Articles
The Failure of Humanity - Reprise By Phil Lancaster and Roméo Dallaire February 2009
The UN Security Council approved last November another 3,000 troops to be added to the roughly 17,000 military peacekeepers already deployed across the Democratic Republic of Congo (SC Resolution 1834) as part of MONUC, the UN mission in that country. The Resolution was adopted nearly two months after it had become clear that MONUC troops could not contain the latest outbreak of fighting. So far, despite a lot of media attention and behind the scenes diplomatic arm twisting, no one has offered to send the additional troops Ban Ki Moon has asked for. By now it must be clear that a relief force is unlikely to reach Goma in time to prevent Laurent Nkunda from taking the city should he decide to. Even if troops could be deployed quickly, the leaders of countries with armies capable of providing well led, well equipped and well trained troops that would be needed to recover some of the UN’s lost credibility have made it equally clear that none of them are eager to commit to what most of them see as yet another forlorn adventure in Africa. So, despite the 250,000 newly displaced Congolese, despite clear evidence that MONUC has been overwhelmed and desperately needs help, despite almost daily reports of massacre, rape and child abductions, the best we can do is waste months deciding that help is needed only to dither over who should respond. Clearly, MONUC has failed to fulfill its core mandate of protecting civilian life in There is a double problem here that needs some thought. The first of these is the need for immediate action to save lives and mitigate harm. To do this, Canadians must recognize that sitting on the sidelines cheering on a reluctant set of players contributes little more than noise to a process that demands action, not more empty words. No matter how morally indignant we might be about the collapse of MONUC forces in Eastern DRC we have no moral right to insist that the Indian, Pakistani, South African, Senegalese, Uruguayan and other soldiers who make up MONUC’s numbers in the field should be prepared to sacrifice themselves to our ideals. Who are we to ask others to take up a burden we are not willing to carry ourselves? Surely we are better than this. If we want the game to be well played, we need to get onto the ice ourselves and start showing the other teams what it means to play to win. We can’t do it from the sidelines. If we as Canadians want to speak up and be heard as part of an international effort to save lives and mitigate the effects of conflict in DRC, or indeed in Darfur, we must understand that the credibility of our voice depends on what we are prepared to do, not only on what we are prepared to say. If we truly believe there is a responsibility to protect (R2P) the victims of this conflict, then we must act in accordance with our beliefs. In fine old Canadian tradition, we should put up or shut up. But if we opt for silence we forfeit our right to the illusion that we are a force for good in our world. We also forfeit our commitment to the universal application of a human rights agenda. Will that be a There is a larger issue here that also needs consideration. The UN relies on the collective will of its member states to generate credible Peacekeeping missions. If rebel leaders like Laurent Nkunda succeed in intimidating a UN mission then they succeed as well in destroying the credibility of the member states and their capacity to back up their collective decisions. A challenge to collective will is a challenge to each member of the UN to decide again if they think the UN is worth supporting and if indeed it can be given responsibility over peace processes as complicated as that of DRC. If Nkunda can demonstrate to other rebels around the world that he can dictate terms to the UN then he will have shown once again how hollow the Peacekeeping idea is. Can we afford to let this happen? The second problem is more difficult to define but concerns the limits of what can be achieved through UN Peacekeeping. Have we over-reached the capacity of the Peacekeeping model? Here, it is important to understand some of the complexity of the context. In DRC, MONUC’s mandate includes a duty to support the development of a post-civil war government in Nowhere is the government of DRC capacity thrown into question as clearly as it is in UN Peacekeepers are generally used to act as a sort of referee force between opposing armies that have agreed a ceasefire. When used between sovereign states, they at least have the possibility of dealing with functioning governments. In DRC, So, we are back to the beginning. While there is an immediate need to intervene to protect the people of DRC, there is also a clear need to ensure that doing so does not open them to worse problems in the future. On the evidence so far available, it is not clear that an emergency reinforcement of MONUC would serve any long term purpose unless connected to a much improved strategy to generate good governance in Major Philip Lancaster was General Dallaire’s executive assistant during the 1994 Rwandan genocide and has recently returned from a year in Goma working for MONUC where he ran the UN demobilisation programme. LGen Roméo Dallaire commanded the United Nations Assistance
By Romeo Dallaire
August 2008
In Thusday's Editorial section I was very disappointed to see that my honourable colleague, Conservative Senator Consiglio DiNino, has mistaken a question of statesmanship and fundamental rights for a partisan political squabble (Re: Dallaire's outrage in Khadr case 'selective' - 7 August 2008).
My colleague says I insult the intelligence of Canadians when I ask that a former child soldier be treated in accordance with international law. In fact, I am doing the opposite. I am trusting Canadians to see beyond the superficial aspects of Omar Khadr's case and to recognize that his treatment violates international law and sets a precedent that will endanger thousands of child soldiers around the world. Both Canada and the United States have signed the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, which prohibits the recruitment of children by armed groups, and provides for their reintegration and rehabilitation, not prosecution.
Instead of dwelling on the personal failings of Omar Khadr's parents, brothers and sisters, I have tried to remind Canadians that this is a question of child rights, not politics. It is easy to harbour reservations about the Khadr family. It is politically convenient not to move beyond a gut reaction to their most objectionable beliefs. In cases such as this, it requires intelligence, compassion, and a true willingness to see the 'big picture' to remember that all children have inalienable rights, even if their families, or they themselves, have done things we disapprove of.
In a speech on my motion in the Senate on 27 May 2008, Senator DiNino told me he cares about the rights of child soldiers and understands why I have taken up this pressing international issue. Two months later, he claims my position on Omar Khadr is "selective and convenient" and designed to "score cheap political points."
It is saddening to see that my honourable colleague is unable or unwilling to recognize that Guantánamo is home to an illegal process. I ask the Government to respect Canada's international obligations and adhere to their own commitments on the use of children in armed conflicts instead of confusing the issue with ill-judged partisan attacks.
Who are the real criminals in Omar Khadr’s case?
By Romeo Dallaire
May 2008
Canadians must realize by now that our government’s sophistry and cynicism toward Omar Khadr’s tragic predicament are simply a masquerade for an unacceptable moral position. We are permitting the U.S. to try a Canadian child soldier for serious crimes by a military tribunal whose procedures violate basic human rights and are a mockery of the principles of justice.
Using clever words and pat responses, the Canadian government sloughs off a situation which flies in the face of international law and the very protocol to protect child soldiers we’ve helped shape. The Khadr fiasco has sullied Canada’s reputation as a conscientious advocate of human rights and justice at home and abroad.
Speaking recently about the Harper government’s inaction on the Khadr file, former Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier glibly told the House that “the current policy of the government is one that has been in place since 2002” and that the government “is making sure that justice takes its course.”
In 2002, during the panicky aftermath of 9/11, the Canadian government’s policy towards Mr. Khadr was unquestionably wrong. However, sticking stubbornly to a six-year-old approach towards this young man’s appalling circumstances clearly illustrates the government’s inflexible policy mechanism and perhaps even its compulsion to bow and scrape to the Bush administration.
During the current government’s two years of leadership, we have heard troubling facts about Guantánamo Bay and incontrovertible evidence of U.S. malfeasance. In light of these facts, what was a wrong-headed policy towards Mr. Khadr in 2002 has become an unconscionable one in 2008. Here’s a sampling of facts the government chooses to ignore in its stale responses about its hands-off policy.
In July 2006 the UN called for the closure of Guantánamo Bay, calling the indefinite detention of individuals without a charge “a violation of the convention against torture.” Two months later, more than 600 U.S. legal scholars and jurists called on the Congress not to enact the Military Commissions Act 2006 as it would rob detainees of fundamental protections provided by domestic and international law. This Act allows evidence gleaned from abusive interrogations, including coercion and torture. The commissions also sabotage individuals’ ability to defend themselves by barring access to exculpatory evidence known to the U.S. government. In Mr. Khadr’s case, documents to be used as evidence for war crimes charges, laid in February 2007, have been altered. Finally, in December 2007, Colonel Morris Davis, then chief military prosecutor of the military tribunals, resigned in protest over political interference. He said “it’s a disgrace to call it a military commission – it is a political commission.”
Omar Khadr’s ordeal began in 2002 when the 15-year-old was present during a firefight with U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Despite his age and the two serious gunshot wounds Khadr suffered during the incident, he was taken prisoner as an adult combatant for allegedly killing a U.S. serviceman. Even while he lay healing from his wounds, he was ill-treated, possibly tortured and certainly threatened with rendition, rape and death. We now know even Canadian officials capitalized on Khadr’s incarceration at Guantánamo Bay to question him and subsequently share that information with his captors.
Despite all this, the foreign affairs minister sticks to his line that the government “is making sure that justice takes its course.” It’s difficult to imagine how anything resembling justice can come out of the bizarre machinations and fundamental immorality now at play at Guantánamo Bay.
Our government is oblivious to the fact that the US Military Commissions were created, not to dispense justice, but to convict at any cost those being held. Ordinary Canadians with 15-year-old children would be outraged if their sons or daughters were treated like Omar—regardless of the seriousness of their alleged misdeeds.
Within the international community, Canada is viewed as gullible for allowing its citizen to be used in justifying an illegal tribunal system at Guantánamo and as hypocritical for quietly acceding to the first ever child soldier war crimes prosecution.
But even beyond Mr. Khadr’s individual case, Canada’s inaction has profound international ramifications. The UN Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict, Radhika Coomaraswamy, says Khadr’s prosecution sets a hazardous precedent in international law, which will endanger child soldiers in conflict zones. The impunity enjoyed by the real criminals—those who have recruited child soldiers—continues to the detriment of the real victims: the thousands of child soldiers around the world.
Instead of quibbling about which crimes and atrocities are more serious than others, this government must act now like all of our allies to bring one of our citizens home. As long as it doesn’t, it perpetuates a catastrophic affront to human rights and international law. The Harper government must not be allowed to hide behind unethical assertions nor use parliamentary processes as a smokescreen to delude ordinary Canadians into believing that all’s well at Guantánamo Bay.
China thirsts for international acceptance, but first it has a dirty secret to explain
By Romeo Dallaire
May 2008
Many consider it taboo to speak of the genocide in
There’s no doubt Western countries have demonstrated abysmal judgment in various crises over the past couple of centuries, and their failures and misdeeds need retelling and analysis lest they be repeated. Western insouciance and intransigence over the past few decades alone have been staggering in terms of human suffering—think of Sierre Leone, Rwanda, the Congo, Eastern Europe and Afghanistan, to name a few.
For the moment, however, the crisis screaming out to Western nations and the international community is the genocide in progress in
The Chinese government wants us to ignore their central role in all this, and to laud them as the gracious host of the 2008 Olympic Games.
Based on its behaviour in the
Ms Gagnon and Mr. Constatin assert the Chinese regime is too proud to give in to Western pressure. Moreover, they say, public pressure from the West would only push the Chinese to withdraw behind their communist dictatorship. We need to challenge these assumptions. In any event, remaining silent while
Fortunately, international criticism is not the only force at work. Despite government repression, student, labour and intellectual movements in
According to Ms. Gagnon and Mr. Constantin,
Despite the objections of my detractors in their articles, I will consider my comments to have had a positive result if they make us realize that we must act to resolve the current conflict in