The Bottom Line Is All That’s To Be Found Down River
I first read Joseph Conrad’s novella, Heart Of Darkness, when I was fifteen - being that it was the premise for one of my favourite films, Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now. I would revisit it again in my late 20’s after reading an article in which Conrad’s time spent as the captain of a steamer in the Congo was highlighted. For those of you that haven’t read it, I would recommend that you do for numerous reasons, the foremost being Conrad’s commentary on the human condition with regards to the depths and limitations of human psychological endurance and corruption.
There is, of course, dark colonial aspects to the piece that are also of import, but being the son of a man that was born in colonial India, and whose family lived there for over a century, the realities of that mindset are nothing new to me. I was, even at a young age, aware of the sort of racism and arrogance found in the colonial mindset, and brutally exposed to it when one of my great uncles would visit from South Africa.
That said, my mention of Conrad’s story is in response to Kurt Langmann’s recent editorial in the Abbotsford News in which my position on Afghanistan is questioned and he suggests that I read Heart Of Darkness.
The article is somewhat geopolitically narrow, as it wanders through an ambiguous argument that relies on a variety of contextual dissimilarities while attempting to unify them by pointing to the inevitability of violent outcomes. Our role in Afghanistan turns to UN involvement in Africa as a measure with which to address the ineffectuality of UN peacekeeping operations, attempting to abridge the two. In doing so, Langmann offers up numerous examples of the inability of the United Nations to effectively address past and ongoing conflicts in Africa while using my mention of the need for a more astute UN mandate in Afghanistan as pretext.
First, let me say that my mention of a clearly defined and commanded UN mission in Afghanistan is one steeped in the need for any such force to be complimented by personnel from states within the region itself, as I have mentioned on this website before. But, of course, that alone would not detract from the reality that UN forces would face the same sort of dangers that NATO troops now face.
The rules of engagement with regards to UN forces are, obviously, different than that of regular conventional forces. In the simplest of terms, they are only permitted to return fire when fired upon, or when the lives of those under their protection are threatened. That said, they are not traditionally meant to be aggressive in nature, merely a presence to deter violence in hopes of providing stability. But that is not to say that they do not represent a military force themselves. As anyone with an understanding of UN peacekeeping is aware, when soldiers under the UN flag are included in an operation, they are equipped to deal with military occurrences. Counter-insurgency, on the other hand, is not something that falls within their mandate.
That said, and as I have written previously, the rubber stamp provided by the UN with regards to operations in Afghanistan was simply procedural, lending credence to the actions of those that invaded the country in response to 9/11. Like the Bush administration’s refusal to join the ICC, or its disregard of the 53rd Article of the UN Charter with regards to the illegal invasion of Iraq, the United States and other permanent Security Council members have always used the UN as a plus-minus apparatus with regards to their own objectives. It should never be overlooked that the Council’s five permanent members constitute the world’s five most prolific arms dealers, and that theirs is one of the most hypocritical positions with regards to passing judgment on the use of truly effective interventionism in locales where they do business or have a vested interest in a particular outcome.
Langmann points to Sudan as an example of how a UN mandated force would not change the bloody outcome of what continues to transpire there. And while the AU has recently committed 26,000 peacekeepers to help further deal with the situation, an undertaking that has been criticized by the UN due to the lack of training received by those being deployed and the inability of the AU to effectively impact the situation in the past, one has to examine the undertones of what has transpired there with regards to the Security Council itself and the unwillingness to directly confront Khartoum with regards to the allowance of UN forces in the country.
At the height of the genocide in Darfur, the Chinese were able to block numerous initiatives because of their economic dealings with Khartoum. For over a decade the Chinese have sold the Sudanese a considerable amount of arms, and are also the foremost exporter of Sudanese oil. Unfortunately, it doesn’t end with the Chinese. The United States, which has actually classified what is transpiring in Darfur as genocide, recently enlisted the help of the Sudanese government in recruiting operatives to use as moles to infiltrate Salafi Jihadi groups in Iraq. That would be the very same government that has been guilty of supporting the Janjiweed militias who have been largely responsible for the murder of countless innocents and the displacement of millions.
The reason why the UN is ineffectual when it comes to peacekeeping is, ironically, the body within it that conducts the oversight of security. And within that reality, the policies and objectives of those that hold permanent seats surpass the realistic needs of those that require that very body to act on their behalf. If ever there was an example of the complete and utter failure of the Security Council as measured against the priorities of some of its foremost members, it would be UNAMIR. While the world was glued to the conflict raging in the Balkans, Roméo Dallaire was being sold down the river, forced to watch a genocide of immense proportions occur in front of his eyes while being denied support from the very body that sanctioned the mission to help stop it.
The truth? The Security Council had no vested interest in Rwanda. The French were known supporters of the Hutus and the rotating seat on the Council at the time was actually filled by the Rwandan government responsible for backing the Interahamwe. The United States, worried that there would be a repeat of events in Somalia the year before, vetoed Dallaire’s request that a mere 4,000 troops and reasonable logistical support would significantly deter the situation. And thus, over 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutus were massacred in 100 days.
Langmann writes in his article…
“A couple of years ago my little brother, Mark, was dispatched to central Africa. His mission? To repair the bullet-riddled bodies of UN “peacekeeping” helicopters, operated by blue-helmeted UN forces that were trying to enforce the ceasefire imposed on the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). And not only were the “insurgents” firing on “peacekeepers,” the latter were shooting back. That’s right, peacekeepers have guns and they use them.”
Langmann’s statement is a given, of course, and should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone. UN forces have been attacked in a variety of locales over the decades and, given their mandate, return fire when fired upon if ordered to do so. To suggest that people don’t understand that is somewhat naïve. In the case of insurgents firing on them, that too is to be expected, that’s simply a reality of peacekeeping.
Unlike the UN response to the conflict in the Balkans in the 90’s, UN forces in the DRC have not been favoured with the sort of considerable backing that those in the Balkans were. For example, MONUC, The Mission of the United Nations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, has seen extremely minimal support from most of the permanent member states of the Security Council. The UK? Seven observers. France? Three troops and three observers. In fact, the only permanent member of the Security Council to actual devote a significant number of ground forces to the operation has been China, with 218 troops and 13 observers. The majority of the contingent, with regards to troops being on the ground, come from, of all places, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Uruguay.
It’s here that the question has to be asked – why? And the answer is quite straight forward – the bottom line. In the 90’s the United States helped directly build the arsenals of eight of the nine nations involved in the Congo conflict. Since the passing of a UN resolution banning arms sales to those involved, it has since stopped, or at least gone dark, but the fact remains that business is business and proper intervention cannot take place, or be supported, where it might possibly threaten business. With regards to Darfur, the same is true with regards to China’s position, as well as past US involvement in financing and arming The Sudan People’s Liberation Army and their current need to placate Khartoum, despite their past support for the SPLA, given their recent overtures regarding covert intelligence operations in Iraq.
So what is the point of using the United Nations as a mechanism with regards to foreign intervention? That’s a very good question, but one that cannot be dismissed because of the stranglehold that the permanent members of the Security Council enjoy. If we are to abandon the existence of an international organization created to safeguard the welfare of nations and those who inhabit them, not to mention a basis for the safeguarding of international law, then the only option left us is to completely accept the bilateral and unilateral actions of the world’s foremost powers as both inevitable and justified simply because of their military might. Thus, it is up to nations such as Canada to demand that our inclusion in foreign military interventions be tempered by not only the tenets of an organization that exists to represent the equality of global security, but the compliance of those in a position to dismiss it to act according to its purpose for the sake of creating a just, respected, and professional force that will be taken seriously whenever it is deployed.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 15th, 2007 at 2:47 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
August 15th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
The reality is that the Right doesn’t give a shit about the people of Afghanistan, or anywhere else for that matter. Our leaders only really care about geo-political ambitions, ones that are sometimes abstract and misguided. Humanitarian arguments are only used to placate the furor at home by stroking people’s more charitable inclinations into believing that we are doing something good.
That said, the Left doesn’t really give a shit about the people of Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the world, either.
No one cares. We all pretend to care in order to stroke our own personal egos, but we really don’t.
August 15th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
‘Are my methods unsound?’ - ‘I don’t see a… method at all, sir.’
Have you seen “Hearts of Darkness”, the documentary on the making of the film.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102015/
August 15th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Despite the cynism, i would have to agree with you DGephardt. For a long time i would not have, even only a few months past, but i started an experiment two months ago or so. Get all 71 people that are my Facebook friends to send me a dollar to donate to something worthwhile instead of buying bullshit Facebook gifts. I have 45 members, many from other people’s friends lists. I started it the same time as another fellow started a Facebook group looking to convince his wife to name their first born son Starscream if he could get 100,000 members. He has considerably more members than i do. So, i would say that only about a quarter of the population cares. The rest are watching Lost or the Hills.
As for your piece, Matt, you are dead on. The UN is the only international body that is capable of forcing nations to go beyond their own uni or multilateral initiatives. That being said, the entire organization is incredibly damaged. The fact that China is directly selling arms into the Darfur conflict, and due to that reality is going to look to their own vested interest in continuing to do so for as long as possible, makes any of their initiatives in the UN governing council suspect. The UN cannot even agree, or could not for the longest time, that what was happening in Darfur was in fact genocide. I remember the rhetoric after the genocide in Rwanda, and all of the promises are like shattered glass.
Of course, i cannot see substantive change occuring. The permanent five member nations are not going to look to make any sweeping change within the UN because they do not wish to see any of their powers diminished. Should the UN actually stand up for itself, then those nations will hit the UN financially by withholding member fees. Consider how much the US currently owes to the UN, i believe the last figure i saw was in the billions.
It is still, however, the best option. The article by Langmann is honestly a weak piece. He, like other proponents of the war, considers his perspective from a very narrow field of view. We know the UN faces some tough situations, like any other military organization, and is often called into places of extreme violence. What he fails to understand is that the UN is an organization that, in theory, is the best way to handle large scale conflicts of the kind seen in Darfur, Rwanda, and possibly in Afghanistan.
August 15th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Lets disect a few pieces of the article that actually bothered me.
Quoting Langmann:
(1) “And if Canadians are unhappy about the loss of 66 soldiers in Afghanistan, where the majority of the populace reportedly support our intervention, how will Canadians react if hundreds of body bags come home from one of the most hostile regions in Africa?”
- So, if i am reading this properly, Canadians are going to care more if dead soldiers return from an African conflict? He states that the populace reportidly supports our intervention in Afghanistan, which may or may not be true. Does he not consider that those being slaughtered in Darfur will support our intervention as well? That they will, in all likliness, welcome us with open arms. The alternative is continued genocide. I’m pretty sure that when MASSES of people are being slaughtered, they do not care who their savior is, as long as someone helps. Also, are we to give a shit if those doing the slaughtering don’t want us there? Are we there to play nice with the murders, or stop them from doing what they are doing? I understand that bringing peace to a volatile situation requires diplomacy on many different levels, but at the end of the day, who can get the job done? As was seen in Rwanda, a number of African nations with big hearts did help, but they were inefficient. Less men, but better trained, would have made a world of difference there.
(2)”Moreover, what is our exit strategy that will leave the people of Darfur in a better position when we decide to pull out? Is there a plan? The chaos in Iraq is an illustration of what happens when foreigners intervene on a wing and a prayer.”
- Comparing Iraq and Darfur is completely dishonest and is an ineffectual argument. He’s right, jumping into conflict with a wing and a prayer is bad foreign policy. That being said, the US started their current problem in Iraq by fabricating a war that the rest of the world recognizes as such. The US should not be there, and everyone knows it. Intervening in Darfur is ensuring that a genocide of another nations making does not continue. And to be honest, even if we were to jump in without a withdrawal plan, we would be doing something. This conflict, this mass murder, has been occuring for years. There are deaths beyond reason, with millions now living in refugee camps. Sometime, when countless thousands are being slaughtered, you need to intevene quickly, and sort it all out after. We talked, talked, talked about Rwanda, and in the end did nothing.
(3)”It’s easy to criticize the Americans, the Canadian government or the UN, and it’s even easier to get in over our heads with a “military adventure” in a woe-begotten country. But if we’re going to undertake another humanitarian intervention we’re going to have to answer some hard questions first. And be prepared to shoot and be shot at.”
- Yes, yes. Lets answer hard questions first. We in the west are good at that, especially when it comes to African nations. Lets spend more time, do more studies, and consider post-colonialism and the Heart of Darkness while looking into scrying balls and calling on the ghosts of christmas past. Sometimes people get slaughtered, and some day we are actually going to have to help instead of sitting on our dicks like this guy suggests.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
“(1) “And if Canadians are unhappy about the loss of 66 soldiers in Afghanistan, where the majority of the populace reportedly support our intervention, how will Canadians react if hundreds of body bags come home from one of the most hostile regions in Africa?”
- So, if i am reading this properly, Canadians are going to care more if dead soldiers return from an African conflict? He states that the populace reportidly supports our intervention in Afghanistan, which may or may not be true. Does he not consider that those being slaughtered in Darfur will support our intervention as well? That they will, in all likliness, welcome us with open arms. The alternative is continued genocide. I’m pretty sure that when MASSES of people are being slaughtered, they do not care who their savior is, as long as someone helps. Also, are we to give a shit if those doing the slaughtering don’t want us there? Are we there to play nice with the murders, or stop them from doing what they are doing? I understand that bringing peace to a volatile situation requires diplomacy on many different levels, but at the end of the day, who can get the job done? As was seen in Rwanda, a number of African nations with big hearts did help, but they were inefficient. Less men, but better trained, would have made a world of difference there.”
Langmann isn’t implying that the 66 deaths are some how more justified because they’re from an Afghan intervention, nay, he is conveying that regardless of where the intervention is taking place, Canadian causalities are ultimately the price we pay for intervening. Langmann is also pointing out that Sudan is a far more dangerous place to engage in peace keeping operations in relation to Afghanistan, which, prior to our operations there, was steam rolled by an international coalition in response to the 9/11 attacks by the Taliban– an Afghani based group.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Heart of Darkness is one of my favourite books and I still can’t convince anyone to read it.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
I can see your point kurtis_cullen, but i still stand by my initial question. Because what it comes down to is that everyone knows that any intervention could cost lives, but his implication is that somehow we will be more offended if they are in Africa. Or simply on a peacekeeping mission. I would honestly say that i think more Canadians would support something like preventing Darfur, despite the cost, than our current role in Afghanistan.
As a reporter, he needs to watch how he writes, and not simply make lazy assessments. I know that is what he implied, but that is not really what he said. He said that Canadians are likely to be more squemish because we are going into the more dangerous African countries. He is discounting what Canadians consider more important…some fictional war on terror, or an intervention to stop genocide.
As for it being more dangerous there, that certainly has to be determined. So far as i know, the uprising of violence in Rwanda is done. British military commanders think it might take another 38 years before the west can get the hell out of Afghanistan. Seems to me that as a reporter, he has not the ability to determine which is the more dangerous place.
And i will reiterate: at the end of the day it comes down to saving other human beings. It is disgraceful for the world to sit by and do nothing in Darfur, simply because it lacks strategic value.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Matt,
You made mention of Dallaire’s efforts in Rwanda. I thought you’d be interested to know that there is a movie coming out called Shake Hands With the Devil. It’s a dramatization, based on Dallaire’s memoirs, set to premiere at the Toronto Film Festival.
I, for one will be checking it out when it comes to the Bytowne theatre here in Ottawa in late September.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Hi Matt
You’re right about the inadequate reaction in DR Congo, a country the size of western Europe. A few hundred troops. But you neglected to mention the 109 blue helmet (UN) troops who died there at the hands of DRC insurgents, and that the bloodshed carries on to this day.
As for McShannock, while I find nothing funny about Darfur, are you doing a GW Bush parody here? ie. “MASSES of people are being slaughtered, they do not care who their savior is, as long as someone helps”. This is remarkably similar to GWB’s comment about Iraq, and what a whopper that was. Sudan is even bigger than DRC or western Europe, and you think we’re (the UN and Canada) going to get there without bloodshed? How? Chad has taken in hundreds of thousands of Darfur refugees, and even went to war with the Sudan about it, and the only result was that aid workers couldn’t get to the Darfur refugees, so they made a peace deal. The Egyptian border guards recently shot Darfur refugees trying to escape into Israel — that’s right, they shot illegal aliens from Darfur trying to get out of Egypt — so are we going into Darfur via Egypt? I think not. Obviously we’re not going in via DRC, nor Uganda, unless we want to take out Kony’s whacko Lord’s Resistance Army while en route to Darfur.
What to do? I wish I knew.