UN in Lebanon

[a_majoor]

Someone else who gets it:

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2006/08/myth-of-pearson-and-peacekeeping.html

The Myth of Pearson and Peacekeeping

The left loves to remind us that Canada is most proud of its tradition of peacekeeping, when in fact, we have no tradition of peacekeeping. We do have one of peacemaking in Europe and Asia through our involvement in the Great War, Second World War, Korea, and Afghanistan. We have maintained peace best through strength in NATO and NORAD, not the United Nations.

It is telling that the Economist's recap of the Suez Crisis fails to even mention Canada or Lester B. Pearson. With that said, Mr. Pearson did play an important role in helping bring a normalization to the crisis that had enveloped the Israel, the Sinai, Egypt, and European powers. However, it was American pressure on Britain and France that truly brought hostilities to an end. The reason for this is because military power is the fuel of meaningful diplomacy.

The left fails to grasp the true nature and importance of military power. The military, a wise professor at Queen's University once told me, was to kill people and break things. The military is designed to focus destruction and carnage to achieve political, strategic, and economic ends. That we have civilian control of our militaries in the West is truly remarkable, indeed it is the exception, rather than the norm, in human history.

Canadians have been duped in believing that our military is best used by strapping on a blue helmet and manning a post between two factions who want to kill each other. Then we mourn in disbelief when our soldiers are killed while standing guard under a light blue flag.

The myth Canada has embraced is that real peace can be achieved through negotiation and dialogue. True peace is achieved by the unconditional surrender of the vanquished. This is why it is better to support an ally in achieving victory than calling for diplomacy and treaties.

Remaining "neutral" in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah goes against Canadian values and is detrimental for long term peace. Furthermore, equating Hezbollah with Israel as being equals who can negotiate is immoral from a foreign policy standpoint. Hezbollah specifically targets civilians while Israel makes great efforts to avoid harming innocents. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, Israel is a democratically elected liberal democracy. Hezbollah is racist believing in the extermination of Jews, Israel allows Arabs to sit in the Knesset. Hezbollah invaded Israel and kidnapped IDF soldiers, Israel had withdrawn from Lebanon completely which had been verified by the UN.

Canada is right to support Israel against Hezbollah. It is refreshing and altogether proper that we again have a principled foreign policy under the leadership of Stephen Harper. Canada should also be wary of putting any more soldiers in blue helmets to serve in missions that almost always result in abject failure.

 

[MarkOttawa]

The idea of a peacekeeping force itself was actually American. Pearson picked it up and ran with it as a way of giving the UK and France a face-saving way out.

What everyone forgets is that in 1967 UNEF was kicked out by Nasser, one of the triggers that led Israel to initiate the Six-Day war.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/united_nations_middle_east.htm

So that first peacekeeping mission did not even prevent a subsequent war.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[cplcaldwell]

MarkOttawa: It's interesting on that site you mention that Congo and Korea were considered successful. Too bad there is no date on the page....Maybe no resolution comes from UN peacekeeping, just postponement...

But really doesn't it, along with a_majoor's post, go to show that peacekeeping is not an option here. I would submit that, at best, talking about peacekeeping here is a misnomer.

What is needed is more like an ISAF. I doubt UN could pull that off. NATO is occupied. Was EuroCorps (or whatever they wanted to call it) ever formed? Is there room for another bloc to step in?

 

[GAP]

Pearson, even while proposing the option to the UN, was more worried about NATO crashing than anything else. He never supported and actually condemned Nasser and his actions, much like Harper is doing to Hezbollah.  He was also one of the strongest supporters of forming the country of Israel in 1948.

 

[MarkOttawa]

cplcaldwell: Eurocorps website:
http://www.eurocorps.org/

This is not an EU force, but rather a formation of national forces available for NATO or the EU.

I think what you are thinking of is the "European Rapid Reaction Force":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Rapid_Reaction_Force

As far as I can see the ERRF really does not yet have any concrete reality.  I cannot see the EU as such agreeing to command a risky mission in Lebanon.

Mark
Ottawa