cnjournal

On 2 Sept 2004, the UN Security Council (UNSC) adopted resolution 1559 with typically high-minded rhetoric designed to make it appear that the UNSC was actually doing something to help resolve the smouldering issue of restoring full sovereignty to the State of Lebanon.

The language of the resolution positions the views of the SC by the usual reiteration of its “grave concern” and by recalling all previous statements and resolutions; it concludes with its request to the Secretary-General to report on the implementation and to remain “actively seized of the matter”.

Here is part of the theoretical basis for the SC 1559 solution as seen by the diplomats.

    1.     Reaffirms its call for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanon;

    2.     Calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon;

    3.     Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;

    4.     Supports the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory;

What an empty and meaningless pile of bilge.

Essentially from then until now, the UN did nothing to support these four points and worse, totally failed to respond to the clear build up of arms and control of Southern Lebanon by Hezbollah. In fact, the non-state militia of Hezbollah was allowed to flourish from the moment of the pull-out by Israel in 2000.

In the 1559 referenced report of the Sec-Gen, the following conclusion was reached with respect to the disposition of the Shaaba Farms area:

“When UN surveyors marked the Blue Line between Lebanon and Israel in the summer of 2000 after Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, they determined that the Shaaba Farms villages were on the Israeli side, that is, on land that will be the subject of peace negotiations between Israel and Syria (my underline -cn) at some time in the future.”

“On 15 May 2000, the United Nations received a map, dated 1966, from the Government of Lebanon which reflected the Government's position that these farmlands were located in Lebanon. However, the United Nations is in possession of 10 other maps issued after 1966 by various Lebanese government institutions, including the Ministry of Defence and the army, all of which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic. The United Nations has also examined six maps issued by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, including three maps since 1966, which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic.”

However in typical Middle-East fashion and since Israel's withdrawal, “Hezbollah has kept the dispute over Shaaba Farms boiling with assertions that they have evidence supporting Lebanese claims to the land. This gives them a pretext to attack Israel for holding land Hezbollah still considers to be part of Lebanon; that is, they claim Israel has not yet withdrawn from all of Lebanon.”

Roll forward almost two years to the present UNSC resolution, 1701 and surprise, surprise, the Shaaba Farms is back on the agenda: the draft resolution says the SC will “take due note” of  “the proposals made in the seven-point plan regarding the Shebaa farms area”.

This is the relevant para in the Siniora 7 point plan:

 “c- A commitment from the Security Council to place the Shebaa Farms area and the Kfarshouba Hills under UN jurisdiction until border delineation and Lebanese sovereignty over them are fully settled.”

Just wondering - how do you think the SC will “take due note” of this request from Siniora. Far as I can see the issue is as “fully settled” as it could possibly be. On the other hand this conclusion is based on my North-American logic and will no doubt be seen as quite inadequate to deal with Middle-East logic.

This in spite of the following clear statement by the UN Sec-Gen, January 20, 2005 in his UN report on Lebanon:

 "The continually asserted position of the Government of Lebanon that the Blue Line is not valid in the Shab'a farms area is not compatible with Security Council resolutions. The Council has recognized the Blue Line as valid for purposes of confirming Israel’s withdrawal pursuant to resolution 425 (1978). The UN Security Council has repeatedly requested that all parties respect the Blue Line in its entirety."[5].(Middle East Intelligence Bulletin - MEIB).  The official position of the UN has always been that Resolution 425 required Israeli forces to withdraw to the pre-1978 line of separation, that is, to the 1949 Armistice Demarcation Line (ADL ).

Until recently, successive Lebanese governments explicitly endorsed this position - the 1949 ADL was considered sacrosanct. In fact, the 1989 Ta'if Accord which established the Second Lebanese Republic explicitly calls for adherence "to the truce agreement signed on March 23, 1949" and implementation of Resolution 425.

So, why has this issue reopened?

To say that the dispute was simply a pretext used by Hezbollah and Syria to justify its continued attacks on Israel and the Israeli Defence Force (IDF), is to state the obvious. In its assessment of the claims and counter claims to the area, the UN relied on all known maps dating from as early as the French mandate period beginning in 1921.

Interestingly, on 17 April, 2000 when Israel advised the UN of its intention to withdraw its forces in full compliance with UNSC 425, the Sec Gen dispatched his special Middle East envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen to “verify that both sides were in agreement on the conditions required by Resolution 425. Upon arriving in Beirut, the UN team encountered an eleventh hour objection from Lebanese officials. As a UN report later characterized the incident, "the Government of Lebanon informed the United Nations of its new position regarding the definition of its territory." This new territorial claim had never before even been mentioned by a representative of the Lebanese government.”

A reply to this new fabricated claim was not long in coming.

“On May 22, 2000 UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan gently rebuffed the Syrian/Lebanese claim in his report to the UN Security Council and recommended that the line separating the areas of operation of UNFIL and the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) in the Golan Heights (which would exclude the Shebaa Farms) be used for the purposes of determining Israel's compliance with Resolution 425. His justification for this decision merits a direct quotation:

    “This UNIFIL-UNDOF line coincides with the border line most commonly found on maps issued by the Government of Lebanon, including those published after 1966. This line has also been accepted by the Government of Lebanon for 22 years in the context of the UNIFIL area of operations. In addition, this same line was approved by the Governments of Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic in their 1974 Disengagement Agreement.”


On 16 May, 2001 on the recommendation of the Sec Gen, the SC decided to reduce the UN force, UNIFIL, from 5600 to 2000 troops and “subjected the Lebanese government to remarkably unequivocal criticism for its stance on the Shebaa Farms.” The reduction of UNIFIL according to MEIB was, “largely the result of the Lebanese government's unwillingness to recognize the UN blue line and its refusal to allow peacekeepers to deploy at key areas along the border, most notably at the Fatima Gate.”

Afterwards, Security Council president James B. Cunningham stated that members of the council were "deeply concerned by assertions that the Blue Line is not valid in the Shebaa Farms area. This area is governed by UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which are applicable to the occupied Syrian Golan."

This should have put paid to the Lebanese tale that in an oral agreement with Syria in 2000, the Shaaba area was given to Lebanon. After all, and according to the Lebanese claim, “there are no international records of the boundary adjustment since Lebanese and Syrian officials decided not to register it with the UN.”(MEIB)

“In fact, the officials in Beirut were unable to produce any documents concerning the transfer. One senior government source in Beirut later explained that this was because the border adjustment was "a kind of oral agreement" between the two countries and "nothing was documented specifically." (MEIB)

How convenient!

I am reminded of the old saying about oral agreements not being worth the paper they are printed on!

One might wonder why such a status for Shaaba was claimed by Lebanon.

Some clues are noted here in opinion.jpost.com of 30 July 2006:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1153292036524&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Syria had to bend over double to try and reconcile the competing pressures: to have formally handed the territory over to Lebanon would have been a clear and official declaration that Lebanon is indeed a sovereign state and thus nullify the Syrian position that Lebanon is really just part of Greater Syria. Syria has never accepted Lebanon as a separate, independent, sovereign state hence the absence of formal diplomatic relations between the two countries.

If the final wording of the resolution incorporates any reference to the Shaaba Farms area it should be accompanied by a statement from Syria that the area in dispute belongs to Lebanon.

Don’t hold your breath.

For some and seemingly including the USA, the Shaaba Farms area (Mount Dov) is seen as bargaining chip that might be tossed Lebanon’s way. Following the Rome Conference 26 July 2006, the presentation of his 7 point plan, PM Siniora took the opportunity to express , "Lebanon's demands that for so many years part of our country is still occupied, which is represented by the Shaba Farms, which [is] still occupied [by] Israel.”

Evidently the idea of resurfacing this issue was brought forward by UN envoy Terje Roed-Larsen in Jerusalem in the week before the Rome meeting 26 July. Seems to me that the Lebanese claims to Shaaba made to this same envoy in 2000 in an 11th hour attempt to pull the farms area into the Lebanese fold (see above) found a true believer. It is only amazing that in spite of the UN’s clear factually based declarations about the proper legal disposition of the area, this position was missed or ignored by Larsen and crew.

How perfect a case this is to demonstrate the UN’s craven unprincipled and abject submission to the terrorists and their toddies.

Disgusting and I predict, dangerous.

cn 

Defending freedom of speech is a thankless and unending job because the “perps” very early on get demonized by the popular media or worse, by politicians. Such is the case of MP, Maurice Vellacott in his fall from grace and his position as Chair of the Commons aboriginal affairs committee.

This comment is not intended to judge what was said by the MP, I hold no brief for him or his views: rather, the critical issue here is the freedom of speech he exercised to comment on the nature of the current Supreme Court and the Head Supremo herself. More directly, his comment seems to me to be primarily directed at judicial activism long a subject for debate – thank goodness.

As often happens, the speaker did not quite have is ducks in a row and as a result he attributed words to Mme McLaughlin that she (evidently) did not utter. The occasion was the Lord Cooke Lecture in Victoria University , NSW in Dec 2005.

For those curious amongst you, here is the link to the text she evidently delivered. It looks to me as if only parts of the text are presented.

http://www.nz-lawsoc.org.nz/lawtalk/660Cooke%20lecture.htm

At the time of the lecture, an article did appear in (likely) either the National Post or the Ottawa Citizen in which the main thrust, similar to the MP’s misspeak, was the exact nature of the role of the Supremes. McLaughlin herself tackles the issue in her lecture noting that under a common law heritage such as ours, judges must apply unwritten constitutional “norms” to “trump bad laws or state action.” OK, but only sort of OK, because the outstanding uncertainty here is who decides and on what basis that something is a norm that will trump the written constitution or state action?

Now, the MP has resigned because of pressure from within the committee – partisan criticism according to Vellacott – even though, at the time of the lecture in Dec 2005, virtually the same questions were raised about what she said in the lecture or perhaps she said in an impromptu interview. In fact, the newspaper article I read about her lecture included immediately crisp denials from the PR flack traveling with Mme Supremo, excoriating anyone who could imagine such as thing as judges having really supreme powers.

My brief archives search failed to turn up the comments that I thought I had written on this event – perhaps they were only done as a comment in Little Green Footballs (lgf) but no matter. My clear memory is that the denial was too quick and too strident, a sure sign of damage control on full alert. Funny too I also remember that at the end of the denial, what exactly was said and in what context, was still rather opaque.

All of this a by way of preamble since the crux of the situation is this: both the NP and the Citizen report that the Canadian Bar Association called for the resignation of Mr. Vellacott! Neither story provided the rationale from the Bar for the decision to adopt this breathtaking viewpoint.

Just what role does the CBA think it holds with respect to the Supreme Court? Does it imagine itself as some sort of umbrella protector of the faith? To be precise, just who decided for the Association as a whole to call for the resignation and what “fine principle” is it posturing for in the call?

Last I looked, the Supreme Court and its members are not exempted from criticism or critique by any Canadian law or statute. Specifically, MPs have a duty to speak to these and other challenging issues of the day – that is part of the job.

Fact is however, there has been precious little questioning of the Supremes views and rulings, although the “activist court” that we have had in Canada ever since the passing of the vaunted Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has arguable extended the scope and intent of the Charter on several, perhaps many occasions. This is no secret.

Again what is no secret is that this bench has had a distinct left lean for decades. In my humble opinion, a left lean that is tantamount to “flavour of the month” in that it reflects not time honoured (and different) positions but rather, denies these opposing views as somehow – and to use the deconstructionist approach – lacking in validity deriving as they do from “dead white European men”.

Too bad the Bar did not do the right thing and praise Vellacott for, however imperfectly, making a public statement on the very public issue of court activism.

Just another nail in the coffin of our democracy.

cn

By their own words ye shall know them.

For those who do not have the opportunity to read the Ottawa Citizen, the joy of not having to put up with the ultra leftist views of columnist Susan Riley must be immense. For those of us who believe in “know thy enemy”, to have to read her diatribes against anything that does not fit her leftist view of the world and what Canada is all about, is necessary, but no fun.

On Wed, 12 Apr she was at pains to tell us just how ‘woefully irrelevant” Parliament is because the much touted “take note” debate on the Canadian role in Afghanistan was in her words, “a propaganda exercise”. Curiously enough, I do not recall her saying how woefully irrelevant Parliament was when the Liberals were in power, but what do I know.

To bolster her view she cites a recent Ipsos Reid poll that she claims shows that 48% of those polled want the troops home now. Oh, really? Now I could rag on about polls but will only say, that this firm is as card carrying liberal/NDP as you are likely to find in the country. So, as the first act of due diligence, check for the date(s) of the poll, check for the exact poll questions including the lead in ones as well as the caveats and the assertion she makes will lose its effect. Nevertheless, she uses this poll as justification for her view that the ‘elites’ (she means the Conservatives and anyone else who supports the Canadian position in Afghanistan) are out of touch with what the people really want.

All I can say is that we elect MPs not pollsters to govern our country.

On a positive note, she does seem to skewer all opposition parties who badgered the government into holding this airing of views but who morally and physically failed to show. For this lack of spine, she of course blames the Conservative government and particularly, Gordon O’Connor (BGen ret) Minister of National Defence, for his “bullying” by suggesting that historically the NDP, “don’t want the military involved in anything”.

This WW II reference somehow spun the leftist mind of NDP leader Mr. Layton to wrap himself in the act of his grandfather who resigned his seat in the Quebec legislature when the government of the day, “would not support going to war against the fascists.” Sorry Jack, but that was your grandfather, not you and in any event, you should well remember that the war/no war issue of the day was one that was completely split along French – English lines. No great act of anything here to vote your heritage.

The implication throughout the article is that somehow the Conservatives are to blame for the capitulation of the opposition parties when they had to literally put up or shut up. In this case they shut-up, a commendable decision given that their hand wringing over the troops in Afghanistan had nothing to do with legitimate international strategic or tactical concerns but everything to do with big P politics. That and the clear signals that those opposed are on the wrong side of history.

Interesting too isn’t it that even though this mission is both UN and NATO sanctioned the pacifist left mysteriously has decided that their normal lock step indeed slavish adherence to anything spewed out by their darling “do no wrong” UN is, well, wrong in this case. Hummm.

Speaking of history, from her own admission that she attended the House of Commons debate searching for answers to some important questions, it is also clear that she and those posing the questions are living in, at best, a pre-9/11 world. For example, she quotes Bloc MP Maria Mourani claiming that Canadians ask her, “Do we deliver democracy with weapons?” Further, she says other MPs asked how we will know we have “won” - when Afghanistan has a democracy as vigorous as ours? When all kids are in school and women are equal?

Well, yes these achievements would be an uncontested Victory. However, in today’s real world of Islamist fascism and the Taliban lunacy, victory will probably be more modest.

It will probably come as a surprise to her and Ms Mourani but the kind of wars that are the genesis of these types of questions were fought by uniformed national combatants, in set positions and maneuver along defined fronts or lines. This clean understandable (but only in hindsight) world has long gone. And, yes Susan and Maria, democracy is delivered by weapons – just ask all the European countries who were delivered out of Nazism by weapons in WW II.

But let me return to the beginning. Ms Riley starts her inept assessment by admitting that she “cut and ran” from the House well before the debate was over. OK, yes, it was language chosen to be oh so cute, ironic and dismissive of both the P.M. and President Bush.

Yet for me at least it speaks volumes. The fact is, she could not even stay in her place and listen to what was said. Best I can tell it was simply because the speakers were not saying what she wanted them to say.

Boo Hoo, woe is me.

cn

While serving as a Civilian Director at the National Defence College (NDC), Kingston , in 1989, I had an experience that has stayed with me through the years.

I was having lunch in the Fort Frontenac mess with the Commandant, MGen Frank Norman. It was just a typical quick break – sandwiches, soup, and coffee – before the afternoon lectures and syndicate discussions. We were deep in a policy thrash or possibly a curriculum debate that seemed to be quite important.

All of a sudden, I noticed General Norman looking over my shoulder. His face had lit up in a way I had not seen before in all the time we had spent together.

“Hello my Young Warrior!” he said in a booming welcome as a young, fit, keen-eyed officer headed towards our table.

It was of course a regular occurrence for visiting officers to stop in and say hello – the General had been Commandant at the Royal Military College (RMC), whose campus was just across the river from the Fort, where young men and women achieve both university degrees as well as commissions in the Canadian Forces (CF). He clearly had a great bond with many, a bond that could not include me as a civilian. The closest experience I had to this sense of bonding was with my Canadian Bobsled Team mates, due most definitely to the shared danger and the need to rely on one another, no matter what.

During the introductions, with great pride and respect, he again referred to this officer as “A Warrior”. I had not ever heard this term used out loud, in real life.

What was he talking about I wondered; it seemed to me to be a little over the top. It was also puzzling in that none of the approximately seventy Col/Capt (N) and general officer colleagues I had spent the last two years with had ever uttered this word.

But, hold on, there was one exception – a USAF F16 fighter pilot who was true to the bold aggressive, indeed arrogant, image of the ‘fighter jock’. He talked in war fighting terms but he was the exception.

The Oxford Shorter Dictionary provides these definitions for warrior: “one whose occupation is warfare; a fighting man, now used in a rhetorical way to apply to the fighting men and heroes of past ages and of uncivilized peoples”.

At that time, just at the end of the Cold War and the pending fall of the Berlin wall, the role of the CF had been marginalized and the missions undertaken were mainly peacekeeping. It was a time when uniformed personnel were being relegated by Canadian politicians to non-lethal activities and indeed, for Canadians generally, the CF had in the eyes on many almost ceased to be a fighting force and our proud history as fierce fighters in every theatre of combat was not talked about as a source of pride. We had become or were becoming a constabulary as several military historians and analysts had written.

When the officer begged off after a brief chat, Gen Norman still beaming explained that this was a special one, one of the true breed who would make his mark as a leader and a fighter. One of those who will go into harms way for his mates, his regiment, his Country.

I think this was the first time I realized what the profession of arms and the call to be a professional soldier is all about. Not all who wear the uniform have the opportunity to demonstrate what they are made of, but given the chance, they selflessly rise to the occasion.

This brings me to LtGen Rick Hillier. In an earlier post I wrote that Rick was the first officer I had heard use the word “kill;” in public referring to his (then) upcoming command mission in Afghanistan .

Today he delivered a speech to the Empire Club in Toronto . He referred to his job as CF Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) as the greatest job in the world because it is all about the people he is privileged to represent. Men and women who volunteer to serve this country asking only for the support of their fellow citizens.

In yet another first (at least in my memory of watching a succession of CDS since the mid-80s) he chose to use the podium time to introduce three CF personnel who had performed outstanding feats of bravery, showing dedication and character in the face of great personal danger. One was a SAR tech, one a soldier in Afghanistan . He then noted that he had just signed the CF annual promotion list and he then personally gave effect to one promotion on the spot, by ‘making up’ a Col (by changing the shoulder rank slip on) to the rank of general officer.

Let me assure you, all ranks and officers take note of these actions that do speak louder than any words.

In highlighting these individuals, members of the CF family, Gen Hillier showed us what military leadership means – he puts it all out for those in uniform (including the Reserves and the civilian component of the Department of National Defence) and calls on all Canadians to recognize these men and women as “the credentials of our Nation”.

Coming a day after the Afghan Mission “take note” session in the House of Commons, he also took the opportunity to clearly state that the reason we are in this difficult mission is in support of the best Canadian values; providing help when needed and offering security, safety and hope to those in danger . A clear and strong message that I trust is not lost on our MPs.

Unfortunately, the CBC announcer speaking in summary after the presentation just did not get it. The best she could muster up was to suggest that, “he is a good salesman”

Sorry, wrong.

He is first and foremost a Warrior and a Leader in a military tradition that goes back to the mists of time.

LtGen Hillier was not the young officer I met that day, but he could have been. And the CF has many more like him.

cn

This letter was sent today to the editor, The Ottawa Citizen and to the author, Susan Riley.

Her column today titled Canada in dangerous world is available here:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/index.html

The article is a bit of a ramble over a variety of issues facing world leaders as they try and deal with the reality of the Islamo-fascism in a post Sept 11 world.

While she is able to correctly observe that all of us (I guess she meant those of us lucky enough to live in Western democracies), oppose the fascism that put Canadian hostage James Loney at even greater peril because he is gay, all she can muster up is this lament, "But how do you defeat an idea with an army."

Pathetic and typical of liberals who just don't get it.

Tony Blair addressed the issue of freedom before the US Congress in the summer of 2003:

"There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; that our attachment to freedom is a product of culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values or Western values ....Ours are not western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit. And anywhere, any time ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police."

"Good Morning Ms Riley: Your article today in The Citizen exceeds even your most excessive ubër-liberal/NDP screeds. Congratulations!

That you ask the question, "But how many want the same liberties we enjoy?" is typical of the cadre of anti-democrats who think that it is only us in the West who desire freedom or, to use your word, liberties.

What colossal arrogance and what a dead giveaway as to your dead-end thinking! While the Afghans may not, as you seem to suggest, decide to embrace Western style gay rights, that specific question is really beside the point.

The reason we and others are in Afghanistan that you seem to have missed, is to help create the conditions for Afghans that will permit them to choose the freedoms and human rights that they determine are appropriate for them as expressed through a democratic process. You must recall the fierce determination of Afghans to vote when given the chance.

It is entirely possible that not all of the particular liberties we enjoy would, in the end, be acceptable to Afghans. But, that is for the Afghan people to decide, not the fundamentalist clerics or al- Sistani.

What we are trying to achieve is a political/social/religious environment that allows for the free expression of the will of the people, not the imposition of any particular Western liberty.

Perhaps you should read Nathan Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy particularly, chapter I - Is freedom for Everyone?"

cn