Traditional Canadian peace-keeping met its Waterloo in Rwanda - Ignatieff & Afghanistan
Some of the other candidates are winning political points by stating he's militaristic or inferring he's a Bush/Harper enabler. Michael Ignatieff is neither.Ignatieff (himself) explains why he voted in favour of a 2 year extension to the Afghanistan mission:
From a speech delivered in Saint John, New Brunswick on June 16, 2006:
Over the last month, Liberals have led the country in an important public debate about Canada’s role in Afghanistan. I was one of those who supported a two-year extension of this mission. Let me tell you why.
First of all, Liberals need to remember this is a Liberal mission. Canadian troops first joined the international campaign against terrorism in the region in October 2001. Two years later, Canada made a large commitment of troops to the UN-mandated NATO International Security Force based in Kabul which was accompanied by our largest ever development assistance contribution to a single country. Our mission then served as an example of Canada’s evolving “3D” - defence, diplomacy and development – approach to building peace, order and good government. In May 2005, then Defence Minister Bill Graham announced that Canadian troops would be moving to Kandahar as part of a Provincial Reconstruction Team. The purpose was, and remains today, to strengthen security and stability for the Afghan people. This move to Kandahar demonstrated Canada’s determination to stabilize Afghanistan and prevent it from becoming a training ground for terrorists. We are not there as an army of occupation or conquest. We are there at the request of the Afghan government, with the authorization of the UN and working closely with over 30 countries, including our NATO allies who asked us to stand with them and the Afghan people.
We are there serving Afghan needs: helping to set up the Afghan police, helping to stabilize the province around Kandahar, protecting villages, building schools, digging wells, removing land-mines. Without us, schools rebuilt by day would be burned down at night.
I know this is a difficult mission. We are in the midst of the most serious Taliban offensive in Afghanistan since they took Kandahar in the 1990s and marched on Kabul. I was in Kabul in 1996 and I know what it was like when the Taliban took over: women running for cover, marauding bands in the streets, chaos, violence and tyranny, followed by massive human rights abuses, destruction of cultural and religious artefacts, and the conversion of Afghanistan into a terrorist training camp.
There is a mounting fear that, if the international community fails here, Afghanistan will fall back into the hands of the Taliban. We cannot let that happen. Afghan villagers do not want to be terrorized by the Taliban. Afghan women do not want to be driven off the streets and denied an education. Afghan citizens who proudly lined up for hours to vote in the first free elections in their country`s history do not want to be denied their democratic rights. We are there to defend these values: they are Canadian values.
We are a proud people. Atlantic Canadians know better than most what a great military tradition we have. We are a serious people. You ask us to do something difficult. We do it. That’s what being Canadian is.
Leadership means standing firm. It means remembering who we are. The question of this extension really comes down to whether we were prepared, as a nation, to withdraw in 8 months from now, leaving the job undone. How could we tell the 36 other nations putting lives at risk in Afghanistan, including our NATO partners, that Canadians have “had enough”?
I was the Canadian member of the international commission that persuaded the UN to adopt the doctrine of `responsibility to protect`. We said that when governments can’t protect their own citizens and seek outside help, countries like Canada should be prepared to come in and help them protect their citizens from violence. Responsibility to protect is a great Canadian idea. We should have the guts to stand by it, when the going gets tough.
Leadership demands integrity. We, as Liberals, don’t stand a chance in the next election unless we can demonstrate that we are a party of principle, courage and conviction. We have to show that when we say we’ll do something, we do it. We’re in Afghanistan because of the leadership of the two previous Liberal governments. We went to Kandahar to work with our partners to do the heavy lifting. We, as a Party, cannot abandon what is right or what we believe for political convenience.
I`m proud to have the support of a great Canadian soldier, Romeo Dallaire, who is here today. But let`s remember what happened when we sent him to Rwanda in 1994. Traditional Canadian peace-keeping met its Waterloo in Rwanda. For weeks, brave Canadians had to watch helplessly as 800,000 people were senselessly killed . Dallaire wanted to stop it: but he lacked the equipment, the armament and the rules of engagement to do so. The Liberal government, indeed all Canadians, vowed we would never allow this to happen again. We are in Afghanistan to keep that promise.
But make no mistake. When I supported the renewal of the Afghan mission I did not give the Harper government a blank cheque. The Conservatives must remain consistent with the Liberal mission and the mission must continue to serve Canadian objectives. We are nobody else’s auxiliaries. As I said in the House of Commons, if Harper changes course and the mission loses sight of its humanitarian goals, I will hold the Harper government to account.
5 Comments:
But make no mistake. When I supported the renewal of the Afghan mission I did not give the Harper government a blank cheque. The Conservatives must remain consistent with the Liberal mission and the mission must continue to serve Canadian objectives.
When Ignatieff supported the motion he absolutely did give Harper a blank cheque. There was absolutely nothing in the motion that said anything about 'remaining consistent with the Liberal mission'.
In the house Ignatieff said that they had to remain consistent with the Liberal motion, but his words in the debate are not what he voted for. He didn't propose an ammendment to change the motion to a more specific one. He just wrote Harper a blank cheque.
The Conservatives must remain consistent with the Liberal mission and the mission must continue to serve Canadian objectives. I will hold the Harper government to account.
So will I, so will you.
The problem, is that Harper and the tories are the government, and as opposition, we can't tell the govt what to do.
The main point, is that it was the right thing to vote for, as currently the misson serves Canadian objectives.
We are not there as an army of occupation or conquest. We are there at the request of the Afghan government, with the authorization of the UN and working closely with over 30 countries, including our NATO allies who asked us to stand with them and the Afghan people.
We are there serving Afghan needs: helping to set up the Afghan police, helping to stabilize the province around Kandahar, protecting villages, building schools, digging wells, removing land-mines. Without us, schools rebuilt by day would be burned down at night.
The problem, is that Harper and the tories are the government, and as opposition, we can't tell the govt what to do.
Not true. Between the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc, there were more than enough votes to kill the motion and reintroduce a much more specific motion that effectively told the government what to do.
And we will. The moment the Tories sway from 'remaining consistent with the Liberal mission'.
To be as stubborn, as to demand that language to the effect be included as an ammendment is unrealistic.
The renewal motion serves Canadian objectives. And Ignatieff voted for it.
To be as stubborn, as to demand that language to the effect be included as an ammendment is unrealistic.
It's stubborn and unrealistic to expect that MP's not sign a blank cheque to Harper based on no information? In a minority government?
Harper played politics with the mission to split the Liberals, and Ignatieff was unintentionally key in helping him do it.
Post a Comment
<< Home