Responses to Boots on the ground... but where?
- Thread starter Mike Bobbitt
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
I think asking for practical plans from the Jack Layton crowd is like tilting at windmills.
A tangible plan is 'subject to reality' i.e. scrutiny, and therefore isn't very likely from those who find it easier to criticize rather than propose ideas.
Maybe some of you archive hounds could dig back to 1992-3, but weren't the NDP gravely upset at our 'belligerent methods' in Yugo back in the early days? Now our 'reckless militarism' has turned into 'a cherished Canadian peacekeeping tradition'?
I must have missed something when I went to the fridge.
I'm committing an army.ca sin here by going off of memory, but I seem to remember all sorts of doomsaying about how the UN peacemaking in Yugo was the beginning of the Fascist Apocalypse. Now the NDP sees them as the halcyon days of Canadian nice-ism.
Anybody feel like digging through Hansard?
I know, I know, it's about scoring political points, it isn't about truth.
Which brings me to:
7 things you will never see from the Security Council and/or Jack Layton:
a. A clear mandate for intervention, outlining whether the Government of Sudan was considered a supporter or opponent, and what to do if the Government of Sudan does not cooperate with the intervention. (i.e. forcible overthrow if they stop playing along, not a tersely worded Christmas Card)
b. Clear rules of engagement, and delegation to field commanders to take organized offensive action if the situation warrants. These should be clearly announced ahead of time so that 'black ops' (i.e. soldiers bending the rules to defend themselves) become a thing of the past. This means politicians and not soldiers might have to take responsibility for things going wrong and people getting killed. Ouch.
c. An acknowledgement that some nation's contingents are ineffective at combat duties. Anyone who has served with them knows who they are. Don't say it out loud though, or you will be a neo-colonialist.
d. A clear military hierarchy that will step in and kill/destroy any who offer a military challenge to that authority. Call it the 'Srebrenica was Bullshit' clause, or perhaps 'Do you speak B-52?'
e. Clear intent to disarm the militias, kill/capture those who resist. And don't hand back the weapons to the factions you took them from. Who the hell thought that one up?
f. Clear intent to administer aid, but a pre-existing plan to imprison those who skim the aid for personal use - both locals and those wearing blue hats. I hear Alcatraz is empty. You listening Kofi?
g. A clear end-state: i.e. new form of government in Sudan, new state in Darfur, Green Line, I don't know, let the smart people pick the smartest one. Just pick one and make it clear and don't change it every three weeks when someone does something violent to change your mind. And give the governments who are sending soldiers there the option to read over your end-state, and exclaim, "Why that is the dumbest thing I've heard of in a long while. We will not participate." Oh, hang on, we're doing that now.
There are more points I'm forgetting, but you get the idea.
You won't see the above-criteria from the idealists. It's why they love the UN so much, and why soldiers generally hate the UN so much.
The UN is not a concrete alternative, it's an idea, a concept, like Cubism or Zen. Only more expensive.
Goes to my underlying theory of the universe that most people would be really bummed out if they actually got their way.
A tangible plan is 'subject to reality' i.e. scrutiny, and therefore isn't very likely from those who find it easier to criticize rather than propose ideas.
Maybe some of you archive hounds could dig back to 1992-3, but weren't the NDP gravely upset at our 'belligerent methods' in Yugo back in the early days? Now our 'reckless militarism' has turned into 'a cherished Canadian peacekeeping tradition'?
I must have missed something when I went to the fridge.
I'm committing an army.ca sin here by going off of memory, but I seem to remember all sorts of doomsaying about how the UN peacemaking in Yugo was the beginning of the Fascist Apocalypse. Now the NDP sees them as the halcyon days of Canadian nice-ism.
Anybody feel like digging through Hansard?
I know, I know, it's about scoring political points, it isn't about truth.
Which brings me to:
7 things you will never see from the Security Council and/or Jack Layton:
a. A clear mandate for intervention, outlining whether the Government of Sudan was considered a supporter or opponent, and what to do if the Government of Sudan does not cooperate with the intervention. (i.e. forcible overthrow if they stop playing along, not a tersely worded Christmas Card)
b. Clear rules of engagement, and delegation to field commanders to take organized offensive action if the situation warrants. These should be clearly announced ahead of time so that 'black ops' (i.e. soldiers bending the rules to defend themselves) become a thing of the past. This means politicians and not soldiers might have to take responsibility for things going wrong and people getting killed. Ouch.
c. An acknowledgement that some nation's contingents are ineffective at combat duties. Anyone who has served with them knows who they are. Don't say it out loud though, or you will be a neo-colonialist.
d. A clear military hierarchy that will step in and kill/destroy any who offer a military challenge to that authority. Call it the 'Srebrenica was Bullshit' clause, or perhaps 'Do you speak B-52?'
e. Clear intent to disarm the militias, kill/capture those who resist. And don't hand back the weapons to the factions you took them from. Who the hell thought that one up?
f. Clear intent to administer aid, but a pre-existing plan to imprison those who skim the aid for personal use - both locals and those wearing blue hats. I hear Alcatraz is empty. You listening Kofi?
g. A clear end-state: i.e. new form of government in Sudan, new state in Darfur, Green Line, I don't know, let the smart people pick the smartest one. Just pick one and make it clear and don't change it every three weeks when someone does something violent to change your mind. And give the governments who are sending soldiers there the option to read over your end-state, and exclaim, "Why that is the dumbest thing I've heard of in a long while. We will not participate." Oh, hang on, we're doing that now.
There are more points I'm forgetting, but you get the idea.
You won't see the above-criteria from the idealists. It's why they love the UN so much, and why soldiers generally hate the UN so much.
The UN is not a concrete alternative, it's an idea, a concept, like Cubism or Zen. Only more expensive.
Goes to my underlying theory of the universe that most people would be really bummed out if they actually got their way.
- Reaction score
- 2,139
- Points
- 1,160
probum non poenitet said:
Modify that to the NDP and the Reform Party, and I would agree with you. http://www.parl.gc.ca/35/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/206_95-05-29/206ED1E.html#12932
Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act:
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-05-24T160837Z_01_L24517616_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SUDAN-DARFUR-NATO.xml&archived=False
This thing is going to be a real nightmare
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-05-24T160837Z_01_L24517616_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SUDAN-DARFUR-NATO.xml&archived=False
This thing is going to be a real nightmare
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Probum: I concur: we went through almost exactly the same doom-saying, hand-wringing, cut-and-run type of thinking during our time in Yugo. "The people don't want us there" and "Why are Canadian soldiers dying there" and "let's come home", etc. Ironically enough, IIRC it really only died away once the US and NATO (those hideous forces for evildoing...) got engaged, backed the Serbs into a corner and put a "real" military force on the ground. IMHO, it was that pathological Canadian public reaction to Yugo that led our govt (and NDHQ...) to hide the truth of Medak. It was the Yugo experience, I think, that showed us once and for all that if you are going to use military force to achieve a political objective, do it in a coherent, credible and effective way, or pack up.
Cheers
Cheers
C
couchcommander
Guest
Oh where oh where did the Polaris Institute go?
I was looking forward to a lively debate.
I was looking forward to a lively debate.
There seems to be a trend by some of the focused forum members to bash the Polaris Report for whatever personal agenda they may have, instead of just looking at the data the report presents. I was only able to see the linked pdf file at this address http://www.polarisinstitute.org/pdf/bootsonground.pdf
and there could be more to it, but I do not see any “attack” on Canada’s contribution to World Security here at all. All I see is presented data that should be drawing the reader to some basic conclusions that we all know are self-evident. For example that while we don’t contribute to UN missions in a meaningful manner any more we have cycled through nearly 40% of our Combat Land Forces through Afghanistan and have spent more money on Specific Nation Building than most of the Developing Nations combined. Look at some greater facts to understand our Nation’s actual participation in regards to other Western Nations in UN operations for a trend.
Belgium has 17
Japan 30
Holland 40
Demark 71
Norway 73
Italy 113
Germany 279
United Kingdom 366 and
France 588.
America has 332, less per capita than we do, and has never contributed more than a tiny fraction of the soldiers on UN missions at the best of times.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/
If you look at the data from the above source the nations that contribute the most soldiers, Bangladesh, Pakistan and India have the majority in Liberia and Congo, both traditional Blue-Hat missions. It is also pertinent to note that these nations send a comparative fraction of their total military strength in line to what Canada sends. Also these three nations use very inexpensive troops pro-rated for UN cost to a NATO soldier in order to satisfy their UN monetary obligations instead of dollar contributions. The missions themselves are paid for by Western Nations, as stated in the UN’s own literature.
A better example is Nepal, with more troops involved in UN missions than all the Western European countries combined (3,523) yet anyone who has served in the Former Yugoslavia knows those troops aren’t worth a total of an Infantry Tpt Platoon. Raw numbers alone aren’t much to get exited about if you don’t look at the context.
One fact to note is that the Developing World has taken on more complex and challenging missions, and that’s a credit to the First World Nations that have trained them. But none of the missions Developing World Nations do are as complex as Afghanistan or East Timor or as dangerous as Iraq.
So while some are using this forum to vent on a personal opinion perhaps some should view the figures in the context they were provided and understand what they really say: The Developing world is manning most UN missions now and Western Nations have focused their efforts on specific missions in line with our collective fear of Muslim Terrorism. Any Questions? How these facts bash on Canada’s contributions only you lot can say, I guess.
and there could be more to it, but I do not see any “attack” on Canada’s contribution to World Security here at all. All I see is presented data that should be drawing the reader to some basic conclusions that we all know are self-evident. For example that while we don’t contribute to UN missions in a meaningful manner any more we have cycled through nearly 40% of our Combat Land Forces through Afghanistan and have spent more money on Specific Nation Building than most of the Developing Nations combined. Look at some greater facts to understand our Nation’s actual participation in regards to other Western Nations in UN operations for a trend.
Belgium has 17
Japan 30
Holland 40
Demark 71
Norway 73
Italy 113
Germany 279
United Kingdom 366 and
France 588.
America has 332, less per capita than we do, and has never contributed more than a tiny fraction of the soldiers on UN missions at the best of times.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/
If you look at the data from the above source the nations that contribute the most soldiers, Bangladesh, Pakistan and India have the majority in Liberia and Congo, both traditional Blue-Hat missions. It is also pertinent to note that these nations send a comparative fraction of their total military strength in line to what Canada sends. Also these three nations use very inexpensive troops pro-rated for UN cost to a NATO soldier in order to satisfy their UN monetary obligations instead of dollar contributions. The missions themselves are paid for by Western Nations, as stated in the UN’s own literature.
A better example is Nepal, with more troops involved in UN missions than all the Western European countries combined (3,523) yet anyone who has served in the Former Yugoslavia knows those troops aren’t worth a total of an Infantry Tpt Platoon. Raw numbers alone aren’t much to get exited about if you don’t look at the context.
One fact to note is that the Developing World has taken on more complex and challenging missions, and that’s a credit to the First World Nations that have trained them. But none of the missions Developing World Nations do are as complex as Afghanistan or East Timor or as dangerous as Iraq.
So while some are using this forum to vent on a personal opinion perhaps some should view the figures in the context they were provided and understand what they really say: The Developing world is manning most UN missions now and Western Nations have focused their efforts on specific missions in line with our collective fear of Muslim Terrorism. Any Questions? How these facts bash on Canada’s contributions only you lot can say, I guess.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
warpig: The Polaris Institute clearly wants people to think that service with UN missions is preferable and morally superior to service with any other sort of mission.
Mark
Ottawa
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Warpig for all we know you are Mr. Staples (no filled out profile).
Also have a look at all their previous rhetoric.
Also have a look at all their previous rhetoric.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Further to the article posted by GAP
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/43951/post-385562.html#msg385562
Why do our media keep repeating Gen. Dallaire's calls for substantial numbers of Canadian soldiers on the ground when it has been made clear they are not wanted (full text not online)? Why do our reporters not ask the Senator about that?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20060517.DARFUR17%2FTPStory%2FTPInternational%2FAfrica%2F&ord=9082250&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false
"...
UN diplomats say the force [if it is ever sent] is expected to be largely drawn from African, South Asian and Islamic nations so as to reduce opposition to the move in Khartoum, while the United States and NATO would provide logistical support behind the scenes..."
And why I have seen the facts in the quote above mentioned only once, in that Globe article, and in no other Canadian media (at least as far as I have noticed)?-- whereas the Senator is quoted constantly.
Mark
Ottawa
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/43951/post-385562.html#msg385562
Why do our media keep repeating Gen. Dallaire's calls for substantial numbers of Canadian soldiers on the ground when it has been made clear they are not wanted (full text not online)? Why do our reporters not ask the Senator about that?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20060517.DARFUR17%2FTPStory%2FTPInternational%2FAfrica%2F&ord=9082250&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false
"...
UN diplomats say the force [if it is ever sent] is expected to be largely drawn from African, South Asian and Islamic nations so as to reduce opposition to the move in Khartoum, while the United States and NATO would provide logistical support behind the scenes..."
And why I have seen the facts in the quote above mentioned only once, in that Globe article, and in no other Canadian media (at least as far as I have noticed)?-- whereas the Senator is quoted constantly.
Mark
Ottawa
C
couchcommander
Guest
The problem is that the Polaris Institute is trying to use those numbers to push an agenda, which is pulling out of combat operations in Afghanistan, if not Afghanistan all together.
You're right, any semi-litterate canadian with three working fingers can verify those numbers (the troop levels... the spending estimates, as I have pointed out several times, are kinda off the map), but it's the agenda behind pointing them out to a press conference in conjuction with some other questionable at best "facts" which we have a problem with.
Honestly, if the Polaris Institute wants to come and out say "we think we shouldn't be Afghanistan because a), b), c), and instead we should be here due to a), b) and c)" well then great, lets hash it out.
You're right, any semi-litterate canadian with three working fingers can verify those numbers (the troop levels... the spending estimates, as I have pointed out several times, are kinda off the map), but it's the agenda behind pointing them out to a press conference in conjuction with some other questionable at best "facts" which we have a problem with.
Honestly, if the Polaris Institute wants to come and out say "we think we shouldn't be Afghanistan because a), b), c), and instead we should be here due to a), b) and c)" well then great, lets hash it out.
For all those who think the world is coming to an end because somebody as an agenda other than yours you can relax now, the Conservatives won the election. Rather than become reactionary to any single small and barely threatening jab by those who don’t think exactly as you do, perhaps using their facts and expanding them for your own agenda would be preferable to a Divisional Frontal with Corp Level Artillery.
Perhaps the Polaris Institute does want Canada to participate in more UN missions, and they would have a strong argument that there are places in the world right now that have Zero visibility to the West, for example Africa. The UN is the only ones who would like to do more that wax sympathetically about Darfur, for example. One could possibly get past their agenda and see the relative factualness of their point that the UN needs more support for these missions from the West if they are to get off the ground. Just a point to discuss, IF discussion is indeed some people’s intent here.
And no, I’m not Mr Staples. Who would use such a nickname, aside from Ozzy freaks?
Perhaps the Polaris Institute does want Canada to participate in more UN missions, and they would have a strong argument that there are places in the world right now that have Zero visibility to the West, for example Africa. The UN is the only ones who would like to do more that wax sympathetically about Darfur, for example. One could possibly get past their agenda and see the relative factualness of their point that the UN needs more support for these missions from the West if they are to get off the ground. Just a point to discuss, IF discussion is indeed some people’s intent here.
And no, I’m not Mr Staples. Who would use such a nickname, aside from Ozzy freaks?
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
warpig said:
Wow, that was hilarious! The UN is the only organization that can produce idle chatter about Dafur and play word games to deny there is anything worth taking action about, lest they offend China, who supports the Sudanese regime in exchange for oil (yes, it IS all about oil), or the Arab league (since killing Kuffers is part of their cultural inheritance, nach). What is happening in Dafur is not Genocide, the UN has told you so directly! 300,000 or so people of the same ethnic background just happened to have had firearms accidents in a short period of time........
Anyway, look at the alternatives. The UN will not take action, the African Union has no ability to take effective action, the Sudanese government refuses to let anyone on the ground to take action, so what are we left with? A unilateral invasion led by the Anglosphere West, with the United States as the senior partner (having the only developed ability to project military power on a global basis), which must eradicate the militias, overthrow the Sudanese government, establish a consensual government and conduct large scale nation building over a period of decades, just like in Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't forget the Al Qaeda used Sudan as a base, the former Sudanese government will try to establish an anti-western insurgency and China may react negatively to this course of action, so there will be a "little" bit of resistance to this course of action on the ground.
While this is not impossible, is that sort of expenditure in our national interest? Do we accept the sniping about "unilateral action", "international Law" and "no blood for oil" while we are doing so?
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
Good for them, but what has that got to do with anything? The previous government (Liberals) are the ones responsible for pulling us from various United Nations taskings such as Golan. They consistantly 'down-sized' the numbers of Candian soldiers serving as UN peacekeepers, not the Conservatives.warpig said:
And this zero visibility must explain the whereabouts of some of my vanishing co-workers, currently serving under UN mandate in Africa training and providing Logistical support to African Union UN troops serving in Sudan.warpig said:
And the Polaris Institute seems to be waxing over the ever-emerging dis-organization, corruptness and ineptness of the UN to accomplish much these days.warpig said:
And if the Polaris Institute could get past their UN agenda and see the relative factualness of the point that the UN needs to drasticly overhaul it's current outdated and irrelevant logistical, operational and structural organizations, and end it's wasteful practices (as detailed in other threads in this forum) with the money contributed to it by those same western nations, perhaps they'd understand why western soldiers are not eagre (or their governments as supportive as they used to be) to serve under the "esteemed" blue beret these days.warpig said:
And if the UN itself would finally make the changes it needs to end corruptness, begin financial accountibility and responsibility, and most of all, provide unequiveqable support to those soldiers wearing it's blue beret on missions (witness Rwanda/Srebencia) perhaps it would once again gain that required support for missions from those western nations.
And that, I believe is the crux of the matter. It's mine (and yours) tax dollars supporting the UN after all, and I'm pretty sure that the same wasteful spending of taxpayers dollars is what actually led to the Conservatives winning the last election after all. I've heard the expression "if it ain't broke don't fix it" but unfortunately, the UN is broken and it needs to get fixed in a major way, if it wants to once again enjoy the wide-spread support it used to.
So relax, because that is certainly a point to discuss, if discussion is indeed some people’s intent here. Unfortunately, the Polaris Institue seems to wax sympathetic about the UN, and fails to call them to task for what the UN itself can do to fix the situation it finds itself in.
C
couchcommander
Guest
+1 Infanteer
But what about the pretty lights!?
But what about the pretty lights!?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
The Infanteer raises exactly the right point. Why Darfur and not Afghanistan (nor, for that matter, Iraq)? Mark Steyn had a great article a few weeks ago that compared Darfur to Iraq that called out George (Rosemary's baby) Clooney on his inconsistency between the two.
The main difference between the two is that maintaining a western military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Iran and syria, for that matter) is in the west's interest, where there is little strategic benefit from us being in Sudan. That seems to be the common thread on the Left- if the West stands to benefit, then there is every reason to oppose. If it is mere altruism, then perhaps the appropriate move is to put soldiers in the breach.
Oh, and as an aside, let's remember that UN Peacekeeping has largely devolved into welfare for third world armies. Heck, it's not even that- it's welfare and a good pimping job (see African prostitution problems with UN missions). I'd have thought that the last thing the average peacenik would be in favour of is giving more money to armies who use it for rape and pillage...
The main difference between the two is that maintaining a western military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Iran and syria, for that matter) is in the west's interest, where there is little strategic benefit from us being in Sudan. That seems to be the common thread on the Left- if the West stands to benefit, then there is every reason to oppose. If it is mere altruism, then perhaps the appropriate move is to put soldiers in the breach.
Oh, and as an aside, let's remember that UN Peacekeeping has largely devolved into welfare for third world armies. Heck, it's not even that- it's welfare and a good pimping job (see African prostitution problems with UN missions). I'd have thought that the last thing the average peacenik would be in favour of is giving more money to armies who use it for rape and pillage...
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Western "boots on the ground" not wanted for Darfur--the views of a senior UN official should interest the Polaris Institute (but probably won't):
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1105AP_NATO_UN_Darfur.html
'...
"We either get good news in the next few weeks, or we have catastrophic news later," Jan Egeland [U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator] told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.
He said a major international conference would be held in June somewhere in Europe to try to boost humanitarian aid and assistance for the peacekeepers.
Egeland was in Brussels to meet top officials at NATO and the European Union. He said military powers should provide more resources to improve transport, communications, logistics, training and planning for the African peacekeepers.
However, he warned against deploying a Western military force, as some politicians in the United States have suggested.
"We have to be careful to calibrate the humanitarian and security response so it doesn't provoke a reaction," Egeland said. "I'd like to see the African Union and the U.N. play the lead role there, NATO and other organizations can complement and very usefully complement our efforts."..
NATO and the EU have provided airlift, training and other back up for the peacekeepers and have offered more help to bolster the AU troops before they are due to hand over to a U.N. force in September.
Egeland said the Africans need more trucks and helicopters to move swiftly around the vast region. He said African nations also needed to provide more and better-trained troops and said the African Union should urgently bolster the force's mandate so it could better protect the local population...'
Mark
Ottawa
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1105AP_NATO_UN_Darfur.html
'...
"We either get good news in the next few weeks, or we have catastrophic news later," Jan Egeland [U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator] told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.
He said a major international conference would be held in June somewhere in Europe to try to boost humanitarian aid and assistance for the peacekeepers.
Egeland was in Brussels to meet top officials at NATO and the European Union. He said military powers should provide more resources to improve transport, communications, logistics, training and planning for the African peacekeepers.
However, he warned against deploying a Western military force, as some politicians in the United States have suggested.
"We have to be careful to calibrate the humanitarian and security response so it doesn't provoke a reaction," Egeland said. "I'd like to see the African Union and the U.N. play the lead role there, NATO and other organizations can complement and very usefully complement our efforts."..
NATO and the EU have provided airlift, training and other back up for the peacekeepers and have offered more help to bolster the AU troops before they are due to hand over to a U.N. force in September.
Egeland said the Africans need more trucks and helicopters to move swiftly around the vast region. He said African nations also needed to provide more and better-trained troops and said the African Union should urgently bolster the force's mandate so it could better protect the local population...'
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
UN peacekeeping at work (sort of): "U.N. Council Cuts Ethiopia, Eritrea Forces". I wonder what the Polaris Institute thinks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102498.html
Excerpts:
"The Security Council cut the number of peacekeepers deployed in Eritrea and Ethiopia by at least one-third Wednesday night while extending the U.N. mission's mandate for another four months.
A unanimously passed resolution reduced the force from 3,500 to 2,300. The United States sought a cutback because Ethiopia and Eritrea made no progress in resuming talks on the demarcation of their border...
Eritrea has repeatedly ignored council demands that it lift restrictions on U.N. helicopter flights on its side of a buffer zone separating the two countries. Ethiopia similarly has rejected calls to abide by the deal that awarded the key town of Badme to Eritrea..."
Mark
Ottawa
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102498.html
Excerpts:
"The Security Council cut the number of peacekeepers deployed in Eritrea and Ethiopia by at least one-third Wednesday night while extending the U.N. mission's mandate for another four months.
A unanimously passed resolution reduced the force from 3,500 to 2,300. The United States sought a cutback because Ethiopia and Eritrea made no progress in resuming talks on the demarcation of their border...
Eritrea has repeatedly ignored council demands that it lift restrictions on U.N. helicopter flights on its side of a buffer zone separating the two countries. Ethiopia similarly has rejected calls to abide by the deal that awarded the key town of Badme to Eritrea..."
Mark
Ottawa
And the opposition wants us save a little for Darfur...did they think we wouldn't have casualties there also?
African Union soldiers killed in Darfur
Saturday 19 August 2006, 23:29 Makka Time, 20:29 GMT Al Jazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/38AF6C86-8477-4C30-86DA-80BD5B8F7AA9.htm
Two African Union soldiers have been killed and three injured in an ambush on a convoy in Sudan's Darfur region.
The attack which targeted a convoy carrying fuel in the Kuma area around 80 kilometres (50 miles) northeast of Darfur's main town of el-Fasher was condemned by the African Union mission in Sudan.
An African Union statement said: "The African Union mission in Sudan [AMIS] condemns in the strongest possible terms this outrageous attack against its forces in Darfur and intends to carry [out] a thorough investigation."
The attack happened in an area that is under the control of rebels who did not sign the May peace deal, but the AU said it was not clear who the attackers were.
Only one of the three rebel factions involved in negotiations signed the AU-brokered peace deal in May. Tens of thousands of Darfuris have protested against the accord, saying they want more compensation for war victims, more political posts and a monitoring role in disarming Arab militia, known as Janjaweed.
This week the AU expelled non-signatory rebel representatives from its camps, saying it could no longer guarantee their safety because the government called them terrorists after some of the groups formed a new alliance which has attacked the government since the May deal.
More on link
African Union soldiers killed in Darfur
Saturday 19 August 2006, 23:29 Makka Time, 20:29 GMT Al Jazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/38AF6C86-8477-4C30-86DA-80BD5B8F7AA9.htm
Two African Union soldiers have been killed and three injured in an ambush on a convoy in Sudan's Darfur region.
The attack which targeted a convoy carrying fuel in the Kuma area around 80 kilometres (50 miles) northeast of Darfur's main town of el-Fasher was condemned by the African Union mission in Sudan.
An African Union statement said: "The African Union mission in Sudan [AMIS] condemns in the strongest possible terms this outrageous attack against its forces in Darfur and intends to carry [out] a thorough investigation."
The attack happened in an area that is under the control of rebels who did not sign the May peace deal, but the AU said it was not clear who the attackers were.
Only one of the three rebel factions involved in negotiations signed the AU-brokered peace deal in May. Tens of thousands of Darfuris have protested against the accord, saying they want more compensation for war victims, more political posts and a monitoring role in disarming Arab militia, known as Janjaweed.
This week the AU expelled non-signatory rebel representatives from its camps, saying it could no longer guarantee their safety because the government called them terrorists after some of the groups formed a new alliance which has attacked the government since the May deal.
More on link
