|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
SécuritéThank you for participating in the Dialogue on Foreign Policy. The interactive web site is now closed. The Minister's report will appear on this web site once it is released. Ce forum est bilingue, et les participants peuvent rédiger leurs commentaires dans la langue de leur choix. |
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-19 07:44:34
Greetings,
According to an article in our 'friendly' paper National Post, Mr. McCallum would like to send the DART Team to help out in Iraq.
According to the paper, some ministers oppose sending the DART, and I TOTALLY agree with them. The DART can only be deployed in countries which have accepted their help. There is currently no Iraqi government (if there was even an interim government led by the US and they had requested it, i'd say yes), so sending the DART to Iraq would currently be illegal.
We should go through the CDIA here, i hope our ministers are clearly hearing me!!!
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-21 10:24:40
I hope our ministers are not listening to you.
Only because I worry about the "Alice in Wonderland" type world we are creating where there are "laws" that must be obeyed even if they make no sense and create more death than justice.
But, again, I understand your point and it is worth keeping in mind. Afterall, while I certainly don't want a straightjacket of international law that keeps evil regimes functioning.
the regimes rely on international aid money to keep up their lavish lifestyles while their citizens are STARVING.
NORTH KOREA SPENDS 30% of its GDP on its MILITARY while North Koreans STARVE!!!
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-21 12:21:04
So you want us to violate not only international laws but our own laws? Interesting.
There is currently NO government in Iraq, the DART can only be deployed in countries where the government approves of their help... When Mr. Garner or whoever it will bw will have formed a government, then thats another matter..
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-21 14:00:18
..."So you want us to violate not only international laws but our own laws? Interesting."...
Well, the U.S. has members of Saddam's party in prison; perhaps you could get their permission? It would be legal right?
(Perhaps make it part of a plea bargain maybe?) ;) /Just joking codc01/
However, I do have two questions for you codc01 to consider.
A. If permission was given by Saddam's people who are in U.S. custody would it be legal?
B. Would it make Canada the laughing stock of the world?
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-21 14:34:33
"...party in prison; perhaps you could get their permission? It would be legal right? ..."
I don't think so, there is currently no longer any Iraqi government... But if westrictly think about international law, i have no idea? Is there any precedent in this case?
"If permission was given by Saddam's people who are in U.S. custody would it be legal? "
Nope, don't think so either.
"Would it make Canada the laughing stock of the world? "
Of course!
If Jay Garner creates an interim government, his team will be the official government, and then i would not see any problem with this... But at the current state of affairs, there is still not any form of government. I'm not saying no to DART, I'm saying no to the DART deployment as long as there is no government!
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: jwitt
Date: 2003-04-21 17:21:54
DART (disaster assistance response team) is a non traditional unit created specifically for the purpose of humanitarian relief. I think it has about 200 or so personel including doctors and engineers. I really can't imagine why you would object to sending it to Iraq as the conditions there very clearly suggest humanitarian relief is required. Referrng to humanitarian assistance as "illegal " makes no sense to me. Are you sure you understand what DARTS function is???
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-21 20:10:31
I am personally unfamiliar with the exact nature of the DART, however, some soveriegn nations can, and have, refused access rights to almost every humanitarian group you could name. Take Israel, for example, the time they refused abulance access to a UNESCOM worker whom the IDF shot in a refugee camp. The UN and the Red Cross can also be denied access, and their only recourse is harsh words.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-22 07:01:26
I read the national post's brief, and it was complete, and it clearly indicated that the regulations of the DART stated that there must be official approval by the governement of the country where they will be going...
Who can approve now? The US government? Garner himself? Chalabi? The Self-proclaimed mayor of Baghdad?
This may be solved reapidly if Garner forms an interim government, but in the meanwhile, i'd wait before sending the DART and go through CDIA...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-22 08:18:27
Probably because their safety must be assured. This is not a military team. If the American coalition would allow the UN to direct the rebuilding and humanitarian relief everything could happen much faster and safely.
The dart team is more for natural disasters or more secured sites. I believed they are more trained for earthquakes or other collapsed buildings.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-22 09:36:16
Okay! Okay! You win. I understand your point and would respect our own laws. I am still very worried about the so-called "international laws" - I'll wait for the Ally McBeal episode to explain it all to me.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-24 08:49:35
Some update (I know this is today's news, os it might not be true, but it seems logical):
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030424.ucana0424/BNStory/International
In short : Military cannot be deployed because of a lack of resources (As i already talked about earlier in another discussion)...
DART will not be deployed because they are expert for respoding to natural disasters not for post-war reconstruction. Politically, it would have been inconsistent sending troops now.
They will probably send RCMP officers, but it costs 250000$ Cdn per year per officer.
----
My comments : The reasoning the government officials took are logical and sensible, and i agree with them, even though i do think it is very expensive to deploy RCMP officers!
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
|
