babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Canada in Kandahar: No Peace to Keep

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Canada in Kandahar: No Peace to Keep
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 28 June 2006 07:47 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Harpo dismisses the Senlis report on Canada's Afghanistan mission
quote:
Canadian soldiers are dying while enforcing failing U.S.-led policies to stomp out the illegal opium trade in Afghanistan, says a report that has received a cool reception from Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Harper dismissed the report Wednesday from the Paris-based Senlis Council, which said Washington's goal of eliminating poppy cultivation in Afghanistan is doomed to fail and is endangering Canadian soldiers.

"Canadian troops have been handed an impossible mission which can only lead to significant military casualties," said the report.


The Senlis Council report, Canada in Kandahar: No Peace to Keep, can be read here in .pdf format.

From the blurb:

quote:
Canadian troops and Afghan civilians are paying with their lives for Canada's adherence to the US government's failing military and counter-narcotics policies in Kandahar. The US-led counter-terrorist operations and militaristic poppy eradication strategies have triggered a new war with the Taliban and other insurgent groups, and are causing countless civilian deaths.

To a large extent, it can be said that Operation Enduring Freedom and the related militaristic counter-narcotics policies are significant contributors to the current state of war in Kandahar and the other southern provinces.

Canada and the international community continue to unquestioningly accept America's fundamentally flawed policy approach in southern Afghanistan, thereby jeopardising the success of military operations in the region and the stabilisation, reconstruction and development mission objectives.



From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 28 June 2006 08:04 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The talking heads in the military have rejected the Senlis report as well, saying they're no different from any other anti-American organization that flies in and out of Afganistan and writes up a report lambasting the US and anyone working with them (ie: Canada). That's what I saw on the news tonight.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 28 June 2006 08:07 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Harper and the neocons might try to "dismiss" the analysis but it will stick in his craw that people like Raymond Kendall, former Secretary General of INTERPOL, are closely associated with the Senlis Council and its conclusions. Which just goes to show that sometimes a good cop is a lot better than a crummy politician.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 28 June 2006 08:25 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Page 10 of the report sets out in chart form the difference between Operation Enduring Freedom and ISAF.

Page 11 continues:

quote:
US-led Operation Enduring Freedom and the NATO-led ISAF mission do not have equal legitimacy under international law. Operation Enduring Freedom operates in Afghanistan under the guise of ‘national self-defence’, whereas ISAF was specifically mandated by the UN to assist the Afghan interim administration in securing the country.

The initial legal basis for Operation Enduring Freedom came from two UN Security Council resolutions, and the self-defence-focused Article 5 of the Treaty of Washington, which was invoked unanimously by members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on 2 October 2001.

The International Security Assistance Force was created in December 2001 in accordance with the Bonn Conference, and operates under a UN mandate. ISAF is not a UN force, it is a ‘coalition of the willing’ whose mission was initially limited to Kabul. In August 2003, NATO took command of ISAF, and a UN Security Council Resolution in October 2003 paved the way for ISAF to support the Government of Afghanistan in regions beyond Kabul.

Is there a proper international legal basis for Operation Enduring Freedom?

The current legality of Operation Enduring Freedom is highly questionable. It is arguable that Operation Enduring Freedom’s self-defence raison d’être no longer applies. In 2001 it was indeed logical for the US to invoke the above-mentioned self-defence clause of Article 5 as the basis to invade Afghanistan, because Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban regime clearly supported and harboured the Al Qaeda movement responsible for the September 11 attacks in the United States. Operation Enduring Freedom was designed to remove these elements so as to avoid similar attacks in the future. However, five years on, Operation Enduring Freedom continues to operate under the legal flag of self-defence, yet the situation on the ground in Afghanistan has changed completely.

The Taliban regime has been removed and replaced by a democratically elected government. The remnants of the Taliban, related groups and new insurgent actors currently operating in Afghanistan no longer have clear ties to Al Qaeda or a clear relationship to those that undertook the 9/11 attacks.

It is clear that the original legal basis of Operation Enduring Freedom has disappeared. With NATO troops in the process of replacing the outdated Operation Enduring Freedom in most of Afghanistan, the situation in southern Afghanistan is particularly problematic. ISAF is designed to stabilise and reconstruct Afghanistan, and has no legal mandate to actively track down and target the neo-Taliban forces in southern Afghanistan. Although ISAF troops can support the Afghan Government’s counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency missions, they are only allowed to act in self-defence against these forces. Targeted military action against the Taliban and other insurgents will remain the exclusive domain of the Afghan security forces and Operation Enduring Freedom. As such, ISAF forces operating in southern Afghanistan will be operating in a legal quagmire, where their legal basis precludes addressing on-the-ground realities, which are increasingly dictating active engagement with insurgents.


[ 28 June 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca