extensive US aid and political support (a US "client state" in Cold War terms) which has continued to flow while they have invaded and sponsored terrorism against Congo. As a recent piece in Foreign Policy in Focus noted: "Bush knows that Rwanda’s involvement in the armed conflict in the DRC delays peace in eastern Congo, but he continues to authorize military aid to Rwanda. In 2007, the United States armed and trained Rwandan soldiers with $7.2 million from the U.S. defense program Africa Contingent Operations Training Assistance (ACOTA) and $260,000 from the International Military and Education (IMET) program. At the same time, the United States is involved in facilitating peace talks between Rwanda and the DRC and the various rebel groups operating in eastern Congo."

So, "non-African states" are involved and, if one were cynical, one might think that they have an agenda - namely aiding Rwanda's bid for regional domination. It's worth remembering that the US (under Clinton) enthusiastically backed Rwanda's bid to install Laurent Kabila as President of Congo and backed him gladly when they thought he'd toe the line. As the New York Times reported at the time: "IT was a high-powered team that President Clinton sent to meet with the new Government here: the United States representative to the United Nations, Bill Richardson; an assistant secretary of State; an admiral; a senior member of the National Security Council; a senior spy, a member of Congress. But ''the center of attraction,'' as Mr. Richardson said in introducing the delegation to Congolese officials, was the man from the Agency for International Development, Richard McCall. ''He has the money,'' Mr. Richardson said of Mr. McCall, third in command at the agency that doles out American largesse. All the new Congolese President, Laurent Kabila, has to do to get the money is become a democrat and free-market capitalist. Reinforcing that message, Commerce and Treasury officials were along, dangling financial lures. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were close behind." [50]

Of course, Kabila ultimately decided he didn't want to be a proxy and when he asked Rwandan troops to withdraw the war started again (with Rwandans fighting the President they helped install) and the US decided Kabila was a bad President.

The bottom-line: while the "international community" has wrung their hands, cried crocodile tears and supported peace talks, they've continued to fund Rwanda and (perhaps indirectly but probably not) Rwanda's ongoing efforts to conquer the DR of Congo.

The concern for "human rights" expressed by Irwin Cotler sounds admirable but is, ultimately an empty PR gesture. Cotler certainly hasn't expressed much desire to prosecute human rights violations in Israel's occupied territories (much less those committed by US adminitration).

And while there's something to be said for cracking down on the mining companies that seek to profit off the conflict Canada can't talk out of both sides of their mouth. When we encourage (or sit quiet while the US encourages) these countries to embrace globalization and capitalism we can't feign surprise when unscrupulous operators swoop in to make a profit.

If a peace process is going to work it has to be genuine and it has to be real. The US has to stop the two-faced routine where Rwanda gets harsh words in public but the money continues to flow. If - and it's a big if - the US is sincere about ending this conflict that needs to happen. And any Canadian government that's sincere about ending the war needs to be able to say that. Knowing the Liberal party, I don't have a lot of hope that a Coalition government (should it happen) would be willing to do so.

I'll note that Sweden and the Netherlands [52] have suspended some aid to Rwanda following the release of a report linking the Rwandan government to Laurent Nkunda's "rebels". [53]

Maybe the NDP and/or Liberals could be encouraged to do the same.

Is "the international community" synonymous with the West? Sounds like it, to hear people like Ignatieff talk. 

 Anyways, for sure the West is involved. How many Canadian mining companies are in the Congo already, causing the problems that intervention-boosters want to then "solve"?  

 http://www.dd-rd.ca/site/what_we_do/index.php?id=1489&page=7&subsection=themes&subsubsection=theme_documents

This article provides some insight into the depth to which Canadian mining companies (and the Canadian government) are involved in the Congo conflict. The Canadian companies of note are Barrick Gold and Banro though the article also notes that the TSX is where most of the speculative actibity in the mining sector happens:

"Most of this speculative activity is carried out on the Toronto stock exchange. About 60% of the world’s mining companies – not all necessarily Canadian – are quoted there. Canadian law affords the industry significant tax breaks, incentives for investors in the mining sector, lax controls on insider trading, and no serious requirement for companies to explain how they came by their profits. Between 2001 and September 2004, the Toronto stock exchange’s TSX Venture index – which favours mineral prospecting companies – showed that the value of share transactions rose from $800m to $4.4bn (6 [56]).

The government is prepared to support the Canadian mining industry’s foreign activities at any cost. It claims to be protecting the public interest on the grounds that the nation’s savings (pension and growth funds) are pegged to the industry. Despite many serious allegations of crimes and abuses in the Great Lakes region, Canada has conducted no recent political or legal investigation into the activities of any mining company. The country has turned itself into a legal haven for the industry."

Barrick Gold's Chairman, Peter Munk is, of course, the man who UofT obsequiously named their Centre for International Studies after (and who infamously praised Augusto Pinochet for "transforming Chile [57]"). The Liberals, when they mattered, benefited from his largesse. So, ironically enough, Cotler's re-election efforts have been paid for, in part, with the blood of the Congolese. Of course, Munk is now directing his energy towards supporting Stephen Harper (as the article notes).

http://www.thestar.com/article/570442

"The largest UN peacekeeping mission in the world today is in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The force has been expanded from an initial 5,000 troops to 17,000 today. It is a complex mission operating in a violent and unstable environment, involving a multitude of factions and states. Scores of UN peacekeepers have been killed since the operation began in 1999. Today the Congo is falling apart. This mission is anything but peaceful and non-violent.

We hear a lot in Canada about the joint African Union-United Nations peacekeeping mission in Darfur. Some 200,000 civilians have been killed in Darfur since 2003 at the hands of a Sudanese government allied militia known as the Janjaweed. The Bush administration called the Darfur crisis genocide. The atrocities have continued virtually unabated, notwithstanding the presence of a significant African Union force, which has now morphed into this much larger combined AU-UN operation. Darfur is a war zone - there is little peace to keep.

In 2005, then prime minister Paul Martin wanted to deploy the Canadian Forces to Darfur if the UN Security Council passed a resolution authorizing a mission. Canada's military leadership assessed the situation on the ground at that time and advised the prime minister that it could be more dangerous for Canadian troops in Darfur than in Kandahar."

Why should we be quoting known war criminals and mass murderers on a country which the US has admitted to forging intelligence ties with since 2005? We know about the oil discovery in Sudan - and that China now has business interests in 47 African countries - and we know the US and friends have worked to destabilize Sudan and surrounding nations since the 1970's.

 http://cpcml.ca/Tmld2009/D39015.htm#1

 "On January 16, Israeli Foreign Minister of Israel Tzipi Livni signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concerning the "ending of Gaza arms-smuggling" with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. This was Ms. Rice's last working day in office but her signature on behalf of the U.S. government binds the incoming administration. It should be noted that as a member of NATO, Canada is also bound to be dragooned into future U.S.-led aggression undertaken in the name of "stopping weapons flows to Hamas in Gaza."

According to the second specific undertaking of this MOU:

"2. The United States will work with regional and NATO partners to address the problem of the supply of arms and related materiel and weapons transfers and shipments to Hamas and other terrorist organizations in Gaza, including through the Mediterranean, Gulf of Aden, Red Sea and eastern Africa, through improvements in existing arrangements or the launching of new initiatives to increase the effectiveness of those arrangements as they relate to the prevention of weapons smuggling to Gaza. Among the tools that will be pursued are:

"Enhanced U.S. security and intelligence cooperation with regional governments on actions to prevent weapons and explosives flows to Gaza that originate in or transit their territories; including through the involvement of relevant components of the U.S. Government, such as U.S. Central Command, U.S. European Command, U.S. Africa Command, and U.S. Special Operations Command.

"* Enhanced intelligence fusion with key international and coalition naval forces and other appropriate entities to address weapons supply to Gaza;

"* Enhancement of the existing international sanctions and enforcement mechanisms against provision of material support to Hamas and other terrorist organizations, including through an international response to those states, such as Iran, who are determined to be sources of weapons and explosives supply to Gaza."

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

"Would you like to commend or criticize any particular Canadian politicians and/or political parties with respect to Darfur?

Darfur is a cross-party issue. In our campaign "Speak the Name," which we ran during the last federal election, we offered to any candidate that if they spoke about Darfur, that we would speak about them. We had ninety-two supporters, of which fifty-one were elected. We need to see that support turn into action. In particular, I travelled to Sudan with [Liberal MPs] Carolyn Bennett and Glen Pearson, who are phenomenal advocates for Darfur; [Liberal MP] Irwin Cotler and [NDP MP] Paul Dewar are other particularly strong allies.

Your literature refers to "advocacy" toward Canadian politicians. What exactly are you advocating them to do?

The Canadian government needs to lead the world in response to genocide, and particularly Darfur. Canadians wrote the Responsibility to Protect [R2P] doctrine, which posits that the international community needs to help protect the citizens of a country from persecution if their government does not, and we need to uphold this. We need to pressure the United Nations [UN] to fully deploy peacekeepers, to help facilitate peace talks with tribal leaders, and to divest Canadian institutions from holdings in the worst offender companies doing business in Sudan.

So would your support for foreign intervention in Darfur extend to support for military intervention? Can the genocide be stopped without military intervention? By whom?

We want to see the UN mission be effective-and for this to happen, the full deployment of peacekeepers needs to occur, and we cannot kowtow to the desires of the Sudanese government. "

Ryerson Meets Darfur

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

CONGO WOMEN

A panel discussion on the plight of women in the Democratic Republic of Congo takes place March 20 from 4:30 to 6 p.m. at the Liu Institute for Global Issues at UBC. It's organized by the Africa Canada Accountability Coalition. Speakers include NDP Foreign Affairs Critic Paul Dewar and Major General (Retired) Philip Lancaster, a senior official to peacekeeping operations.

http://www2.canada.com/vancouvercourier/news/communitybriefs/story.html?id=ab815f62-8cf6-41e3-9a8b-fee6af0db47e 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

Israel is not a member of NATO and there is nothing in the NATO Charter that would force Canada to become militarily involved in the Sudan.

According to former Gen. Rick Hillier and Stephen Harper, Canada's military is overstreatched in Afghanistan and is currently unable to make commitments anywhere else.

See my comments on NATO in The Afghan people will win - Part 3 thread. 

Statement from Jack Layton on the 15th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide

"When the killing started in Rwanda, the rest of the world made the decision to turn away. This is why it is so important now for Canada to follow the example of Roméo Dallaire and participate wholeheartedly in efforts to bring peace and stability to the Darfur region of Sudan, and to the Democratic Republic of Congo."

http://www.ndp.ca/press/statement-from-jack-layton-on-15th-anniversary-r...

This was Prime Minister Paul Martin's sentiment in 2005. While Gen. Rick Hillier was pushing for redeploying troops from Kabul to Kandahar, Martin wanted to send a mission to the Sudan.

Martin: "Will Canada's role in Southern Afghanistan be humanitarian?"

Hillier: "Yes"

Martin: "Will our troops be engaged in combat?"

Hillier: "The mission of our troops will be to protect the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). Should there be any combat, I expect it to be light."

Martin: "The Canadian military will then be able to support both the Afghan as well as a Sudan mission in Darfur?"

Hillier: "Yes."

As events turned out, we know that insurgent activity in Southern Afghanistan was not "light" (the Afghan war has been escalating ever since) and the Canadian military was not capable of conducting both operations.

What our military lie?

There is a reason the military has a propaganda arm.

Every organization has a propaganda arm.

Yeah, the kinder, gentler word is "spin". The Army refers to its "spin doctors" as Public Information Officers or Assisstants - PIOs or PIAs - something the Army probably borrowed from civilian marketing (advertizing) agencies.

Dewar called on the Canadian government to:

• Contribute to the UN peacekeeping mission with personnel and resources that are desperately needed
• Take action against sexual violence
• Monitor the operations of the Canadian mining companies in the Congo and adopt Corporate Social Responsibility methods that ensure protection of human rights and the environment
• Change the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act to make it easier to manufacture and export drugs to help fight HIV/AIDS and TB
• Help protect the rain forest of the Congo through the Convention on Biological Diversity

"Canada's reaction to the escalating humanitarian crisis in the Congo has been inadequate" concluded Dewar. "Congo is calling - will Canada answer?"

http://www.ndp.ca/press/dewar-congo-calling-will-canada-answer

"to divest Canadian institutions from holdings in the worst offender companies doing business in Sudan." from #53 above.

this seems to be the lynch pin.  if this is done, UN forces may not be needed in a country.  if it's not done, UN forces will have too many privately funded paramilitaries to contend with, and be overpowered.

I can't tell if Layton is, like Harper, exploiting imperial assaults on weak nations because he's a cynical, power-hungry prick, or if he genuinely believes in "humanitarian intervention".

The latter is a more dangerous postition.

Jingles, I know that many people are appalled at the way military 'humanitarian' intervention has been abused by powerful states.

Maybe its important to more clearly define what 'intervention' can be, and what forms of it are not good.

Or maybe different terms should be used altogether.

Like, particularly wrt the DRC, stopping Canadian corporations from exploiting the DRC's resources.

As its our bankers and corporations, funding and fueling the conflict there, taking responsibility for our own behaviour is key.

Is this what they call 'economic sanctions'?  or does that term refer to strangling the indigenous development efforts of peoples in the DRC?

i need some clarity on that definition, if any can help. thanks.

"Blanket" economic sanctions would be a cessation of all trade.

"Targeted" economic sanctions would target that trade which funds (fuels) the insurgency in the DRC and surrounding countries.

I would like to know what difference the NDP believes the Canadian Forces will make in the Congo?

Webgear, do you mean Congo (DRC) or Sudan?

Canadian troops are already stationed in the DRC, engaging in peacekeeping under the U.N.

There are no Canadian troops (not formally, that I know of) stationed in the Sudan.

Do you mean "What difference the NDP believes the Canadian Forces will make in the Sudan?"

What role do you think they should play: U.N. peacekeeping like in the DRC, or NATO peacemaking (warmaking), like in Afghanistan?

There are a minimum of 12 soldiers already operating in the DRC and at least 30 operating in Sudan.

I will expand my question to the follow:

"What difference the NDP believes the Canadian Forces will make in the Sudan or the DRC?"

As for the role I am only interested in what the NDP or the left in general feels as what our role should be.

Current Canadian operations link

http://www.comfec-cefcom.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/ops/index-eng.asp

My opinion is that we should avoid the war is the only option mentality. When discussing what, it anything, should be done in the DRC or the Sudan, we should discuss all options, including maintaining the status quo and doing nothing. War should be the last option.

This should be our guiding principle: "Act so as to ensure the greatest good and the least harm to the greatest number of those involved" (may include "non-human actors" ie., the environment and animal beings).

Do you believe the NDP's press statements?

Do you realize that 143 UN personnel have died in the DRC since 1999 and almost 50 have been killed in Sudan since 2005. Total UN forces in both countries under 40,000.

So what's your point?

Is it that same old crap argument that because European soldiers have died in a foreign conflict we have to send more soldiers to die (for multinational corporations) so that they will not have "died in vain"? How do you resolve that contradiction?

As I've said before, war is killing, injuring and destroying.

So tell me Webgear, who benefits from war?

Sorry, my cut and paste did not work well.

I meant to add a long and detailed paragraph about the dangers of entering these two countries.

Here is the Coles Notes version:

I did not believe we should go in to Africa. 

Stand Canada and other activists are urging the Canadian government to publicly condemn the government of Sudan and work closely with the international community to bring justice and aid to Darfur.

They want Prime Minister Stephen Harper to publicly state his government's support for the ICC's findings and to confirm that it will arrest Mr. Bashir if the opportunity arises and turn him over to the ICC.

Canada should also "appoint a high-level envoy for Sudan to provide constant, timely information on the fate of the Darfuri people and Canadian citizens providing aid in the region."

Finally, Canada, as co-chair of the Friends of the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID), should push for full deployment of this mission, the activists said.

The UNAMID was expected to be operating in full force in 2008 with 26,000 police and military personnel, but Mr. Laski said that to date only about 60 percent of the troops have been deployed.

In addition, Stand Canada is urging the Canadian government to provide more helicopters for the mission and consider supporting creation of a no-fly zone over Darfur.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/15308/

[82]

STRONGER ROLE FOR CANADA: NDP Foreign Affairs Critic Paul Dewar speaking at the April 7 rally on what more Canada can do in Darfur

Stooges. Well they demand Harper arrest Bush or Rice on arrival, or are they only interested in punishing Africans?

More soldiers is not the solution but more effective use of the force that is there in the DRC.  The recent successes have occurred through more cooperation between the Rwandan government and the DRC government.  More effort is being made to cooperate with the Ugandan government as well to deal with as many rebel factions as possible that affect stability in the region as a whole.  Canadian efforts need to be placed on increased diplomatic efforts and support for disarmament programs like AMANI which has been successful in other conflicts in disarming rebel groups cooperatively and working to reintegrate them into their respective societies. This isn't easy to call for.  I think the myth that military power stills symbolizes a superior contribution to diplomatic or development aid is very strong in the minds of most Canadians.  This is a trap I think both the ndp and greens find themselves in.  How do you manoever to calling for what is needed and still appeal to the call for military involvement.  Peacekeeping isn't just about sending troops into the conflict.  So if the ndp leadership believes that simply sending more troops is all that is required then they are on the wrong track and that isn't how to create a real peacekeeping focus for Canada.

Endorsing the arrest of Bashir also doesn't accomplish anything because it took more than one person to kill over a million people in the last decade in African conflict.  It's tragic that it appears to take only the condemnation of one man to satisfy moral outrage and ultimately allows war crimes and violations to continue.  It also allows the terms genocide and ethnic cleansing to be used as a mask for the real ambitions in the region.  The DRC is still largely about economic and resource exploitation and ethnic conflict is not the real issue.  So I agree with the idea that it is the conduct of economic policies and the activities of Canadian mining corporations and others in the region that must be addressed.  Support should be given to the African Union to keep working on solutions and for the Great Lakes Region Peace and Security pact to be supported and developed into reality.  Canada played a key role in advising on the development of the GLR Peace and Security pact and that is the role it should increase and focus on. 

R2P may sound good.  Peace making may sound good but these doctrines are not used for the altruistic purposes they propose.  Article 3 of the R2P doctrine talks about the need to endorse the responsibility to prevent before military intervention can be used.  Yet this is presented and defended in an atmosphere that has guaranteed that there are mechanisms in place already to prevent this from being achieved.  We already have all the necessary agreements in place to help prevent conflict through the very nature of development aid but we don't use it effectively.  The UN security council is still used exclusively for the the exploitation of countries by the veto holding powers.  Until the UN security council is reformed article 3 will remain ineffective and unused.  But the call for military intervention is alive and well even as Canada, the main driver of R2P, claims it is only a last resort tactic. 

So I don't believe the ndp when they make their public claims because I can't believe that this is the real debate going on internally.  I'd like to believe that the ndp are having the same conflicts as the greens in this area.  How to disengage from the seduction of military intervention and only paying lip service to diplomatic and development efforts and to call for a real endorsement of the ICC and war crimes in the world.  That requires a party that can publicly stand up to Canadian allies as well as African violaters. Do the ndp and the greens actually have the resolve to do this? So what is the ndp policy and plan to revive and finally achieve the goal of making Canada a peacekeeping/building nation?  That needs to become the public statement focus from the party in order to bring about the real debate that is necessary. Bill Siksay has started a draft of private members legislation to form a Canadian Department or Ministry of Peace.  He believes that it needs to be a stand alone full Ministry and not a department within DFAIT.  A Ministry of Peace has been Green Party policy for twenty years and this is an area that the ndp and greens can cooperate to bring about a real debate on Canada's approach to international conflict intervention.   

 These are recent policy resolutions I helped bring through at the recent Green Party convention in February. It continues to be my effort to convince my colleagues that Canada needs to publicly disengage from the myth of military intervention and the idea of 'humanitarian war'. The shift has to be on cooperative support for the African continent through whatever means Africans themselves see fit. If that is the African Union, which it seems to be, then Canada needs to support the African Union to find its own solutions to continental conflict.

G08-p075: Support for the African Union

BE IT RESOLVED that the Green Party of Canada support recommitting and strengthening Canada's support for the African Union and development in African nations by

1. providing diplomatic support for the further strengthening of the African Union as needed and requested by it;

2. providing increased peace keeping expertise and financial support and training as needed and requested by KAIPTC (Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre) and or other African peacekeeping training centre that may evolve in future in order to develop strong African Union peacekeeping forces;

3. committing to providing further support in the development of regional peace and security agreements that are negotiated by African nations for African nations;

4. recommitting and strengthen foreign aid as appropriate to individual recipient African nations under the Green Party of Canada's "whole of government" holistic approach;

5. continuing to pressure oppressive governments in cooperation and consultation with the African Union to cease human rights violations, government sponsored violence.

G08-p074: CIDA Reform and ODA Level of Assistance

BE IT RESOLVED that the Green Party of Canada support Canada taking immediate steps to enhance its level of and delivery of foreign aid by

1. Increasing its foreign aid each year in a manner that reaches the goal of 0.7% of GDP by 2016 and further will attempt a target of 1% of GDP by 2020 and further commits to 'untie' all aid in regards to required Canadian procurement provisions in the spirit of the 2005 Paris Declaration;

2. Reforming and restructuring the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) in a manner that achieves the most effective aid delivery possible in cooperation with recipient and other donor countries and to the unique, specified needs of recipient partner countries; and

3. Moving CIDA operations under the operations umbrella of a newly created Canadian Department of Peace and Security, and create a new senior Cabinet position for a Minister of Peace & Security to replace the junior Cabinet Minister position for the International Cooperation/CIDA portfolio.

mimeguy

Thank you for the interesting posts, I have a few questions for you?

1. In what manner would the Green Party reorganized/restructure the Canadian International Development Agency?

2. Is the Green Party only focusing on Africa for aid?

3. It is my understanding that both the UN and AU are calling for additional troops/technical support increases for Africa missions does that change the Green Party's view on Canadian troops being deployed to either the Sudan or DRC?

Hi webgear. Thanks for the questions.

The Government of Sudan, protected by China's need for its oil, continues to defy the United Nations. It even attacks, with impunity, the UNAMID troops deployed to protect Darfuris and aid agencies. It is emboldened by world leaders who have turned a blind eye to the genocide.

Dr Clement Apaak, founder of Canadian Students for Darfur, declares "After the preventable Rwandan genocide, world leaders, who did nothing to stop it, swore 'Never again!' but now they are callously facilitating another genocide."

Confirmed speakers include MPs Don Davies, Sukh Dhaliwal & Bill Siksay, Adrienne Carr of the Green Party of Canada, Dr Michael Byers, Professor Peter Prontzos and high-school & university students. Letters of support from Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP MP Peter Julian will be read. In addition to live African drumming, there will also be live music.

At the protest, Canadian Students for Darfur will release its new position paper explaining what the Harper government can do to stop the genocide.

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Canadian-Students-For-Darfur-979694.html

"Letters of support from Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff..."

He supported the Iraq war, torture to swiftly gain 'urgent' information and he supports the Afghan war.

"Dr Clement Apaak, founder of Canadian Students for Darfur, declares "After the preventable Rwandan genocide, world leaders, who did nothing to stop it, swore 'Never again!' but now they are callously facilitating another genocide."

There is no evidence that the Rwandan genocide could have been prevented. If Dallaire had received the troops he requested and the UN defended its mandate more aggressively it would have slowed it down. The genocide happened with lightning speed occurring over a period of mere months. The UN is incapable of reacting within this short a time frame under any aspect of R2P including military intervention. The roots of the motivations for the genocide also go back into the history of the region and would not prevented, only altered it. No one knows how many lives the UN could have saved if it had listened to Dallaire. Rwanda is not the model to use because there are other genocides happening. Afghanistan and Iraq prove there are no short wars when it comes to intervention. We have killed more Afghans than the former Taliban government could ever dream of, even if they were as barbaric as they were portrayed to be. We have all the mechanisms we need to prevent things like DRC and Darfur already but they require self examination. They require not only the concept of Responsibility to Protect but more importantly, responsibility not to be complicit. So long as we refuse to acknowledge this truth there is no solution only duplicity. The carnage in Darfur continues because the government is protected by China? It's protected because oil and oil exploration is exempt from sanctions including western oil companies not just China. Why are we outraged by China but not the U.S., Canada, and Britain over Iraq and Afghanistan? Zimbabwe is protected by South African resistance to sanctions and pressure. North Korea is free to continue the internal abuse of its population. Canada was and remains complicit in Haiti even as we proposed R2P and are set to defend it again this spring. Why is the systematic killing, torture and abuse of political groups exempt from our outrage? Why is it less horrendous than ethnic killing? 

A lot of questions. No answers except maybe the lame ones like, "Well we can't be everywhere." This has never been the point and never will be.

1. Responsibility not to be complicit. - Possible solution?  Canada as a nation needs to withdraw from the global economic and political exploitive strategies.  Neutrality.  Neutrality does not mean inaction or prevent Canada from joining an intervention on its own terms based on its own independent assessment of the crisis. 
2. Responsibility to Protect. - Possible solution?  The UN Security Council needs to be reformed first to remove veto power.  A country can refuse to participate but cannot block an action.  UN Security Council must be equipped to confront its own members and investigate when evidence of complicity or duplicity is presented. 
3. Responsibility to Prevent (Article 3 of R2P doctrine) - Stop basing development aid on welfare models and so called 'bang for the buck' assessment programs.  Sierra Leone, Guinea Bissau and other countries threaten to slide back into violence but are not considered good development prospects. Make serious commitments to existing development aid structures and respect for sovereignty.  Elimination of all political parties and movements from development aid.  The overthrow of Aristide in Haiti was in part financed under the disguise of democratic development and funding of opposition groups who were most likely a part of the coup d'etat.   
4. Redefine genocide as it pertains to outside military intervention.  At what point does the international community intervene?  Cultural strangulation and oppression?  Denial of religious freedom as part and parcel of ethnic identity?  Is military intervention only a response to the actual killing of identified groups?  If so how many people have to die first? 
5. Quit trying to 'sell' one genocide or intervention scenario over another to gain sympathy for intervention.  This is where strong, neutral, independent diplomatic assessment is necessary.     

"oil and oil exploration is exempt from sanctions" [from#81]

can you elaborate on this please?  is this part of an official UN agreement?

 Is there a connection between the NDP/Liberal foreign policy towards Sudan/DRC and their connection to President Obama?

http://www.embassymag.ca/page/view/chatter_house-5-6-2009

Parliament Hill staff and a handful of MPs gathered in Centre Block's elegant committee rooms last Wednesday to focus on what Canada could do to end the plight of sexual violence suffered by women and girls in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Darfur.

NDP Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar and the all-party Parliamentary Group for the Prevention of Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity hosted the event to raise awareness of the tragedies and turn the tide on the "silence and indifference" they say have characterized the global response for too long. The committee hopes to propose an action plan for Canada in the Congo.

"There is no more war in Darfur, according to the outgoing military commander of the joint UN-African Union (UNAMID) peacekeeping force of the western Sudan region."

"'As of today, I would not say there is a war going on in Darfur,' Martin Luther Agwai told correspondents."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090827/wl_africa_afp/sudanconflictdarfur

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091015/wl_nm/us_congo_democratic_massacre

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/darfur-a-deadly-new-chapt...

Winter of Bashir's Discontent

http://www.creative-i.info/?p=5943

"Americans need to recognize that the administration of President Barack Obama has begun to step up war for control of Sudan in keeping with the permanent warfare agenda of both Republicans and Democrats. The current destabilization of Sudan mirrors the illegal covert guerrilla war carried out in Rwanda - also launched and supplied from Uganda - from October 1990 to July 1994.

The Rwanda Defence Forces (then called the Rwanda Patriotic Army) led by Major Paul Kagame achieved the US objective of a coup d'etat in Rwanda through that campaign, and President Kagame has been a key interlocutor in the covert warfare underway in Darfur, Sudan.."

Keith Harmon Snow is an excellent source of information on this area: see www.allthingspass.com [98]

U.N. DRC exit strategy:

That's interesting considering the bill that Senator Russ Feingold has introduced in the U.S.  A strategy for the U.S. to take a major role in Northern Uganda and a campaign to isolate the LRA from other rebel groups.    

http://tiny.cc/hkiJw

"Tuesday, November 17, 2009 

Washington, D.C. - The Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed bipartisan legislation today authored by U.S. Senator Russ Feingold and cosponsored by Sam Brownback (R-KS) requiring the Obama administration to develop a new multifaceted strategy to confront one of Africa's longest running rebel groups, the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA).  For more than two decades, under the leadership of Joseph Kony, the LRA has kidnapped more than 66,000 children and forced them to fight as child soldiers, wreaking havoc in northern Uganda and southern Sudan, and more recently, northeastern Congo and Central African Republic.  Feingold's bipartisan Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act requires the United States to work with multilateral partners to develop a viable path to disarm the LRA, while ensuring the protection of civilians."  

The militarization of human rights and the mess in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is as bad as Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/world/africa/10congo.html?ref=global-h...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/world/africa/14congo.html?_r=1&ref=wor...

If this is what the U.N. led peacekeeping mission in the DR Congo is like, imagine how much worse a NATO led peacemaking mission would be.

Travers: A military in search of a mission

"As a bright three-star general awaits his next assignment, Canada's battle-hardened armed forces may have to exorcise old demons as they define a new role."

 NDP wants education, peacekeeping on G8 agenda

"But Dewar suggested one way of helping vulnerable countries would be for Canada to take up the peacekeeping role it performed from the 1960s until the focus changed to a combat role.

"One thing Canadians would like to see is Canada getting back into peacekeeping," he said, adding there are peacekeeping missions needed in both Congo and Sudan."

I have seen some vague and poorly written news article today stating the NDP wants to remain in Afghanistan post 2011.

Paul Dewar is behind the quotes such as:

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100323/ndp_g8_100323/20...

You mean this: http://www.pauldewar.ca/en/in-parliament/133-speech-on-the-extension-of-...

I read through that. He could have been saying anything, or nothing, I can't really tell, but from my past experience, the latter is more likely than the former.

I must say, this is compelling:

Will the Liberals or the Conservatives be able to find an Afghan of their own?

But that is probably old, hard to tell, his website doesn't date things.

There are plenty of Canadian-Afghans that will work for any political party. The current Governor of Kandahar is from British Columbia.

In that case Canadian politics might get a little bit more lively considering the means through which Afghan's practice politics. Will Kenny intervene and get Rashid Dostum citizenship so he can be enrolled as a party organizer in Alberta?

I find Dostum is a misunderstood person. He would be an effective party organizer, and would bring a large amount of leadership to any party he belongs to.

He does have experience working in the unions; maybe the CAW will take him. He could get them those government contacts that they always wanted.

The reason, I see, why you did not quote  what backs up your statement was because there wasn't any made ....to back up your claims....

Yeah, yeah. He just happened to drop the missive about "Canadians wanting to get back in to 'peacekeeping", as opposed to combat operations.... blue helmets all around... problem solved.

"Cannon told the business audience the unstable border between Afghanistan and Pakistan should be addressed as well as the latter's attempts to "weed out evil extremism."

That's certainly a priority, agreed Dewar, who added Cannon should also focus on Canadian involvement once our combat troops are pulled out of Afghanistan in 2011.

In particular, he said, there should be more support for democratic governance, human rights and education.

"There's a huge opportunity for us to help in education," Dewar said."

still no back up......

Problem Solved... everyone happy now?

Cueball

I am always happy.

Where did you get the picture from?

Remind

I am missing point of view on post #104.

That is because it is a parry of view not a point of view.

Dostum is a war criminal. He commanded a transfer of Taliban prisoners to U.S. positions in cargo containers in 2001. Many of the prisoners died of suffocation, heat exhaustion, dehydration, etc. Some were summarily executed by being shot at point blank range with automatic weapons. The bodies were buried in mass graves out in the barren desert. The incident is under investigation and there are questions of CIA involvement.

Yeah, Dostum is definitely "misunderstood".

That is your opinion of what "good" members of the CAW are like?

UN to Canada - We need your help in the Congo

UN official uses GG's visit to issue direct appeal to Ottawa [122]

"GOMA, CONGO-The United Nations issued a direct, public appeal to Canada Tuesday, asking for the country's help with the international peacekeeping operation in the troubled Democratic Republic of the Congo."

Sorry, I need to close this. Long thread.