UN chief gets it
What will it take for opposition to grasp Afghanistan mission?
If the Secretary General of the United Nations writes a powerful defence of the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan and nobody reports it, is that the same as if he never wrote it at all?
In Canada, apparently so. Sun reader Pav Penna recently pointed me to a remarkable column written by UN Secretary General BanKi-moon for the Globe and Mail on Jan. 24, which the paper ran only on its website.
Penna asked why no Canadian media have reported its contents. Good question. They’re certainly politically significant for Canada, given the ongoing debate about the Afghanistan mission domestically.
Indeed, to be sure it was authentic, I contacted the UN Secretary-General’s office in New York yesterday, which confirmed the piece was indeed written by Ban Ki-moon.
So, given that Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe are forever telling us how important it is for Canada to act through the UN, I’m sure many Canadians would like to hear their responses to the UN Secretary-General’s observations about our UN-sanctioned military mission in Afghanistan.
Specifically, do they agree or disagree with the following statements, all direct quotes, from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon:
(1) “Afghanistan is a potent symbol of the costs inherent in abandoning nations to the lawless forces of anarchy. That alone justifies international efforts to help rebuild the country. Lest there be any doubt, remember Sept. 11, 2001, and its worldwide reverberations. We learned then how a country, shorn of its civic institutions, becomes a vacuum filled by criminals and opportunists. In its chaos and poverty, Afghanistan became a home base for terror.”
(2) “Must we learn that lesson all over again? ... Once again the opportunists are on the rise, seeking anew to make Afghanistan a lawless place—a locus of instability, terrorism and drug trafficking. Their means are desperate: suicide bombs, kidnappings, the killing of government officials and hijacking of aid convoys. Almost more dismaying is the response of some outside Afghanistan, who react by calling for a disengagement or the full withdrawal of international forces. This would be a misjudgment of historic proportions, the repetition of a mistake that has already had terrible consequences.” (My italics.)
(3) “The Afghan government has far to go before it regains control of its own destiny. But that day will come. It is hard work. There is little glory. It requires sacrifices. And that is why we are there.”
Now, to be clear, some of us have doubts about the UN on other files.
But since Dion, Layton and Duceppe are such big fans, perhaps they could tear themselves away for a moment from worrying about what happens to Taliban prisoners our soldiers capture and address this far more substantive issue.
TORTURE
Obviously, our soldiers shouldn’t hand over Taliban prisoners to Afghani authorities if they have reason to believe they’ll be tortured. That said, it’s absurd to expect them, or our government, to be able to guarantee prisoners in Afghanistan will be treated exactly the same as they would in Canada. To suggest otherwise is just nonsense.
So again, Stephane, Jack, Gilles back to the real question: Do you support our UN-mandated mission in Afghanistan, as described by the UN secretary-general or not? Yes or no?
For the full text of Ban Ki-moon’s column, google: “Being in Afghanistan is dangerous, not being in Afghanistan is more dangerous” and click on the top item from globeandmail.com.
More…
| 
