I should have spent some time today writing about the Sudanese government’s reaction to the recent charges leveled by the ICC that President Omar al-Bashir has played a role in the genocide in Darfur. There’s little point though. Unfortunately, the Sudanese government has international precedence on its side…

“Sudan’s UN envoy said the International Criminal Court had no jurisdiction in Sudan and that it would not co-operate.”

Like the United States, the Sudanese signed the Rome Statute in 2000 but refused to ratify it. The US, of course, decided to refuse to adhere to the authority of the ICC to protect members of the US military and government from possible prosecution. The Sudanese government shares the same position. Just as President Bush can disregard any ICC initiated charges, so too can President Omar al-Bashir. And, given that the Chinese have been complicit in aiding the Sudanese government militarily in Darfur, the Sudanese have an ally on the UN Security Council to ensure that they remain somewhat shielded, especially given the fact that China is Sudan’s chief oil exporter.

In 1994, the world turned its back on Rwanda. In 100 days, some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered while the international community did nothing. The Security Council sold UNAMIR down the river, events in the Balkans taking precedent over one of the most horrific and systematic acts of genocide since the Second World War.

But make no mistake; those that did nothing had their reasons. The French were flying some of the individuals involved in the masterminding of the genocide out of the country, even while it was occurring. They also supplied the Rwandan military at the time with arms. One of the revolving seats on the Security Council at the time was actually occupied by Rwanda, allowing those in power in Kigali a front row seat from which to observe the world’s response. The United States, gun shy due to previous events in Somalia, refused to intervene.

All of it led to the hobbling of any real, concerted effort that the UN could have taken. Thus, a skeleton force led by General Dallaire remained, despite the fact that the Security Council had ended UNAMIR’s mandate. Dallaire, and a handful of others, chose to remain and, at the very least, protect those that they had already given sanctuary to. In the end, they were able to save the lives of some 30,000 people without really firing a shot.

Now, consider what could have been accomplished had there been a real UN presence on the ground.

During a recent stop in Rwanda on his current tour of Africa, President Bush said the following…

“Evil must be confronted,” he said after touring the Kigali memorial.

He said the UN’s response to the crisis in Darfur “seems very bureaucratic to me, particularly with people suffering”.

Indeed it does, Mr. Bush. And being that your country has one of the most predominant voices on the Security Council, one has to wonder why more isn’t being done? True, UNAMID has been instituted, but the time for half measures has come and gone. The Sudanese government, with which your government has worked covertly, may refuse the presence of a substantial UN force in Darfur, the Chinese may very well fight you tooth and nail to stop a concerted intervention, but at least have the fortitude to make the issue one that is utterly unavoidable. Breath into it, sir, the urgency that it deserves.

There is the truth and then there is talk of it. In the case of African events of this nature, talk is all that is ever produced. The reality is that were an event comparable to Darfur to take place in, for example, the Balkans, the Western world’s actions would be considerable. In fact, it would become an issue that would dominate the headlines the world over. Unfortunately, when it comes to African nations, the horrible truth is that while the killing is occurring the world does nothing, and only after the fact laments it.

In comparison to UNAMID, UNMIK, empowered by UN resolution 1244, has been active in Kosovo since 1999. UNMIK is provided security by KFOR, which is a NATO led international force. In April of last year, KFOR’s numbers consisted of some 16,000 soldiers from 34 different nations – nine years after UNMIK’s mandate began. At its height, KFOR had 50,000 personnel in operation. As of January of this year, UNAMID, the joint UN-AU mission in Darfur, has a mere 9,065 personnel in place, of which 6,880 are soldiers, 645 are military staff and observers, 1,400 are police officers, 285 are civilian personnel, 552 are local civilian staff, and 63 and UN volunteers.

UNAMID’s actual mandate, as passed in UN resolution 1769 in July of last year, allows for - “Up to 19,555 military personnel; 6,432 police, including 3,772 police personnel and 19 formed police units comprising up to 140 personnel each; and a significant civilian component”.

So where are they?

Perhaps they’ve been employed writing speeches for the likes of Mr. Bush and other world leaders that use the issue when convenient and ignore it when it’s not.

In 1994, while the world was struggling to come to terms with the untimely death of Kurt Cobain, almost 1 million people died in Rwanda. Most of them, if not all of them, had never heard of Nirvana.

Steven Spielberg, who was supposed to be an artistic advisor for the opening and closing ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics, has opted out of the role over his belief that China is not doing enough to pressure the Sudanese government with regards to the genocide in Darfur.

I commend him for it.

For those of you that are unaware, China is Sudan’s chief oil exporter (it is responsible for purchasing two-thirds of the country’s oil) and is Sudan’s largest arms supplier. Recently, in an attempt to better their international profile, they have sent forces to aid in UNAMID and undertaken publicity campaigns to better their profile regarding the matter.

But the facts remain incontrovertible…

“Because of this strong relationship, Chinese leaders have traditionally resisted international pressure to use their clout to bring peace to Darfur, where there is conflict between government-back militias and rebels.

Beijing has even used its veto at the UN Security Council - to block moves to impose sanctions on Sudan if it fails to stop the fighting in the troubled region.

China’s stock response to outside criticism about its Darfur policy always used to be that other countries should not involve themselves in Chinese affairs.”

It should also not be overlooked that in January of this year, Musa Hilal, who is accused of being complicit in helping coordinate the Janjiweed militias in Darfur, was given a senior position within the Sudanese government.

After years of cataloguing and commenting on world events on this website, I must admit that it has become somewhat of a chore. Obviously, my personal beliefs remain unaltered, but as the years have passed I have found myself suffering from a bizarre form of self induced anxiety because I feel that I’m unable to grant a myriad of subjects the attention that I feel they deserve, and in a manner that reflects their seriousness by providing the sort of attention to them that simply cannot be provided by a single person within a 24 hour time frame.

Being that the geopolitical landscape is fluid, it is very difficult to keep on top of a variety of events. Being that this website isn’t a news organization, nor do I have at my disposal the sorts of resources that such organizations have, it makes attempting to disseminate current events in a timely fashion rather difficult without simply posting an array of hyperlinks. In short, blogging isn’t supposed to be about directing readers to likeminded websites that contain information, but rather exist to provide an individual a platform to comment on those things that they feel important.

In my case, the problem is that so many of the things that I find important are interlinked with occurrences elsewhere, many of them steeped in the intrusions of foreign interventionism. Therefore, when commenting on, for example, the genocide in Sudan, a myriad of other factors become relevant, such as the fact that while the United States has declared it genocide, it works behind the scenes with the government in Khartoum on a program to use Sudanese nationals to infiltrate radical groups in Iraq. That, of course, then leads to Iraq and events regarding such radical groups. The same can be said of Somalia, where Ethiopian forces were backed by the United States to displace the ICU, which has led to one of the most overlooked humanitarian crises in Africa. In that instance, while the focus should be placed on the disastrous consequences of Ethiopia’s actions with regards to ordinary Somalis and what they have had to endure, it also cannot be overlooked that the United States not only supported the initial invasion of the country with Special Forces teams and air strikes, but that the US currently uses notoriously harsh Ethiopian jails to house detainees (Clarification with regards to my initial mention of AFRICOM).

Given these contradictions, it becomes extremely important to include them when dealing with base issues, those largely being the plights of the innocent simply caught in the middle, and who, while they have the world’s sympathy, remain in a state of perpetual limbo because ideological methodology remains at the root of such problems. In the case of Darfur, given China’s relationship with Sudan, the chances of the UN Security Council adopting a unanimous declaration that genocide is taking place in Darfur is slim to none. Were it to, given the UN Charter, immediate and substantial action would have to be taken. Therefore, it costs the Americans very little to claim it genocide. Knowing full well that China’s position will ensure that the Security Council does not reach a unanimous consensus, and therefore require that real action be taken, assuming the position that genocide is occurring costs the US nothing. And if that sounds ridiculous to some of you, consider Rwanda. At the time of the Rwandan genocide, much of the Security Council was unwilling to categorize it as genocide precisely because it would have meant that they would have had to intervene on a much greater level. Instead, they did not, and UNAMIR was left to wither, literally forcing its commander to go against his orders and refuse to leave the country after being told that UNAMIR’s mandate had been exhausted. In that instance, the French were particularly suspect being they had been involved in arming those that would ultimately undertake the slaughter, not to mention evacuating numerous individuals that were involved in masterminding it. Given the disaster that had befallen the US in Somalia prior to that, it too had very little desire to become involved in fear of a domestic backlash. Thus, while the world’s attention was on events in the Balkans, some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were massacred.

With regards to Darfur, initially AMIS (whose mandate forbade them to use force to protect civilians) was instituted after the UN found itself in the position of facing funding problems because many of the world’s wealthier nations refused to commit military resources to a substantial peacekeeping initiative. Obviously there were underlying issues, such as China’s opposition given their reliance on Sudanese oil and the fact that they are the primary supplier of arms to the Sudanese. But last summer, after things has become far too catastrophic to ignore any longer, UNAMID was instituted, which is a joint UN-AU force authorized by UN resolution 1769 whose mandate is set to last one year. It is under the command of Nigerian General Martin Luther Agwai.

Nothing is easy, not even responding to a genocidal situation. Like an onion, it has layers of conditions and corruptions, all of which must not only be seen to before the killing of innocents can be addressed, but must also be examined when confronting the reality of why such a situation is allowed to continue. Thus, while simply blogging about what has occurred in Sudan on a base level is important, is it equally as important to seriously confront such issues to reveal the hypocrisies of those who have, all along, possessed the ability to act, or to even aggressively demand that action be taken, but have failed to do so in a timely fashion. That includes the government of Sudan itself, which forbade the presence of UN peacekeepers until last year, and which, with regards to culpability and crimes against humanity, makes them susceptible to applicable international laws regarding genocide. Unfortunately, given the damage done the ICC since the invasion of Iraq and the US position that it will not adhere to its authority, the Sudanese find themselves in a comfortable gray area in which they too can ignore international law, having been provided precedent to fall back on with regards to war crimes prosecution.

That said; there’s an example of how a simple statement can become multidimensional in a matter of a few paragraphs. And, in truth, it’s just the tip of the iceberg. One of the most crucial aspects is, of course, personal experience. When it comes to Darfur, I will say that I deeply regret not going when I was offered the opportunity several years ago. Unfortunately, I was scheduled to begin touring at the time and therefore had to turn it down.

What Is Simple And What Is Not

Complexities reign. No situation is as black and white as it’s made out to be, not even those that are painted as struggles of good against evil.

I commented after the release of The Manley Report that if we’re to take confronting the Taliban in Afghanistan seriously then we must face the hard, cold truth that the abandonment of our morality is something that we are going to have to come to terms with. With most in government adamantly opposed to any process of negotiation, the alternative is – what? The pretense of nobly confronting and overcoming the Taliban? And how is that to be accomplished? By holding down the fort long enough for the Afghan military to reach a level of professionalism to deal with the problem? The truth is, a considerable portion of the Afghan military, including its leadership, is comprised of ex-Northern Alliance members that are, by no means, strangers to conflict, specifically fighting the Taliban. Therefore, how long will we have to wait before they’re able to return to doing what they did prior to the 2001 invasion, which was fighting the Taliban?

Of course, they did a piss poor job of it, and infighting didn’t help their cause either. That being the case, having tens of thousands of foreign troops around to work towards accomplishing what they couldn’t doesn’t seem like something they’d be in favour of disparaging. Which brings us back to our confrontation of the Taliban and what we hope to achieve.

If there is no place for the Taliban in the new Afghanistan, then it only stands to reason that they have to be eliminated, which means the application of overwhelming and inhumane force to decimate their will to wage war and disenfranchise that portion of the civilian population that supports them. That means that everyone, fighters and civilians alike, are equal opportunity targets. And given that the United States has ruled that Omar Kahdr, who was 15 years old when he was captured in Afghanistan, can be classified an enemy combatant because he belonged to an organization that is not recognized as a legitimate military force, child soldiers are fair game as well.

If you’re labouring under the misconception that there’s a more noble way to go about it, you’re dreaming. Unless, that is, you want Canadians to be in Afghanistan until hell freezes over and believe that the Taliban can actually be ‘waited out’. Because the reality is that were international forces to leave the country tomorrow, Mr. Karzai would be on a plane a day later headed for a life in exile and Kabul would be overrun in a matter of weeks. Therefore, given that reality, the most prudent course of action is to abandon this arrogant assumption that we’re ‘better’ than those we’re fighting and get to the business of eradicating them with extreme prejudice.

As for the inevitable backlash that it will occur on a global scale, what would it matter? We’re already in bed with the most despised nation on earth, no need to split hairs. We can’t retain our reputation and be involved in the sort of undertaking required to ensure victory without it being pissed on.

In March, this country may very well go to the polls over this issue, at great expense to the people of this country to boot. Thus, if you’re willing to support our continued role in combat operations in Afghanistan, stop hiding behind lame preconceived notions of nobility and justice and at least have the guts to admit that the only way that the job is going to get done is if we start displaying the same zealotry as those we’re fighting.

Handing prisoners over to be tortured by local authorities? It’s a waste of valuable time. We should just do it ourselves, on the spot, and forgo having to wait for actionable intelligence. If nothing comes of it, well, at least that’s one less enemy combatant to worry about. A sympathetic bullet to the back of the head and on with the business of winning. Because that’s what we’re there to do, win. Not fuck about worrying whether the people of the country we’re saving on their behalf have a problem with our tactics, not to mention bleeding hearts here at home. According to The Manley Report, the majority of Afghans want us there anyway, so our alteration in tactics is just going to have to be something they get used to if liberty is at all important to them.

Pakistan, of course, remains a problem. Our actions will, without question, plunge that nation into a further state of chaos, which means that we might have to be prepared to deal with it as well. Given that Bhutto is dead, and out best chance at implementing a puppet regime that would allow us free reign in Waziristan is gone, we’ll have to tread lightly until we see what becomes of Musharraf’s government. If Musharraf were willing to help us undertake the elimination of those in his own military establishment that have ties to radical groups, we could offer him some future considerations with regards to Afghanistan (what’s Karzai going to say, honestly?). We could even demand that the IAEA be granted access to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, which would, of course, provide us a backdoor with which to compromise it, and in doing so throw Musharraf a few extra bones, such as gifting him arms and promises that we will aid in any effort to protect his regime from other political elements within the country. Of course, we’ll also have to make him President as well, which, after putting a few key ‘international electoral observes’ in place, shouldn’t be a problem.

If any of that sounds dirty to you, and completely counter to everything that we stand for, it’s time to get your head out of the dark recesses of your ass and see the world for what it is. Because justice and decency are only as good as their domestic projections. They win elections, they don’t win wars, nor do they have any place in foreign policy when it comes to global interests.

This is the game we’re now playing, and it’s time that Canadians got used to it. We did our bit in the Great Wars, that was all well and good, but times change. We can no longer fall back on the past to comfort ourselves with regards to what now must be done and the ugliness that we must be willing to embrace to see it accomplished.

We live in a free country and have an all-volunteer army. If our elected officials send those volunteers into harms way, it only stands to reason that some of them are going to come home in boxes. The hard reality facing Canadians is the differentiation between casting those deaths in some wholly romantic and patriotic light, or one that represents the reality that they were ordered into action to kill and therefore run the risk of being killed. But, most importantly – to kill.

That must, at the end of the day, be the goal. And it is here that the hard, cold mathematics of warfare have to be applied and seen for what they are. If ten Canadian deaths mean the deaths of 100 Taliban fighters, or those civilians that support them, then it was worth it. During the Second World War, those sorts of numbers would have been cause for celebration. In this case, being that we are engaged in a global war against terrorism, its primary front being in Afghanistan, it only stands to reason that they should be cause for celebration as well. Of course, the loss of any of our fighting men and women is always terrible, but that’s what soldiers are ultimately for, is it not? If our government orders them into a situation in which they are to kill an enemy, then it only stands to reason that their role is accept death as a consequence. Despite what many might believe, especially given that we haven’t been involved in a serious conflict for generations, that’s the reality of the combat soldier. They are tools with which to kill and be killed in turn. If that were not the case, then they would not be trained to kill because simple logic dictates that when you’re profession is to go to war and kill others, your own death is something that might also come with the package.

So here we are, on the raggedy edge.

I love the War on Terror. Let’s face it, without it, what would I really have to write about on a daily basis? The world has been plunged into the most ambiguous event in modern history, placing those on all sides – and there is certainly more than one – in positions of ensuring their survival at any price. In that regard, even the perpetuation of the ‘war’ itself represents the survival of radical ideologies, be they those engineered in Washington or in the mountains of southern Afghanistan. Ironically, both existed long before the World Trade Center fell.

Since 9/11, that tragedy has been used to justify actions that, in truth, no sane society would ever permit unless something of that magnitude existed to provide manipulation. Then again, the people of the United States have been kept in the dark for so long with regards to the covert actions of their own country as to render them little more than four-year robots, required to help facilitate the democratic façade. When the DOD and the CIA have both operated outside of the Constitution since their inception without that fact being seriously debated or challenged, what other conclusion is there to reach?

Usury and indoctrination are not solely the tools of religious radicals. In truth, the technique was gleaned from far more experienced employers of that mechanism. And that is not to say that the United States, or even the Soviets, wrote the book on it, as it’s a text that spans centuries. Just that they simply added a chapter or two.

The beauty of the War on Terror it that it is a conflict without sides precisely so that they don’t have to be taken. Sure, the common perception of it is that it’s a war against terrorism, but that is such an impossibly grandiose statement that, were it true, it would require action to be taken all over the world, not just in those nations in which radical Islam exists. In truth, it would also require that action even be taken against those that instituted the War on Terror in the first place.

For those that, following the end of the Cold War, waited patiently for a chance to unleash an imperialistic US foreign policy doctrine steeped in the arrogance of a one world power, and all the benefits that come with it, the War on Terror is tantamount to Christmas 365 days a year. It is a war without rules, without defined goals, without a conclusion. It is a war in which those that are prosecuted by it can also be used as facilitators for its objectives. Take, for example, US relations with Sudan.

As some of you might be aware, the United States officially classified what has taken place in Darfur as genocide. Of course, when one examines what has, and continues to, take place there, there is no question that Khartoum aided the Janjiweed militias that have been largely responsible for what has transpired in Darfur. Khartoum has denied any connection, of course, despite the fact that last year much of the Janjiweed was absorbed into the Sudanese Armed Forces, primarily the Popular Defense Forces and Border Guards.

So what does that have to do with the War on Terror and the United States?

Well, even though the Bush administration has condemned what is taking place in Darfur as genocide, and even gone so far as to impose sanctions against Sudan, they have also been working with the government in Khartoum on initiatives to do with the war in Iraq, primarily focused on infiltrating Salafi Jihadi groups. The sanctions, while real, are soft, and thus meant to placate a world view that is decidedly critical of the Sudanese government’s complicity in Darfur while maintaining its ‘extensive intelligence collaboration with Sudan’ – as the Los Angeles times put it in June of this year…

“The relationship underscores the complex realities of the post-Sept. 11 world, in which the United States has relied heavily on intelligence and military cooperation from countries, including Sudan and Uzbekistan, that are considered pariah states for their records on human rights.

“Intelligence cooperation takes place for a whole lot of reasons,” said a U.S. intelligence official, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing intelligence assessments. “It’s not always between people who love each other deeply.”

Sudan has become increasingly valuable to the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks because the Sunni Arab nation is a crossroads for Islamic militants making their way to Iraq and Pakistan.

That steady flow of foreign fighters has provided cover for Sudan’s Mukhabarat intelligence service to insert spies into Iraq, officials said.

“If you’ve got jihadists traveling via Sudan to get into Iraq, there’s a pattern there in and of itself that would not raise suspicion,” said a former high-ranking CIA official familiar with Sudan’s cooperation with the agency. “It creates an opportunity to send Sudanese into that pipeline.”

So, in short, you condemn the government of Sudan for being complicit in what you have termed genocide and yet you willingly conduct intelligence operations with them.

That, in a nutshell, defines the War on Terror. Right and wrong have no place in it primarily because no defined enemy has ever been established. At first it was Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda, which then grew into an ambiguous global network of terrorists, as Bin Laden’s capture became less likely – and, for all intents and purposes – less of a priority. Actions undertaken in various locations, such as in London, by individuals acting independently of any known or established terrorist group then filled the void, providing the war’s spin doctors the opportunity to place it in an improper context, that being that terrorism is alive and well and not, as in the case of the London attacks, based on racial or religious tensions within a specific society or something undertaken as a response to the US occupation of Iraq, among other things. In a sense, such occurrences are little more than blowback entirely respondent to a reckless and hypocritical US foreign policy doctrine, though they are never reported as such by much of the media. Instead, they remain vague in their purpose, with any door left open that infers a connection to a greater evil.

It is, in truth, difficult to find a historical comparison to the sweeping power provided by the ambiguity of the War on terror. Not even the National Socialists in Germany were gifted such an all-encompassing blank cheque with regards to indoctrination and public subversion. In truth, they would have probably marveled at the unprecedented, manipulative power that it has provided the United States and its allies. In their case, the restriction of civil liberties, etc, was overt, harsh, and decisive. Fear was employed on a much more basic and forceful level - nowhere nearly as subversively as it has been with regards to Western societies since 9/11. The crucial element, of course, is that public cooperation because of that fear has led to the acceptance of something that has not only been globally justified as both necessary and just, but completely open ended without limitation or a definition of finality.

If you do business with those guilty of genocide what does that say about you? There was a time when it would say very little, but given the ability to evoke the term ‘War on Terror’, the rules have changed. A world away, we view what has transpired in Darfur as a massive tragedy, but many, faced with the knowledge that the US government still has a relationship with the Sudanese government that is based on counter-terrorism initiatives, view the latter as being of equal importance. True, what has befallen those innocents in Darfur is horrific, but then again, so was 9/11. And that, when it comes to Western perceptions, is all that need be said. It doesn’t matter that the ratio of deaths is not even closely comparable, because, like it or not, admit it or not, we’re talking about the lives of foreigners in a part of the world that is wholly alien to us.

The War on Terror has amplified the need to ensure our security to a global level, enveloping the lives of others, allowing us to use who we will in attempt to ensure our ends no matter the transgressions of those that would aid us in doing so, or the innocent lives lost in the pursuit.

Like it or not, that truth alone renders the War on Terror already lost, though it will most probably take decades for most to come to terms with it.

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.

The world’s been at it again. The old man’s been dancing the puppet strings, hauling out the scissors here and there. Yesterday, some 200 people were lost when a commercial airliner, landing at Congonhas airport in Sao Paulo, Brazil, skidded off the end of a runway in a torrential downpour before smashing across a busy road and slamming into fuel depot and warehouse. All 186 souls aboard the plane, crew included, were killed, and a further 14 in their cars on the road that the plane traversed or attempting to leap out of the windows of the TAM Airlines building that the plane eventually hit.

On the other side of the world, in the war torn and arid Sudanese region of Darfur, scientists from Boston University believe that they may have found a massive underground lake that could provide up to 1,000 fresh water wells. Being that access to fresh water has been a significant factor in the region, the discovery could go a long way to aiding those dispossessed – over 2 million people. Now there’s just the little problem of the Janjiweed militias to contend with, who’ve been largely responsible for creating the genocidal conditions in Darfur in the first place, not to mention the actions of the UDFF and CAR forces that have only intensified the problem.

The United Nations believes that over 400,000 people have lost their lives in the conflict, with some 2 million having been driven from their homes.

Put into context, that would be like the population of my home town, Coquitlam, which, as of 2006, was estimated at 114,500 people, simply disappearing. Were the same rule applied to the City of Surrey, BC, only 55,000 people would remain.

Imagine, if you will, getting in a car at Coquitlam’s City Hall, now located down by Lafarge Lake, and driving through Coquitlam, up over Blue Mountain, and down the south slope to the Cape Horn bypass, crossing the Port Mann Bridge, and driving all the way to White Rock, encountering no traffic until reaching the south side of the Fraser River, and prior to that not coming across a living soul.

Now, remove the forests and the rivers, the running water in the houses that you pass, the parks and public pools, the convenience stores and gas stations, and even the roads themselves, and replace them all with an arid desert that reaches temperatures of above 40 degrees on a routine basis.

Put into context the problems that arose, and the complaints from Vancouver residents, caused by the heat wave that recently gripped the city. Remove from that experience the access to the ocean, to lakes, to swimming pools, to electricity, to powered fans, and to air conditioning. Remove from it the use of that weather to get a tan at the beach or sit on fashionable patios sipping on refreshing drinks, and replace it with the reality that, at any time, members of an armed militia could come upon you, kill members of your family, rape your mothers and sisters, and drive you out into the wilderness to either be killed by the elements, disease caused by numerous factors, or starvation.

The United Nations Security Council has been of little effect when it comes to confronting the problem in Darfur. The Chinese and Russians have blocked attempts to properly hold the government in Khartoum accountable, primarily because the Chinese, for example, do a considerable amount of business with Sudan, be it to do with oil exports of the sale of arms. And while the Bush administration has condemned the government there, and been forthright enough to categorize what is transpiring in Darfur as genocide, they are currently, in cooperation with the Sudanese government, using Sudanese nationals to infiltrate Salafi Jihadi extremist groups in Iraq.

Today, no matter where you are in the Lower Mainland, get in your car and drive to Coquitlam City Hall. Drive down Pine Tree and take a right on to the Barnet Highway. Drive down it and then hang a left on Mariner Way. Drive up it and take a right on to Como Lake and follow it until you come to Linton and hang a left. Drive down Linton until you reach Austin and hang another left. Follow it for a few blocks and then hang a right on Mundy. Follow Mundy south until you hit Cape Horn. And when you get there, find a place to pull over and look across the river.

Having done so, imagine that during that entire drive you saw no one, passed no one, and that on the other side of that river, and that congested bridge, there are 50,000 people, many of them orphans, many eldery - all in the process of fleeing towards Langley…

…on foot.

As we turned on to The Strip he said to me that we have to go and see a friend of his at the MGM Grand before I leave, someone there of significance. The last verse of Load Me Up being his reason for mentioning it.

I chucked in response, forgetting that I had mentioned the neo-green monolith in that song all those years ago. It then struck me that it actually was all those years ago. Almost nine years, in fact.

During the day it’s too hot to really do anything. At night it gets cooler, though it’s not much better. I pace around the living room playing guitar in shorts with the AC cranked and drink coffee or Pacifico’s and muddle my way through songs. In an alternate universe, everything back home seems a million miles away.

It’s hot a lot of other places too.

Take Iraq, for example, which just received the honour of being named the planet’s second most unstable country next to Sudan. There is, of course, genocide occurring in Sudan, so they surely deserve the top spot. It’s good to know that the United States has been using Sudanese nationals in an attempt to infiltrate various groups in Iraq while, at the same time, condemning the Sudanese for their support of the Janjiweed and the atrocities being committed in Darfur.

I suppose when you’re the harbinger of doom, a little hypocrisy is tolerable now and then.

Hey, at least Afghanistan, which came in eighth place, isn’t a giant smoldering hole in the ground…

“BRITAIN joined the US in ousting the Taliban in 2001 because it feared America would “nuke the sh-t” out of Afghanistan, the former British ambassador to Washington has reportedly said on a TV documentary.

In comments published in advance in the Daily Mirror tabloid today, Christopher Meyer said fear explained why Prime Minister Tony Blair chose to stand with US President George W. Bush in his decision to invade Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks - to temper his aggressive battle plans.

“Blair’s real concern was that there would be quote unquote ‘a knee-jerk reaction’ by the Americans … they would go thundering off and nuke the shit out of the place without thinking straight,” Mr Meyer reportedly told the documentary, according to the Mirror.

In other excerpts of the documentary, printed in The Observer newspaper yesterday, members of Mr Blair’s inner circle said the Prime Minister agreed to commit troops to the March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq despite believing that the US had failed to prepare adequately for post-war reconstruction.”

Who knows, maybe they’re just trying to make Tony look like he hasn’t been wearing knee pads for the last six years.

Students from Grant MacEwan College are currently walking from Calgary to Edmonton to raise awareness for the plight of those suffering in Darfur. I urge everyone to visit their website that is unable to get out and either walk with them or urge them on in the area. If you’re located along the way, or are in the Edmonton area, why not get out and urge these people on or even join them if you’re able to.

I want to commend Tyler Morency and everyone else involved in the walk. Their initiative and purpose is to be commended.

According to The Associated Press, some 113 civilians have been killed in heavy fighting between Ethiopian troops and ICU fighters over the last three days, though that number was increased by 60 today according to the BBC. In all, some 321,000 Somalis have fled the fighting creating the largest refugee crisis in the country since 1991.

The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, has suggested in a recent report that a ‘coalition of the willing’ (how I despise that term) may ultimately be needed to enforce the peace in Somalia…

“In a report to the Security Council made available on Friday, Ban called on the 15-nation body to consider in June whether a conventional U.N. peacekeeping force could succeed in the lawless East African country or something more was needed.

Ban said a U.N. force might work if fighting stopped in south-central Somalia and all or most armed groups and communities signed up to an agreement allowing for outside monitoring.

In that case, U.N. involvement “would primarily focus on technical assistance to the reconciliation efforts, as well as on reconstruction and development, supported by an appropriate United Nations peacekeeping presence,” he said.

But if the political process fails and violence gets worse, “alternative options, including peace enforcement, should be considered,” he said.

“An operation, mandated by the United Nations, mounted by and composed of a coalition of the willing with the appropriate capabilities to deal with the high paramilitary threat, would be better suited” to such a situation.

The term “coalition of the willing” refers to a group of like-minded countries that decide to take action in a trouble spot but are not under U.N. control.�?

And under whose control do you think that might be if the UN is unable to secure the peace through the suggestion of alternative means? Well, looking at the members of the Security Council, who has been supporting the Ethiopians in their military efforts in Somalia?

This timely report, given the recent creation of AFRICOM, is transparent in my opinion. The fact that the Secretary General of the United Nations would use the same terminology as the President of the United States with regards to a ‘coalition of the willing’ is also rather interesting. What is even more telling is that the report includes the suggestion of the use of independent forces in a brief that clearly sets very restrictive parameters with regards to a purely UN controlled intervention. The last I checked, the mandate of the United Nations wasn’t to promote the use of independent force by its members in a foreign conflict while attempting to make headway as an organization that is supposed to represent more than just the wanton needs of certain members of the Security Council. The inclusion of such language is little more than context for ensuring the legitimacy of independent military action in the future, and that should be a grave cause for concern.

Examining the Secretary General’s position regarding Somalia is interesting it that no such consideration has been given the UN’s inability to impact the genocide occurring in Darfur.

In July of last year the UN passed Resolution 1706, which called for 22,500 UN peacekeepers to help bolster the 7,000 massively under funded African Union troops that had been operating in the region to little effect. The resolution was, of course, roundly rejected by the Sudanese government. Then, in September, when the AU mandate was set to run out, the United States let slip that the AU might extend its mission, which it officially did on October 2nd because of the failure to implement Resolution 1706.

The UN’s current position regarding the situation in Darfur is that African nations should ultimately take the lead under the UN umbrella to help deter the Janjiweed militias. But not surprisingly, despite the fact that an estimated 450,000 people have lost their lives, with a further 2.5 million people displaced, there has been no mention of a ‘coalition of the willing’ to solve the problem.

The reason?

One of the permanent Security Council members to abstain from the Resolution 1706 vote was China, who maintains mutually beneficial agreements with the government in Khartoum with regards to the exportation of oil (China purchases two thirds of Sudan’s oil exports) and the importation of arms (which since 1995 have included ammunition, tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft). The Chinese have made attempts to soften Khartoum’s position on UN involvement in the crisis, largely empty overtures to placate those that have condemned them for their continued involvement with Khartoum.

The result? There will be no ‘coalition of the willing’ coming to the rescue of those that have, in the millions, flooded refugee camps along the Chadian border, nor would the Secretary General dream of even mentioning it.

Welcome to the world we live in.