The NDP Wants To Negotiate with This?

I will not profess to have compiled this myself but have, in fact, lifted these from various other sources. In the face of various comments made lately by "Taliban Jack" Layton (this is his new nickname within the Canadian Forces, the ones he says he supports), and the NDP's descent into some of the worst practices (taking quotes out of context to support their cause) I thought it might be useful to take a look at the very people he wants Canada to negotiate with.

Amnesty International - Afghanistan - Feb 28, 2001

Massacres in Yakaolang

For several days Taleban forces massacred over 300 unarmed men and a number of civilian women and children. The victims were either summarily executed or deliberately killed.

Eyewitnesses told Amnesty International: "Some people in Kata Khana ran to the mosque for shelter thinking the Taleban would respect the sanctity of the mosque, but they were wrong!" They said they saw Taleban guards deliberately firing two rockets at the mosque where some 73 women, children and elderly men had taken shelter. The building collapsed on them but the Taleban guards would not allow anyone to go to their rescue for three days, by which time all those in the mosque had died except for two small children.

More on link

Amnesty International - Afghanistan - Feb 28, 1999

Detention and killing of political personalities

Up to 200 Afghan political personalities have been arrested in the past year apparently on account of their peaceful political activities and opposition to the continued armed conflict in the country. Those arrested include Afghan intellectuals, community leaders, former army officers or civil servants. The vast majority of the detainees are reportedly non-combatants arrested solely for their activities in support of peace and a broad based government in Afghanistan. Most of these detainees have reportedly been severely tortured. Over a dozen of them have been killed after their arrest. Some of the detainees have been released but as of February 1999, around 100 still remain in detention.

More on link

Amnesty International - Afghanistan Mar 31, 1998

Flagrant abuse of the right to life and dignity

In recent months, at least five men convicted of sodomy by Taleban Shari'a courts have been placed next to standing walls by Taleban officials and then buried under the rubble as the walls were toppled upon them. At least four alleged murderers have been executed in public by the family members of the murdered persons. At least five men have had their hands amputated on allegation of theft, and at least one man and one woman have been flogged by Taleban officials on allegation of adultery.

More on link

Amnesty International - Afghanistan Aug 31, 1997

Continuing atrocities against civilians

Amnesty International has recently received testimonies from the survivors of a massacre in the Afghan village of Qezelabad, near the northern city of Mazar-e Sharif. These testimonies reveal that about 70 civilians, including women and children were deliberately and arbitrarily killed on 14 September by armed Taleban guards as they were retreating from some of the positions they had captured in the area. All of the victims reportedly belonged to the Hazara minority which in recent years has frequently been targeted by the Taleban.

More on link


Amnesty International - Afghanistan May 31, 1997

Women in Afghanistan: The violations continue

...
Taleban restrictions imposed on women deny them some of their most basic and fundamental human rights, including the right to freedom of association, freedom of expression and employment. Similar restrictions imposed by any other group would equally amount to a violation of these rights;
Women in Taleban controlled areas of Afghanistan continue to be beaten by Taleban guards for defying orders about dress or for working outside their home;
Women detained or otherwise physically resticted under Taleban codes solely by reason of their gender would be considered by AI to be prisoners of conscience.

More on Link

BBC - 22 September 2006
Afghan workers killed in ambush

Nineteen construction workers have been killed in southern Afghanistan when their bus was hit by a bomb and then fired on by insurgents, officials say.

And the NDP spin? The Reality Check section on their website uses the Quote

"Bombings in Afghanistan are no solution to the Taliban. You do not destroy terrorism by bombing villages. You do not destroy terrorism by launching military operations in areas where only the symptoms have emerged."

—Afghan President Hamid Karzai, speaking at the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, CBC Newsworld, 21 September 2006

Not sure what reality is to them though as they also left out the part of the speech where Karzai also says

cooperating with terrorists is like "trying to train a snake against somebody else."

"You cannot train a snake. It will come and bite you," he said.

The NDP website also says

Given Karzai's stern condemnation of the military operation today, it's clear that the highest levels of the Afghan government are less supportive of this unbalanced military mission than the Conservatives are letting on.

These comments do not seem to match the reality shown by various media out lets such as Karzai praises Canada as 'model' for world, Karzai: Canada's military presence "is a must",
Karzai thanks Canadians for support or Canada gave its word on Afghan undertaking

Have a look and see if you can spot the "stern condemnation".

The real reality check came from Conservative MP Jason Kenney during question period in the House of Commons. Responding to NDP Leader Jack Layton's questioning of the government's commitment to balance its efforts in Afghanistan he said

“Mr. Speaker, let me say the NDP says they're in favour of multilateralism, but they want to pull out of Afghanistan unilaterally,” he said.

“They say they're in favour of the United Nations, but they're against our participation in the world's most important UN Mission. They say they're in favour of peace and development, but they don't want protection so that we can do civil reconstruction and development.”

That's the reality!

Some Facts For The NDP About Afghanistan

I try to stay informed. I read various newspapers, watch the news on TV, listen to talk radio and read blogs of all sorts. I try to get the feel of the land, so to speak, from all sorts of sources no matter what the political leanings. I like to keep an open mind to new ideas and points of view and place it all in context.

This is why the current left-wing thinking on Afghanistan is so disturbing; it is out of context.

So much of the thinking by the left, in regards to Afghanistan, is based on out-of-date thinking or naivety. For instance, many times I have heard how the war in Afghanistan is because of the United States’ need for oil, or, more specifically, a pipeline proposed by Unocal in 1995, which was to carry natural gas from Turkmenistan to India. This was before the Taliban seized control and, even at the time, many in the petroleum industry thought the idea was ludicrous and ignored the political realities of the area. Pipelines, by their very nature, are extremely vulnerable to attack and require a high degree of political stability to even be constructed, let alone used. When the Taliban rolled into power in 1996, they attempted to reassure Unocal that they could guarantee the safety of western construction workers but, with the northern part of the country still in the hands of the Northern Alliance, there was no way to do that. By 1998, the plan was effectively dead and remains that way.

When the pipeline was first proposed, Turkmenistan, desperate for foreign investment, was eager to sell its gas reserves to other countries. Russia, who had traditionally bought all of the Turkmen gas, was, in the mid 90’s, in an economic slump and its purchases had dropped by over 25%. On top of that, they were refusing to let Turkmenistan use Russian pipelines to transport Turkmen gas to non-Russian customers.

Today, the situation is completely different. Due to the increase in oil prices, Russia is having an economic boom. Russia is again purchasing Turkmen gas and, as part of the deal, is allowing Turkmenistan to use their pipelines. In addition to that, the security situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan has deteriorated and no bank is willing to finance such an economically questionable pipeline.

As a side note, to back up their claims, many on the left point to a myth that Hamed Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, once worked for Unocal. This is based on an article that appeared in a French newspaper Le Mooned. Although this article suggests he worked for Unocal for a short period, both Karzai and Unocal have denied this. A quick look at Karzai’s life also indicates that the only period he could possibly have worked for Unocal was in 1983, long before the Unocal proposal and while the Soviets were in Afghanistan.

The strangest part is these seemingly intelligent people appear to believe that the Bush government was willing to risk the lives of its soldiers for the profitability of one company. Worse, that other governments were also willing to have their own citizens die for Unocal. They believe countries around the world all eagerly stepped up to the plate and committed troops, and billions of dollars, for the sake of a pipeline. Forget about the terrorist groups (Al Qaeda was not the only one) that were operating out of Afghanistan, the fact the United Nations had already demanded the Taliban turn over Osama Bin Laden two years earlier, and the repressive nature of the Taliban in general, NATO rushed into Afghanistan to further the cause of an American company.

What Now?

The current NDP position seems to have been formed in a vacuum with no consideration of the consequences should their plan actually see fruition. More troubling still is the rush by left-wing minded individuals to support him.

So let’s switch it around a little and ask the questions.

Therefore, if I am correct, Jack Layton is in favour of Canada breaking its treaty obligations under NATO. As you may recall, after 9/11, NATO invoked Article 5 of the treaty that says any attack against a member nation is considered an attack against all NATO countries. This was the basis for our involvement in Afghanistan; to go after those that had attacked the United States or, given the Article 5 interpretation, had attacked Canada through the United States.

Now, the NDP wants Canada to ignore a treaty obligation and unilaterally pull out. Are we not then hypocritical for expecting other countries to live up to treaties they have signed with us? Just look at the uproar over the softwood lumber issue under NAFTA. How can we chastise the United States while at the same time breaking a treaty ourselves?

Okay, so Canada pulls out of Afghanistan because it is the “wrong” mission for us, to use Jack Layton’s words. Do they then think all of NATO should pull out or is it okay, in the NDP’s mind, for other countries to do the fighting in Afghanistan? If that is the case, then why is it wrong for us to be there? If we support other countries fighting the Taliban then, by extension, are we not indicating it is the right mission?

While we are on the subject of the right and wrong missions for Canada, what is the right mission to the NDP? I would suppose it would only be the missions the NDP support, regardless of what the rest of the country thinks.

Let’s then suppose all of NATO pulls out of Afghanistan, then what? Currently, NATO troops are supplying security to Afghanistan, allowing the rebuilding effort to move forward. At the same time, they are helping to train the Afghan National Army so one day they will be capable of supplying their own security. One day!

If NATO were to pull out now that would all come to a screeching halt. The Afghan government is struggling with corruption while the military is struggling to gain control of the country. In an attempt to clean up some of the corruption, President Karzai has asked the US Ambassador to Afghanistan to investigate whether his own brother is involved in the drug trade. This but an example of the attempts they are making but it takes outside support to do so. Without that support, there is every likelihood the country would slide back into anarchy much as it did after the Soviet withdrawal. Warlords and the Taliban would fight for control of the country while terrorists would once again be free to use the country as a staging area for attacks worldwide.

There is also the suggestion we should negotiate with the Taliban. I have given a lot of thought to how this would be possible and, for the life of me, cannot figure it out. What is there to negotiate? This is a group that stone and beat people for minor offences, where women do not have rights, and feel it is appropriate to murder women and children just for going to school. Since negotiation would mean the making of concessions to the Taliban in exchange for what we desire, what does the NDP suggest we give up?

So what is the NDP vision? According to their website, they believe Canada should only be involved in Afghanistan “through humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and a comprehensive peace process”. At the moment, humanitarian and reconstruction workers cannot operate in southern Afghanistan due to the threat the Taliban poses. Prior to coalition forces exerting control in Afghanistan, humanitarian workers were increasingly targeted by the Taliban with 32 aid workers being killed between March 2003 and June 2004 including five aid workers with Doctors Without Borders. This prompted them to suspend operations until security could be assured. The same was happening with reconstruction with many projects being destroyed by the Taliban as soon as the workers left. There is no reason to believe this situation would not return the moment troops pulled out.

This leaves the so-called “comprehensive peace process” but what, in reality, is that? Is it negotiating with the Taliban as mentioned earlier? The NDP are not clear on that point.

Fundamentally, though, either the NDP shows a lack of understanding in what they say or they are purposely twisting things for their own advantage.

Jack Layton recently used the decision to send Canadian tanks to Afghanistan as proof we are on the “wrong” mission. According to Layton, "sending tanks to destroy the homes of innocent Afghani civilians only serves to demonstrate even more strongly the futility and immorality of Stephen Harper's cheerleading for George Bush." He did fail to mention that France landed tanks in Lebanon as part of the UN mandated peacekeeping force there, a mission he says we should be involved in. Does this now mean the mission in Lebanon is wrong?

Now Layton is saying Canada should bring home the troops to engage in enforcing our sovereignty in the ocean. According to Layton, "Dealing with the fishing fleets off our coastline who are coming in and destroying the ecosystems that in many ways provide the livelihood for our coastal communities. That has a place for both the Coast Guard and possibly the military and the navy," This makes absolutely no sense since the majority of the troops in Afghanistan are ground troops and would be of no use on the ocean.

This shift in direction on the part of the NDP, and Jack Layton in particular, while appealing to the more radical elements of the left is already in the process of alienating some of the current members of the party. The grandstanding and uninformed rhetoric, while appealing to those who follow with blind faith, is slowly eroding any credibility the NDP had gained. While basking in his perceived power in a minority government, Layton is sure to drive away the critical thinkers within his own party. Instead of moving to a broader appeal, the NDP will once again be relegated to the ranks of radical socialist.

I bet the Green Party could not be happier.

The End of Peacekeeping? - Canadian Armed Forces in the New Millenium (Part 2)

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the end of the cold war, a new and less secure, world emerged. Former Warsaw Pact countries were left in limbo struggling to come to grips with stagnating economies and crushing debt. Groups formerly supported by the Soviet regime suddenly had no political or strategic guidance. Worse, there was no one to exert control over the numerous guerrilla groups the Soviet Union had once influenced and supplied.

The United Nations which, until this point in its history, had worked well, found itself under attack. Riddled by an inefficient bureaucracy and highly politicized, the UN showed that, while capable of moderate successes, its failures came at a terrible cost. Furthermore, it rapidly became apparent they were not prepared to deal with a New World order in which small groups could create so much havoc. Their sense of self-importance blinded them to the reality that some factions, with their own agendas, neither respected nor feared the UN.

It didn’t take long for the cracks to show up in the facade of the United Nations.

The Cost of Myopia

When the Berlin Wall was torn down in 1989, very few people realized how much the world was about to change. Expectations ran high that peace would finally reign. Three events in quick succession would shake the very foundations of peacekeeping.

The first was in a little known African country called Somalia. This country of approximately eight million people would soon be thrust into the limelight.

Embroiled in civil war since 1977, the country was in turmoil. In 1991, insurgent forces ousted the government and took control. The same year the northern part of the country declared independence. The country descended into anarchy with warlords seizing control and the total collapse of all infrastructure. Famine soon followed.

In order to stave off a humanitarian crisis, the United Nations sent non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to provide assistance. This quickly proved to be a futile exercise as warlords, to feed their own soldiers and buy weapons, seized approximately 80% of the aid. It became obvious quite quickly that order would have to be restored in order to help the people.

By December 1992 over 500,000 people had died and 1.5 million were refugees. Obviously, something else had to be done so the United Nations sent in troops. Securing a cease-fire, signed by all 15 warring parties, the UN deployed to restore order and end the suffering.

The mission quickly turned to disaster.

Just over two months after the cease-fire, UN troops experienced what it was like to deal with factions who had little regard for peacekeeping. On 5 June 1993, 24 Pakistani peacekeepers were ambushed and killed in an area near Mogadishu. From that point on the situation rapidly spiralled out of control culminating in the Battle for Mogadishu, on which the book and movie Black Hawk Down is based.

By March of 1995 the UN had withdrawn.

Rwanda, The Face of Hatred

The second, and worst, was the Rwandan genocide. Following a cease-fire agreement between the ruling Hutus and the Tutsi-dominated Rwandese Patriotic Front, the UN sent in a vastly under funded and understaffed contingent commanded by Canadian General Roméo Dallaire. Their job was to monitor the cease-fire.

Even though there was a cease-fire, fighting between the two sides continued while anti-Tutsi propaganda increased. In April 1994, the Rwandan president was assassinated and the country descended into hell. Seeing what was happening, Dallaire requested more troops and money from the UN but his requests went unheeded. In the end, between 500,000 and 1,000, 000 people were slaughtered and the UN contingent had to be quickly evacuated for their own safety.

The Road to Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions

Probably the greatest example of the failure of traditional peacekeeping came during the Bosnian and Croatian war in the former Yugoslavia.

The United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) was formed in 1992 with the mandate of creating the conditions for peace talks and to protect "United Nations Protected Areas", the so-called “safe haven.” These areas were supposed to be demilitarized and safe for civilians.

From the beginning, UNPROFOR was dismissed or ignored by the combatants. The various military and para-military units used the safe areas to build up strength and launch attacks against the Serbs and the Serbs regularly shelled these areas in retaliation. Other areas were subject to sniper fire and mortar fire. In one instance, Serbs dressed in captured UN uniforms to an attempt to abduct more hostages. Due to the restrictive nature of the UN mandate, the UNPROFOR troops were too lightly armed to enforce the UN resolutions. They were further hampered by prohibitive “rules of engagement” that did not allow them to intervene unless specifically threatened.

Throughout the war, the UN appeared to be completely out of touch with the realities in the field. They continued to attempt to keep peace in a war that had none. UN inaction, and a belief in their own power, led to some of the worst atrocities seen in Europe since the Second World War.

In April 1992, Croatian forces attacked the village of Ahmici and systematically killed every Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) they found. Out of a population of 1,178, an estimated 116 people were killed, including a three-month-old baby burned alive in an oven and a 96-year-old woman. Through it all the UN could do nothing.

Srebrenica

The most blatant show of UN irrelevance in the conflict happened at the UN designated safe area of Srebrenica in Bosnia.

The UN declared Srebrenica a safe area in April 1993. The well-armed Bosnian Serb forces surrounded the enclave while the poorly organized and ill-equipped 28th division of the Army of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina remained inside.

From the outset, both sides violated the “safe area” agreement and access by international aid agencies was limited to the area. Serbs prevented Dutch troops, who had been given the job of protecting the enclave, from returning to the area after leave, and their equipment and ammunition were also prevented from entering.

By early spring of 1995, the strength of the Dutch contingent in Srebrenica had declined from 600 to 400 and they were so low on fuel they were forced to patrol the area on foot. Fewer and fewer supply convoys were making it through to the enclave and an already desperate situation for the civilians there became even worse.

In March, President Radovan Karadžić ordered the Serb forces to “create an unbearable situation of total insecurity with no hope of further survival or life for the inhabitants of Srebrenica." Desperate pleas by the Bosnians for the humanitarian corridor to be opened went unheeded and unknown numbers of civilians trapped in the area died of starvation.

In July 1995, the enclave was overrun by Serb forces while the UN did nothing. Civilians fled to the UN compound at Potočari, located within the enclave, while urgent requests for NATO air support went unanswered for two days. When air strikes finally did happen, they were quickly abandoned due to Serbian threats to kill UN troops that had been captured and to shell the UN compound where approximately 30,000 civilians had gathered.

The Serbs then proceeded on a campaign of terror. They set fire to houses and haystacks and told Bosniaks to leave or be slaughtered. Witnesses reported piles of bodies and one witness reported seeing a Serb soldier kill a child with a knife. Soldiers picked people out of the crowd of refugees and took them away. Many did not return. A Dutch medic came across two Serbian soldiers raping a young girl, and stories of rapes and murder circulated through the crowds. Screams and gunshots were heard all through the night.

Bosniaks were systematically taken away and executed.

Between 1,000 and 1,500 Bosniak men were crammed into a warehouse in the village of Kravica. Serbian soldiers then proceeded to lob grenades and shoot into the crowd inside. In another instance, approximately 1,000 people were taken in small groups to fields and then executed. Earth moving equipment was used to bury them.

In all, it is estimated over 8,100 civilians were massacred.

Through it all, the UN troops could do nothing, either because it would be a violation of the “rules of engagement” or they were too lightly armed. The lack of sufficient response by the UN led NATO to abandon its arrangements with the UN and initiate action on its own in an attempt to stop the Serbs. This led to UN peacekeepers being taken prisoner and being used as human shields against NATO air strikes.

When the Bosnian war finally ended, 320 UNPROFOR personnel had been killed on duty, an estimated 105,000 civilians killed, over 40,000 raped, and 1.8 million displaced.

The legend of the mighty United Nations had been shattered.


The Past Was Once The Future - Canadian Armed Forces in the New Millenium (Part 1)