UN chief gets it

Toronto Sun ^ | 2008-01-31 | Lorrie Goldstein

[Clive]

UN chief gets it

What will it take for opposition to grasp Afghanistan mission?

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

If the Secretary General of the United Nations writes a powerful defence of the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan and nobody reports it, is that the same as if he never wrote it at all?

In Canada, apparently so. Sun reader Pav Penna recently pointed me to a remarkable column written by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for the Globe and Mail on Jan. 24, which the paper ran only on its website.

Penna asked why no Canadian media have reported its contents. Good question. They're certainly politically significant for Canada, given the ongoing debate about the Afghanistan mission domestically.

Indeed, to be sure it was authentic, I contacted the UN Secretary-General's office in New York yesterday, which confirmed the piece was indeed written by Ban Ki-moon.

So, given that Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe are forever telling us how important it is for Canada to act through the UN, I'm sure many Canadians would like to hear their responses to the UN Secretary-General's observations about our UN-sanctioned military mission in Afghanistan.

Specifically, do they agree or disagree with the following statements, all direct quotes, from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon:

(1) "Afghanistan is a potent symbol of the costs inherent in abandoning nations to the lawless forces of anarchy. That alone justifies international efforts to help rebuild the country. Lest there be any doubt, remember Sept. 11, 2001, and its worldwide reverberations. We learned then how a country, shorn of its civic institutions, becomes a vacuum filled by criminals and opportunists. In its chaos and poverty, Afghanistan became a home base for terror."

(2) "Must we learn that lesson all over again? ... Once again the opportunists are on the rise, seeking anew to make Afghanistan a lawless place -- a locus of instability, terrorism and drug trafficking. Their means are desperate: suicide bombs, kidnappings, the killing of government officials and hijacking of aid convoys. Almost more dismaying is the response of some outside Afghanistan, who react by calling for a disengagement or the full withdrawal of international forces. This would be a misjudgment of historic proportions, the repetition of a mistake that has already had terrible consequences." (My italics.)

(3) "The Afghan government has far to go before it regains control of its own destiny. But that day will come. It is hard work. There is little glory. It requires sacrifices. And that is why we are there."

Now, to be clear, some of us have doubts about the UN on other files.

But since Dion, Layton and Duceppe are such big fans, perhaps they could tear themselves away for a moment from worrying about what happens to Taliban prisoners our soldiers capture and address this far more substantive issue.

TORTURE

Obviously, our soldiers shouldn't hand over Taliban prisoners to Afghani authorities if they have reason to believe they'll be tortured. That said, it's absurd to expect them, or our government, to be able to guarantee prisoners in Afghanistan will be treated exactly the same as they would in Canada. To suggest otherwise is just nonsense.

So again, Stephane, Jack, Gilles back to the real question: Do you support our UN-mandated mission in Afghanistan, as described by the UN secretary-general or not? Yes or no?

For the full text of Ban Ki-moon's column, google: "Being in Afghanistan is dangerous, not being in Afghanistan is more dangerous" and click on the top item from globeandmail.com.

[Clive]

Not only did the Globe & Mail put it only on its web site, it also restricted its contents to subscribers or people who purchase the article.

[Clive]

-

[fanfan]

[canuck_conservative]

Not only did the Globe & Mail put it only on its web site, it also restricted its contents to subscribers or people who purchase the article.

Well of course, if the article didn't mention homosexuality, and in a positive way, the Globe and Mail wouldn't really be interested.

[quant5]

I heard this on Bloomberg news that Harper has asked the USA and the UN with additional troop reinforcements, or they will have to pull the 1,000 Canadian troops out. Both Harper and the UN Secretary have it right.

[Clive]

Harper actually wants the US to halp get other NATO nations to deploy troops to the south instead of sending them to the north with caveats that keep them out of hot theatres.

Also, The Manley report calls for Canada to get helicopters and UAVs to deploy. Canada has been trying without success to be allowed to jump the queue for fast delivery of new Chinooks. The US had allowed Canada to jump the queue for fast delivery of 4 C-17s. I suspect that this was also discussed with Bush in respect of the Chinooks.

BTW. Canada continuously maintains 2500 troops in Kandahar, not 1000. All of them are in Kandahar and without caveats. Canada rotates its troops between three battle groups, built around the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (Patricias), the Royal 22e Regiment (Vandoos) and the Royal Canadian Regiment (RCRs). Just about every regular force and reserve regiment in Canada has participated in the mission and there is no shortage of volunteers.

[Candor7]

The liberal socialsit press in canada AND the United States is bent on keeping genuine anti liberal News OUT of the hands of the public, so they can prevent a decline in support of the liberal socialist Utopian state ideals.

In tis case little separates the popular press these days from the liberal socialist fascists who propagandized the European public similarly prior to WWII.

The "popular" press is today one of the greatest enemies of democracy, which depends on a fully informed public.

I hope that Cnadain BLOGGERS , Steyn included, rip the Canadian press a new AH, and be not gentle about it. The popular Canadian Press is today a horror, and an enemy of Canadians as a free people.

[quant5]

Thanks for the info Clive, it is very pertinant and clarifies the situation for me.