Remember when the Taliban wanted the United Nations to conduct an investigation into the air strike against hijacked fuel trucks in Kunduz?

Well, it appears the Taliban have read the papers, found out about the latest U.N. Security Council resolution backing the ISAF mission, and are displeased.

This, in Google English, from the Arabic version of a statement from the Taliban Info-Machine on the latest resolution:

Security Council extended the United Nations presence of ISAF troops in October of next year for another year in Afghanistan.  This measure violates the Security Council a clear violation of the publication of the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions, because the United Nations gave each people the right to liberty in the selection and formation of a government would approve of …. We do not complain of the Western colonial powers as it is revealed Alnha on their faces ugly reality of the world of work heinous against humanity in the prisons of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, and Bagram …., but marvel at those members of the Security Council who consider themselves as separate from Western colonialism …. As a result of these practices and of no legal decisions atheist side, lost the oppressed peoples of the world’s confidence in the UN and they consider it a tool for the implementation of the policies of colonial America ….

PDFs of Arabic and Google English versions to be posted to non-terrorist site shortly.

UPDATE & CORRECTION (1): PDF available, as promised, at non-terrorist site here.

UPDATE (2): Now that the official English language version is available (PDF at non-terrorist site here), a few more tidbits and observations to share with you.

The Taliban accuse the United Nations and its members of violating the Charter of the United Nations:

The Security Council, UNO, by doing this, has categorically violated its Charter and the Geneva Conventions rules because the United Nations Charter grants to every nation, the right to have independence and a government according to their aspirations, whereas the foreign military and political forces in Afghanistan have deprived the Afghans of these natural and legitimate rights.

In fact, the Talibs go so far as to say:

…the oppressed people of the world do not trust the United Nations any more because of its partial and unlawful resolutions. They consider this World Body as an extended instrument of America and Europe for the execution of their colonialist policies. Now many impartial personalities of the world say that the World Body has assumed the shape of the secretariat office of the USA from where they get passed resolution palatable to them.

Here’s another term that comes up often:

They consider this World Body as an extended instrument of America and Europe for the execution of their colonialist policies.

because of UNOSC negative and pro-colonialist policy, peace and stability will not be established in the world.

it would have been more becoming for the Security Council to have parted its way with the strategy of American colonialism and acted in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

we are flabbergasted at the attitude of those member countries of the Security Council who think their path is different from that of colonialism but still they do not stop the approval of such resolutions by using their right of veto.

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan urges all progressive, nationalist, Islamist and anti-colonialist forces to part their ways with the global colonialism and extend their moral support to the sacrificing Mujahideen in Afghanistan because in this current juncture of time of the unipolar world, the current resistance movement in Afghanistan is the only force that constantly add oil to the candle of freedom by shedding their blood and have kept the torch of hope of the oppressed people blazing.

In this last quote, I also note the use of the words “progressive” as well as “anti-colonialist”.  I wonder if this is a call to other “progressive, anti-colonialist” groups in the west to take their cue and bash NATO (more than they already do)?

I wonder how long it will take for such “progressive anti-colonialist” groups to start posting messaging to the effect that now, the United Nations is just following what the U.S. wants, thus negating any internationalist support for the mission in Afghanistan?

I’ll let you know if I find any such thing lying around the internet.

Afghanistan Mission STILL U.N. Mandated

H/T to The Torch for catching this.

Another reminder:  NATO’s presence in Afghanistan is sanctioned by the United Nations, further proven by the latest Security Council resolution:

The Security Council….

1.   Decides to extend the authorization of the International Security Assistance Force, as defined in resolution 1386 (2001) and 1510 (2003), for a period of twelve months beyond 13 October 2009;

2.   Authorizes the Member States participating in ISAF to take all ecessary measures to fulfil its mandate;

3.   Recognizes the need to further strengthen ISAF to meet all its operational requirements, and in this regard calls upon Member States to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to ISAF;

4.   Stresses the importance of increasing, in a comprehensive framework, the functionality, professionalism and accountability of the Afghan security sector, encourages ISAF and other partners to sustain their efforts, as resources permit, to train, mentor and empower the Afghan national security forces, in order to accelerate progress towards the goal of self-sufficient, accountable and ethnically balanced Afghan security forces providing security and ensuring the rule of law throughout the country, welcomes the increasing leadership role played by the Afghan Authorities in security responsibilities throughout the country, and stresses the importance of supporting the planned expansion of the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police;

5.   Calls upon ISAF to continue to work in close consultation with the Afghan Government and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General as well as with the OEF coalition in the implementation of the force mandate;

6.   Requests the leadership of ISAF to keep the Security Council regularly informed, through the Secretary-General, on the implementation of its mandate, including through the provision of quarterly reports;

7.   Decides to remain actively seized of this matter.

Also note:

As its members unanimously adopted resolution 1890 (2009), the Council also called on Member States to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources in order to allow ISAF to meet security and assistance challenges.

So now, even the U.N. is calling for others to start doing more, not just the American or British “imperialists”.

I’m looking forward to seeing a post on this here and here.

Hey, can’t a guy dream?

More Whining About Wanting More “Peacekeeping”

Just spotted this on an alternative news publication blog, the latest in the array of articles and statements out there calling for Canada to revert back to “peacekeeping” instead of “peacemaking”.

What’s interesting in this piece is the following from Joan Broughton, Public Information Officer at the United Nations Association of Canada, “a not-for-profit organization that focuses on informing and engaging the Canadian public in UN programs and missions” (emphasis mine):

“Broughton says the mission in Afghanistan does not ask troops to simply mediate but requires them to actively end a conflict. As a result, Canada has left its peacekeeping role behind for the much more contentious duties of a “peacemaker.”

“When you get involved in a situation like Afghanistan where there are significant political implications, you are clearly taking one side over the other,” said Broughton. “Peacekeepers by definition are neutral. They don’t take sides . . . and the fact that we have chosen to deploy most of our military forces into peacemaking instead of peacekeeping is a choice we’ve made as to where we will put our focus.” ”

That right?  Then I guess the United Nations has “taken sides” by sanctioning the mission in Afghanistan, right?  You would think the Public Information Officer for a group allegedly educating Canadians about the U.N. might have thrown in the fact that the mission is supported by the United Nations – the latest U.N. Security Council resolution backing the mission (23 Mar 09) available right here.

So, this means:

1)  the organization isn’t entirely sharing ALL the information on the U.N.’s role in Afghanistan;

2)  the Public Information Officer decided not to share this information;

3) the writer didn’t ask; or

4)  the writer asked, the Public Information Officer shared, and the reporter decided not to include the information.

Problems, no matter what happened.

U.N. Sec-Gen Thinks Taliban Will Follow Geneva Conventions…

if we just talk to them:

“We must also focus more attention on compliance with international humanitarian law by non-State armed groups. Unpalatable as it may be for some States, engagement with such groups is critical. The United Nations must be able to talk to all warring parties, including armed groups. Failure to do so is always likely to mean more, not fewer, civilians killed and wounded. I urge Member States to accept this necessity.

We know from experience that regular engagement, monitoring and reporting creates a culture in which both States and non-state groups are increasingly being made aware of the need to respect international humanitarian law.”

Question to the Secretary-General:  what’s stopping the Taliban from not killing civilians anymore now?

So Much for “Peace Day”

The United Nations has declared September 21 as the International Day of Peace.

On September 17, ISAF said they wouldn’t conduct offensive operations that day.

On September 22, ISAF had this to say:

“Two International Security Assistance Force service members were killed Sept. 21 by two separate improvised explosive device detonations in southern Afghanistan.”

So much for “international” Day of Peace…

UN: Suicide Bombs, Terr Attacks Killing MORE Civvies than Military Actions

I await with interest the mainstream media picking up this tidbit from a United Nations spokesperson in Afghanistan:

“The United Nations in Afghanistan has long made clear its deep concern about the use of suicide bombs and terrorist acts in populated areas …. These are resulting in more civilian casualties in Afghanistan than any other military tactic, and must stop. The civilian population of this country has a right to be safe from violence and threats.”

(.pdf version of article available here, and notes from news conference here)

Feel free to use this headline without credit or attribution:


Army.ca poster Journeyman has this caveat, though, about UN condemnations in general ….

“And the world has long seen the complete ineffectiveness of the UN’s “deep concern”…..except for those with their snouts in the UN food bowl of course….”