- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
From Jack Layton, March 14:
Conservatives and Liberals extend Afghanistan mission: NDP stands up for peace
How does Mr Layton think Canada can succeed in causing the UN to take direct charge? Why does no-one in our media ever ask him? The process would involve the UN Security Council--which has repeatedly authorized the ISAF mission, a fact Mr Layton does not mention--allowing ISAF's mandate to lapse and then voting to create a new UN "peacekeeping" mission of some undefined sort. That would require the agreement of the US, UK and France. Likelihood? Zero.
I guess Jack is simply ignorant about how these UN matters work--odd given the NDP's UN-centric approach. But all too typical.
Besides which NATO is only in charge of (most) international military activity in Afstan, plus some development work (PRTs). The vast amount of aid, development, reconstruction, capacity-building, etc. work in under various government's own agencies, international agencies and NGOs. And there is a very large UN mission (UNAMA) that is very active over a wide range of fields--including the political.
http://www.unama-afg.org/
And I suppose Jack thinks this UN development is of no significance:
New UN "super envoy" for Afstan
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-un-super-envoy-for-afstan.html
What a simplistic, mindless rhetoric-spouting, jerk Jack is.
Mark
Ottawa
Conservatives and Liberals extend Afghanistan mission: NDP stands up for peace
...
This mission is not working. We need to change direction. We need to take leadership in order to regain the respect Canada once had in peacemaking and peacekeeping.
The NDP’s plan for peace includes pursuing a political solution delivered by the UN. The UN’s mandate to preserve and promote international peace and security and its longstanding experience in peace negotiations make it the appropriate international body to be in charge in Afghanistan – not NATO.
Despite the result of this vote, the NDP will continue to represent the millions of Canadians who believe that this is the wrong mission for Canada, and we’ll continue to call for a path to peace, not a path to more war.
How does Mr Layton think Canada can succeed in causing the UN to take direct charge? Why does no-one in our media ever ask him? The process would involve the UN Security Council--which has repeatedly authorized the ISAF mission, a fact Mr Layton does not mention--allowing ISAF's mandate to lapse and then voting to create a new UN "peacekeeping" mission of some undefined sort. That would require the agreement of the US, UK and France. Likelihood? Zero.
I guess Jack is simply ignorant about how these UN matters work--odd given the NDP's UN-centric approach. But all too typical.
Besides which NATO is only in charge of (most) international military activity in Afstan, plus some development work (PRTs). The vast amount of aid, development, reconstruction, capacity-building, etc. work in under various government's own agencies, international agencies and NGOs. And there is a very large UN mission (UNAMA) that is very active over a wide range of fields--including the political.
http://www.unama-afg.org/
And I suppose Jack thinks this UN development is of no significance:
New UN "super envoy" for Afstan
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-un-super-envoy-for-afstan.html
What a simplistic, mindless rhetoric-spouting, jerk Jack is.
Mark
Ottawa