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.

Throwing around the word genocide is not a light matter. It is a word that should not be employed unless its existence, or planned existence, is proven beyond any doubt. Genocide is the premeditated, systematic destruction of a people, thus it is not a term that should be employed for the sake of shock value or political grandstanding.

Today, that is precisely what the President of Colombia has done. He has accused the government of Venezuela of aiding FARC rebels and plans to ask the International Criminal Court to bring charges of genocide against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, even though those suspect actions of FARC do not really constitute a systematic genocidal agenda. In fact, what the Colombian government has deemed genocide is, in comparison to Darfur, like a single drop of water in the ocean.

Now, that is not to say that the severity of murder should be viewed as excusable simply because of mathematics, but as I have said, there is a vast difference between the murderous actions of a militant group and genocide. Was, for example, 9/11 a genocidal act, or an act of terrorism?

That said, and not surprising in the least, the United States is backing Alvaro Uribe’s play, even though they themselves refuse to adhere to the authority of the ICC with regards to the conduct of their own military personnel – though their support shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise given US military training assistance to Colombia – and let us also not forget that the Colombian government is also complicit in tolerating what is known as “The Sixth Division”, which are Paramilitary groups that receive assistance from the Colombian military and have been equally responsible for human rights abuses.

I’m not going to defend FARC. Given their modern reliance on the cocaine trade and kidnapping to bolster financial sustenance it is impossible for me to view them, in their current form, as a legitimate populist movement that is seeking to overthrow what they view as a corrupted government greatly influenced by a foreign power. And while the Colombian government may be guilty on both charges, the use of such methods to fund a struggle against them is, to me, simply counter to any decent principles that such a group might profess to promote.

But are they guilty of genocide, and is the Venezuelan government complicit in aiding them to that end? Or is President Uribe’s threat one that was simply made to isolate Chavez by attaching to him the stigma that comes with the employment of the word itself? Thus, the possibility that a well-constructed psychological operation may have just been initiated cannot be overlooked. Evidence of that is present in the fact that, according to the Colombian government, the government of Ecuador is also complicit in aiding FARC, but no such statement regarding Rafael Correa has been made.

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.

I’m tired. Not a lot of sleep last night. I spent it in one of those semi-states of sleep, the sort where you’re aware that you have to be mindful of something that requires that you remain somewhat conscious but are still trying to sleep at the same time.

It’s clear and sunny here again today, as it has been this past week. In fact, it’s been uncommonly beautiful for this time of year, even given the chill the wind provides here on the West Coast that has the annoying ability to cut through everything that you’re wearing and go straight to your bones. We share that phenomenon with the UK, where it’s routine business as well.

I’m rambling, and I’m aware of it. I’m rambling because I’m having one of those mornings that I’m finding it difficult to concentrate. I’m having one of those mornings because, as has been the case over the last month, the list of things to touch upon grows so quickly every day that it seems almost impossible to retain it all and then translate it into something cogent.

Just off the top of my head there’s…

The recent revelation that the Canadian Armed Forces have stopped the transfer of prisoners to Afghan authorities because of a report of abuse on the 5th of November of last year despite the fact that last May, after a scandal broke regarding the Canadian transfer of prisoners to Afghan authorities that were known for their use of torture, the government claimed that it was taking steps to immediately rectify the situation.

The recently released Manley Report, which, although critical of numerous aspects of the mission in Afghanistan, has basically provided the government with what can only be viewed as a blank cheque with regards to Canadian combat operations in that country. Of course, the report is non-binding, but its ramifications on a political level are extremely convenient. Canada, of course, is only one of three nations involved in direct combat operations in Afghanistan, and of the three represents the smallest contingent. That being the case, our losses, compared to those of the United States and the UK, are wholly disproportionate. The debate, however, remains transfixed on our continued support of the mission’s objectives, to help stabilize the nation and provide it security, even though other members of ISAF, with considerably larger forces in country, continue to refuse to have their contingents involved in direct combat operations. There is also the concern that even though our efforts are aimed at ensuring democratic stability in Afghanistan, that its implementation is, in effect, the representation of Western regional aspirations, and therefore not dissimilar to Soviet regional aspirations in the 70’s when the USSR was responsible for aiding in the supplanting of a pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. Thus, the real test of Afghan democracy will come when the nation has been secured and Western exploitative practices begin in earnest.

That is certainly not to say that the Taliban should be allowed to run rampant and plunge the nation into complete chaos, only that precluding the possibility of negotiations for the purposes of resolution is counter productive. Ultimately, there are always going to be those that support some, if not all, of the Taliban’s agenda, which raises a very important question: must those that do be wholly eliminated before progress can be made? And if they are not, what assurances do we have that there will not be a resurgence in the future that could seriously threaten the stability of the country, even after it possesses a well trained and equipped military? Given that, is it not fair to say that Western military involvement, on even the smallest of levels, will be required in Afghanistan for years to come?

Of course, all of that doesn’t even touch on the realities of the Pakistani frontier and the support covertly supplied those in opposition to the current Afghan government by elements within the Pakistani military establishment itself.

The possibility that Kenya could explode at any moment despite last minute attempts at political reconciliation aimed at stemming violence. As it stands now, the country is already in the early stages of a humanitarian crisis and also on the cusp of what could quickly turn into a genocidal event.

The recent disparity of global markets.

The continuing unrest in Pakistan.

The case of Canadian Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr, who has been held at the facility since 2002. Khadr was captured at the age of 15 and, as the French Foreign Ministry recently pointed out…

“…all children associated with an armed conflict should be treated accordingly. As a minor at the time of the events, Mr. Khadr must be given special treatment — a point on which there is a universal consensus.”

The Canadian government has refused to intercede in Khadr’s case.

Gaza. While many have taken to illegally entering Egypt so that they can attempt to get food, fuel, and other sundries, Israel’s position remains steadfast, that being that the blockade is a move against the continued rocket attacks emanating from Gaza into Israel. The majority of the United Nations Security Council has labeled the blockade a violation of international humanitarian law and a collective punishment against the entire population, but the United States refuses to support that position without the inclusion of language that supports Israel’s concerns regarding the actions of Palestinian militants. Caught in the middle are, as usual, the 1.5 million residents of Gaza itself.

The firing of Linda Keen, President of The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, hours before she was to appear before a House committee in Ottawa. Keen was fired, according to Federal Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn, due to the government’s ‘lack of confidence in her leadership’. This, of course, happened after the Commission’s attempt to have the Chalk River facility closed due to safety concerns and government’s decision to ignore the Commission.

The realities of the sanctions against Iran.

The ruinous economic reality of America’s imperialist adventures.

The frightening resurgence of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.

Media attacks on Heath Ledger following his death.

The Jose Padilla affair.

The continued humanitarian crisis unfolding in Somalia.

The Sudanese government’s decision to make Musa Hilal, a man accused of coordinating the Janjiweed militias in Darfur, an advisor to Federal Affairs Minister Abdel Basit Sabderat.

And So Forth

In truth, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Iraq is, of course, absent – primarily recent events in Baquba - as is the ever-evolving telecommunications scandal in the US and the Sibel Edmonds affair, the unrest in Zimbabwe, and events in Chiapas.

Last, but certainly not least, there are also those voices that tend to make excellent arguments on a routine basis, such as Robert Fisk, Stephen Zunes, and (for your viewing pleasure), the always brilliant Chalmers Johnson…

If you spend some time doing some investigating today you’ll quickly discover that the unrest overtaking Kenya has a very dark side to it, one that is steeped in ethnic tensions that the country’s recent election results have pushed to the forefront.

What took place in Eldoret, in Western Kenya, where 80 children were burned alive in a church along with an estimated 20 adults was, in truth, an act of ethnic cleansing undertaken by members of the Kalenjin tribe, most of them youths. After setting the church on fire, having already killed numerous local males, they waited outside of it as it burned, hacking to pieces many of those that attempted to climb out of the blazing building through windows.

Asked by journalists about the incident, those involved has no qualms about their participation, as The Guardian today revealed…

“At Ngeria Junction, hundreds of angry youths and men, all Kalenjin, gathered. They said they felt cheated by the election, awarded in dubious circumstances to President Mwai Kibaki over opposition leader Raila Odinga. They wanted revenge, and it was Kibaki’s Kikuyu ethnic group, who were going to suffer.

Asked if they knew about the church massacre, all the youths nodded. “We were there,” said one man, who said his name was Patrick. “We got a message that the Kikuyus were arming near the church. So we went to give reinforcements to the Kalenjins there.”

Another man carried on: “The men and women had babies and small children, but they carried pangas to defend themselves. Is someone with a panga innocent? It is not our custom to kill women and children. We told them to come out of the church, but they locked the door and refused to come out. So we burned them.”

A third youth spoke. “They were not worshipping in the church. They were hiding. That makes it a cave not a church. Let Kibaki send a plane for the Kikuyus. They can go … or they will be killed.”

There is speculation abounding that this situation could develop into a genocidal state, which both sides are accusing each other of promoting. Kenyan opposition leader, Raila Odinga, is holding firm to his position that the recent election was rigged; while Mwai Kibaki’s position is that it was obviously lawful. In response, members of Parliament that belong to Mr. Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement have thus far refused to meet with the government to discuss the growing state of violence and political reconciliation.

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.

Home. Finally.

Unpacked, doing laundry, walked the dogs, clean bed linens. Put Leopard on my iMac, went and got some milk, packed the fridge full of left over beer, water, and Coke from the tour.

A few things of interest. According to the FBI investigation into the Nisour Square massacre…

“Federal agents investigating the Sept. 16 episode in which Blackwater security personnel shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians have found that at least 14 of the shootings were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq, according to civilian and military officials briefed on the case.

The F.B.I. investigation into the shootings in Baghdad is still under way, but the findings, which indicate that the company’s employees recklessly used lethal force, are already under review by the Justice Department.

Prosecutors have yet to decide whether to seek indictments, and some officials have expressed pessimism that adequate criminal laws exist to enable them to charge any Blackwater employee with criminal wrongdoing. Spokesmen for the Justice Department and the F.B.I. declined to discuss the matter.

The case could be one of the first thorny issues to be decided by Michael B. Mukasey, who was sworn in as attorney general last week. He may be faced with a decision to turn down a prosecution on legal grounds at a time when a furor has erupted in Congress about the administration’s failure to hold security contractors accountable for their misdeeds.”

I’m going to hold with my initial opinion – I don’t think anyone involved in the incident that day will be brought to justice. Then again, given the sensitive nature of the subject and the Iraqi government’s position on the legal status of foreign contractors, it can’t be entirely ruled out. But it should be noted that if legal action is taken, the State Department will also be scrutinized, something that I simply can’t see happening.

Also of interest is an article in today’s Jerusalem Post…

“The newly formed Genocide Prevention Task Force indicated Tuesday night that it will not be examining whether Israel has committed genocide in the West Bank and Gaza despite earlier statements that it would be addressing the subject.

The task force of prominent former US officials was announced at a press conference earlier Tuesday and will be working over the next year to help the American government best respond to and prevent genocide.

Though one of the co-chairs, former US Defense Secretary William Cohen, originally said that the situation in the West Bank and Gaza would be considered, the task force later clarified that such an inquiry would be beyond the scope of the panel.

“Its task is not to determine which situations, past or present, including the West Bank and Gaza, constitute genocide, but to develop policy recommendations that enable the United States to prevent future genocides from occurring,” Cohen, along with co-chair Madeleine Albright, said in a statement issued Tuesday night.”

Never you mind the present. It’s the future of genocide we’re interested in.

Roy has commented on the recent tensions between Turkey and the United States regarding the recently passed non-binding Congressional resolution condemning the Armenian genocide, so I’ll not. But I think this clip from the Daily Show is worth a look…

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.