Chicago Summit: Harper supports limited NATO goals in Afghanistan

The U.S. will be playing the role of beggar at the Chicago NATO summit begging any NATO member who will listen to give more money towards financing the Afghan military between 2014 and 2024.

Even the Canadian Prime Minister has not committed yet to the new mission. Canada has 900 troops in a training role until 2014 but NATO wants Canada to keep troops in Afghanistan after that. Harper is usually eager to support the U.S. and NATO but in this case he still seems to be pondering whether the political fallout would be worth it. France has already announced that it is withdrawing combat troops by the end of the year.

After U.S. pressure Britain, Australia, and Germany have pledged between 100 and 200 million U.S. a year to fund the Afghan military. However this is a small part of the estimated 4 billion a year even a reduced Afghan force would require. The lion's share of the burden will fall on the already stressed U.S. taxpayers.

Obama of course stresses the fact that U.S. combat troops will be leaving by 2014 and is declaring that he is keeping his promise to wind down the war. However the other part of the story is that he has extended the U.S. commitment from 2014 to 2024.

U.S. troops will stay after 20024 it has just not been decided how many and under what terms. It is clear that special forces will continue with night raids and that also drone attacks will as well in spite of some restrictions in the Strategic Partnership Agreement.

The goals of the NATO mission are deflated considerably. No one talks of ensuring democracy and good governance or building more schools and ensuring more girls go to school.. Stephen Harper said that the goal should be to ensure that Afghanistan did not become a haven for international terrorism. Obama's security adviser Tom Donilon said:. “The goal is to have an Afghanistan that has a degree of stability such that forces like al-Qaeda and associated groups cannot have safe haven unimpeded,” “No. 2, an Afghanistan that has a set of security assets that allow it to provide for that modicum of stability and to be able to protect itself against groups like that.” NATO is even expected to reduce the size of projected security forces from 352,000 to a much smaller force as few as 228,500. But NATO may have problems even obtaining the financing for that. Even this smaller force will require a subsidy of about 4 billion plus per year. NATO publics faced with already serious debt problems and cuts in programs are not likely to put up with questionable expenditures in far off lands. For more see this article The U.S. at present is spending about 100 billion a year on the war

Canada: Military equipment goes missing on return trip to Canada

    Ten containers shipped from Afghanistan to Canada contained sand and rocks rather than military equipment. Whoever pilfered the goods replaced them with rocks and sand so that the containers would still have significant weight.
   The good  consisted of tires, tools, and tents. There were no weapons or uniforms included.
       A.J. Maritime a Canadian company moves the materials from Afghanistan. The company president said that both in Afghanistan and Pakistan pilfering is a problem for other countries as well.
        The Canadian Dept. of  National Defence estimates the costs due to losses or property damage to be 4.7 million for 2010. Given the level of losses that work done by private contractors encounter perhaps it would actually be cheaper if such goods were moved by the military and properly guarded. For much more see this article.

Afghan mission has become incoherent.

The U.S. is now trying to make things appear more coherent by covering up all the cracks and disagreements in Obama's meeting with Karzai. The Marjah offensive has left US marines in control because there are not enough Afghans willing or able to take over. They probably realize that trying to rule the area will make them targets for assassination. Let the NATO troops die not them.

Even the Kandahar offensive seems in doubt and it is not clear exactly how it is supposed to take place. If there is house to house fighting that would be a disaster. The locals have made it clear they do not want an offensive. These are the locals that NATO is there to protect. It is all an expensive farce paid for by US and allies taxpayer dollars and lives. Even Harper seems to have changed his tune and no longer wants further commitment at least to a military role. This is from the Toronto Star.

Siddiqui: Afghan mission has become incoherent




By Haroon Siddiqui
Editorial Page
You may disagree with Stephen Harper’s warfare with Parliament to keep Afghan detainee documents secret. But there’s some logic to it.

The papers may implicate our army, diplomats and/or allies. Or blow holes in the Conservative defence that it did not preside over any actions in violation of the Geneva Conventions, which make it a war crime to knowingly hand detainees over for torture.

You may also disagree with Harper’s refusal to hold a parliamentary debate on what Canada should do in Afghanistan after our July 2011 deadline for military withdrawal. But there’s logic to that as well.

Harper does not want MPs reminding Canadians that he has changed his Afghan policy. After famously posing for the cameras in a military vest in 2006 and pledging that Canada would never cut and run, that’s precisely what he plans to do next year. He wants Canada to undertake only civilian and humanitarian duties. He won’t countenance any role for the military except training Afghan troops and police, even though said training cannot be done without leading the trainees into combat. He just does not want to go into an election this year or next with Afghanistan as a campaign issue, especially with his own caucus divided on it.

That makes perfect sense from his partisan perspective.

However, there’s little logic left in Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan. That’s because the NATO mission itself has become incoherent.

Initially it went awry under George W. Bush. But Barack Obama was not going to become the first president to admit defeat in war, so he opted for the contradictory goals of a military surge and a military withdrawal.

“We must win in Afghanistan.” Yet “America has no interest in fighting an endless war.” But how do you win by telling the enemy to just wait you out?

You settle for a limited goal: “We must deny Al Qaeda safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government in Kabul.”

Your aim is not to win but rather not to lose.

Even that becomes problematic when your declared goal is to prevent the collapse of a government you are publicly quarrelling with because it is corrupt, inefficient and in cahoots with military and drug warlords. Hamid Karzai is also disliked by a majority of Afghans for those very reasons.

Left with no credible partner in Kabul, you court others at the provincial and local levels. You go native, hold mini-loya jirgas and throw cash around. You look foolish.

Meanwhile, despite pledges to avoid civilian deaths, the carnage continues, and also the lying that often accompanies such incidents:

U.S. military admits role in killings of women (an April 5 headline). Two men and three women, two of them pregnant, are killed in night raids. It is said the women were already dead when the soldiers arrived, “tied up, gagged and killed” by relatives. The Times of London says the soldiers had dug bullets out of the bodies and washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to superiors. NATO recants.

Civilians killed as U.S. troops hit Afghan bus (April 13). Five are killed and 18 wounded.

NATO apologizes for killing unarmed Afghans in car (April 22). Four are shot dead, including a boy. It is said that two were “known insurgents.” NATO later recants.

Afghan death sparks protests (April 30). A prominent civilian is killed in a night raid in which troops blindfold 15 people, including women and children, and send in sniffer dogs. Outraged residents say: “They disgraced our pride and our religion by letting their dogs sniff the holy Quran, our food and the kitchen.” Hundreds protest, chanting, “Death to America,” “Long live Islam.” (A perfect example of how people get “radicalized” and “Islamized.”)


We are in Afghanistan to save Afghans from the Taliban but the Afghans are now as afraid or more afraid of NATO bombs and convoys and checkpoints as they are of Taliban attacks.

That’s why an overwhelming majority want an end to the war through negotiations with the insurgents. Hence Karzai’s $160 million package to buy the “good Taliban.” Hence, in theory, the American onslaught on Kandahar, not so much to vanquish them but to force them to the negotiating table. But Obama and Karzai come across as playing on different teams.

Meanwhile, the Taliban are going from strength to strength, even according to a Pentagon report. They are assassinating officials who cooperate with NATO, which is not able to protect them or international civilian workers. The United Nations announces a pullout of its 200 staff.

As for NATO members, they all vouch for the American mission but refuse to supply any more troops. Even Canada, which has done more than its share of the fighting, lets it be known on the eve of the Kandahar offensive that it will “strive to avoid large-scale fighting with the Taliban this summer,” according to a Canadian Press report.

This is a mission operating on a wing and a prayer.

hsiddiqui@thestar.ca

Canada has most prisoner transfers in Afghanistan

As usual the Harper government is secretive about everything refusing to release figures about how many detainees are transferred even though other countries do so. As is done ad nauseam security reasons are given. Apparently other countries do not share these concerns. Not only that but the Human Rights organisation has trouble gaining access to these detainees. This is from the CBC.

Canada tops allies in Afghan prisoner transfers


Canada outstripped its NATO allies almost two-to-one in the number of prisoners it turned over to Afghan authorities in the first nine months of last year, figures prepared for the Afghan government show.

The statistics were compiled by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and made available to The Canadian Press. The federal government does not disclose them.

Furthermore, the commission complained in its latest annual report that it is still frustrated in attempts to check on prisoners handed over to the country's notorious intelligence service, the National Directorate of Security.

The commission, which relies heavily on Canadian government funding and mentorship, said between January and the end of September 2009, it was notified that 267 suspected insurgents had been transferred to NDS by Canada, Britain, the Netherlands and Denmark. The United States has its own system for dealing with captured Taliban.

Among NATO allies, the Canadian army was way out in front with 163 prisoners. Britain followed with 93 confirmed transfers; the Netherlands 10 and Denmark 1.

Unlike those countries, who make these numbers publicly available, Ottawa refuses to release its figures, citing operational security and the safety of troops as the reason. Before the U.S. surge, the explanation was that giving away the number of captured with so small a Canadian force on the ground would help the Taliban track where their people might be.



Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/18/canada-afghanistan-prisoners.html#ixzz0la5jLYwL

Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin says detainee monitoring program broke down..

There is much clear evidence of cover up given in this testimony. Information was deliberately as a matter of policy kept from people who should have been able to receive the information. Of course there has been a complete stonewalling on this. No doubt it will simply fade into the black hole of forgotten misdeeds and no one will be held accountable. This is from the National Post.

Diplomat says detainee monitoring program broke down

Juliet O’Neill, Canwest News Service





OTTAWA -- A monitoring program aimed at protecting Canadian-transferred detainees from torture by Afghanistan authorities "broke down" not long after it was established in May 2007, diplomat Richard Colvin testified Tuesday at a public hearing by the Military Police Complaints Commission.

Mr. Colvin said very few of the more than 100 detainees captured by the Canadian military and transferred to Afghanistan control were visited by Foreign Affairs officials. And he said the reports of their interviews with detainees, recounting abuse, were circulated to "a handful of carefully selected" senior officials, mostly in Ottawa, who jealously guarded the information.

"The conclusion I came to was this was not a serious effort at monitoring," he said. "Torture continued."

Mr. Colvin, who served in Afghanistan as a diplomat from April 2006 to October 2007, is now deputy head of intelligence at the Canadian Embassy in Washington.

He provoked a political storm last fall when he testified on Parliament Hill that the government and military officials turned a blind eye to the likely torture of detainees transferred to Afghan custody by members of the Canadian Forces.

Mr. Colvin testified that the officer in charge of Canadian military police in Kandahar in 2006 had "explicit instructions" not to provide information about Afghan detainees captured by Canadians to the NATO-led military command.

He recounted how a contact from the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force had complained that "getting information from the Canadians is like getting blood out of a stone" and the ISAF official had been told to "mind your own business" when he sought information from Canadians about their captives and transfers.

He said Provost Marshal Maj. Jim Fraser, the officer in charge of military police at the time, told him he would be pleased to share the information but had received explicit instructions from Defence headquarters in Ottawa not to pass on such information.

He also testified that the Canadian Forces were "blocking" the International Committee of the Red Cross from checking detainees transferred to Afghan authorities when he arrived in Afghanistan in 2006.

He brought the problem to the attention of military and other officials, including Maj. Erik Liebert, the deputy commander of Canada's Provincial Reconstruction Team. Liebert was surprised and, after trying to get some guidance, told Mr. Colvin "no one wants to touch this, it's a hot potato."

Our military mission in Afghanistan is supposed to end in 2011 but of course it won't.

No doubt the US is pleading with Harper to provide more help for this ill-conceived illegal and misbegotten mission. The Canadian taxpayer will continue to help out the US in its hopeless attempt to enforce its will in Afghanistan. We will pay not only in our money but in useless sacrifices of life and limb.

Canada preparing a military role in Afghanistan beyond 2011, say experts
By David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen

Canada is sending two surveillance aircraft to Afghanistan in a move some defence analysts see as laying the groundwork for a military mission in Kandahar beyond the announced 2011 pullout date.


Although the federal government has not made any details public, the U.S. army issued a news release on Monday that an American company had been awarded a $12-million contract to modify two aircraft being provided by Canada. Work on the surveillance planes would be done in the U.S. and in Afghanistan and would be completed by June 15, 2011.


Canadian Forces officials have said their military mission in Afghanistan would end in July 2011 but questions are now being raised about whether that will happen. Officials with the Prime Minister’s Office have said that soldiers may stay beyond that date but they won’t be involved in combat.


However, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been adamant that all parts of the military portion of the Afghan campaign will be wrapped up. “We are very much planning to have the military mission end in 2011,” Harper said in October, in trying to end confusion about Canada’s future role in Afghanistan.


But on Monday, Ben Rowswell, Canada’s representative in Kandahar, pointed out that the Canadian Provincial Reconstruction Team, with several hundred soldiers, will remain in Afghanistan after 2011.


Canwest News Service also reported that while Parliament has voted to end the current combat mission in Afghanistan in July 2011, discussions are underway between the U.S. and Canada over a continued Canadian presence in Afghanistan post-2011, according to U.S. officials. Michele Flournoy, U.S. undersecretary of defence for policy, did not rule out a future military role for Canada, but she appeared to suggest other options also were under discussion.


Defence analyst Allen Sens said the contract for the surveillance aircraft shows that Canada’s Afghan military mission is not yet over.


“This seems to support the idea that we will be staying on with a military mission,” said Sens, an analyst with the University of British Columbia. “I was always under the impression we would continue with some kind of military presence such as JTF2 (Joint Task Force 2), PRT assets and a headquarters battlegroup.”


He acknowledged, however, the Canadian public would not have been left with that impression because of Harper’s statements that the military mission was finishing in 2011.


According to the U.S. army, Telford Aviation in Bangor, Maine, was awarded the contract to outfit the surveillance systems on the two King Air 300 commercial aircraft provided by Canada. The bulk of the installation on the small propeller-driven aircraft would be done in the U.S. but about a quarter of the work would be taken care of in Afghanistan, it noted. The contract was a sole source deal.


The Defence Department could not comment on the U.S. army release of information.


Stephen Priestley, a researcher with the Canadian-American Strategic Review, said what Canada is doing with the King Air planes is similar to programs undertaken by the U.S. military in Afghanistan and in Iraq.


He noted that if Canada uses private contractors to fly the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, it could say it was contributing to Afghan security in a non-military way.


“It might be argued that ISR flights are not directly related to combat,” Priestley added.

“Seen in that light, performing ISR over Kandahar would not be regarded as an extension of the CF’s combat mission.”


Priestley said Telford Aviation is well-known for successfully adapting civilian airframes for surveillance and reconnaissance roles. In addition, the Canadian Forces has experience with the King Air aircraft since a similar plane is used at Canadian Forces Base Trenton, Ont., he noted.


But Steve Staples of the Rideau Institute in Ottawa said the aircraft contract appears to be a way for the Harper government to do an end-run around Parliament on the 2011 pullout date.


“It draws into question the government’s own statements that the military mission will end,” said Staples, who has been critical of the Canadian Forces mission to Afghanistan. “Canadians should be concerned by these moves because it creates confusion about a mission that so many people expect to end in 2011.”


Ottawa Citizen

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service
Canadian soldiers keep watch during a joint foot patrol with U.S. and Afghan National army in Arghandab district, Kandahar province Oct. 31, 2009.Photograph by: Omar Sobhani, Reuters

Some Canadian troops to stay in Afghanistan beyond 2011.

Here we go again. If you do not want casualties then all troops must be withdrawn. If you do not want to throw taxpayer money down the drain when we have billion dollar deficits withdraw right now and leave the US Nobel Peace Prize winner to continue the useless killing and farcical pursuit of a legitimate Afghan govt. A government that passed the marriage rape law after all and will assess the death penalty on a Muslim who converts to Christianity and who will throw a woman MP out of the legislature for stating the obvious that there are warlords with horrible human rights records in the legislature! Harper is firm on withdrawal date but not firm on what that means.


Some Canadian troops to stay in Afghanistan beyond 2011
(AFP) – 4 hours ago
OTTAWA — Canada will keep some troops in Afghanistan beyond a lawmaker-mandated 2011 deadline for withdrawal to serve in development and reconstruction roles, a government spokesman said Saturday.
Canadian lawmakers voted in March 2008 to end the deployment of Canadian troops in Kandahar in 2011, but Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper said troops would remain in Afghanistan beyond that date.
In comments to public broadcaster CBC, Soudas insisted there would nonetheless be a significant troop reduction.
"I would caution you against saying dozens or hundreds or a thousand, there will be exponentially fewer," he told CBC.
"Whether there's 20 or 60 or 80 or 100, they will not be conducting combat operations."
Though Canada's NATO allies have made clear their interest in an extension of the Canadian deployment, Harper has consistently said he must respect parliament's decision to end the mission.
"The military mission ends in 2011," Soudas told AFP. "Canadian soldiers will not play a combat role post-2011."
After the military deployment is over, Canada's mission in Afghanistan will change, he said.
"In terms of our post-2011 commitment, Canada will focus on training, development, reconstruction and humanitarian assistance," he said.
Canada has 2,800 soldiers deployed in the Kandahar region of southern Afghanistan, a stronghold of the Taliban insurgency. Since the beginning of the country's deployment in Afghanistan in 2002, 131 Canadian soldiers have been killed.

MacKay visits troops in Afghanistan

There seems to have been almost no response among the opposition to MacKay's talk about post-combat role. Canada may end up being in a combat post-combat role since many activities will be attacked by the Taliban and of course the combat will be in self-defence. The best role for Canada would be to get out period and save our money for better things than aiding US imperialism even when that imperialism has a humanitarian gloss. MacKay's prattle about avoiding civilian policies conflicts with the continuing policy of airstrikes which regularly results in new civilian casualties.



MacKay visits troops in Afghanistan, talks about post-combat role
By COLIN PERKEL The Canadian Press
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — Canada will still have lots to do in Afghanistan even if its combat role ends as planned in 2011, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Monday at the end of a visit to Canadian forces.
The focus will be on aid and governance, something that is already occurring as 200 new U.S. soldiers arrive every week to this ever-expanding military base in southern Afghanistan with a renewed mission to subdue a bloody insurgency.
The Canadian mission is increasingly focusing on the population centres of Kandahar province — ensuring the safety and the well being of individuals and the population itself, MacKay said.
The idea is to try to secure the populated centres to allow enhanced humanitarian aid, build schools, provide immunizations and enable micro-finance credit.
``Its microcosms of the whole of government approach in concentrated areas of population rather than simply focusing on holding swaths of land,'' MacKay said.
Canada, he said, no longer cares to concentrate its efforts on taking and ``holding swaths of land.''
The defence minister spent more than two days at the sprawling military base visiting with Canadian forces, accompanied by Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson.
On Sunday evening at a meet-and-greet barbecue with some Canadian soldiers, MacKay said he had no plans to follow the lead of U.S. President Barack Obama and replace Canada's top soldier in Afghanistan.
On the contrary, he said as he stood next to a memorial to fallen Canadian soldiers, the government had ``great confidence'' in the command.
The Americans and other countries are also moving toward Canada's approach or attempting to temper military action with non-combat aid and reconstruction efforts, he said.
The comments came after he announced 11 new facilities to support soldiers who return to Canada with illnesses or injuries.
``We are very seized and very conscious of the fact that we have to do a better job of taking care of our men and women in uniform when they return from service, particularly in a mission like Afghanistan which is very demanding,'' MacKay told the soldiers.
MacKay was careful to avoid criticizing the Americans for an increasing number of civilian casualties, particularly in air strikes, something Canada does not take part in.
``We obviously take great pains not to have civilian casualties in any instance but this is a very insidious type of warfare that the Taliban are engaged in,'' MacKay said.
The Taliban, he noted, does not ``play by any rules of engagement.''
The defence minister was expected to head to Pakistan later Monday for talks with his counterpart Ahmad Mukhtar in Islamabad.
The meeting was being described as a general discussion on regional issues, but came just days after MacKay said instability was making Pakistan perhaps the most dangerous country in the world.

Canada's position on talks with the Taliban unchanged.

Well how nice of Bernier to let Afghanistan to decide on its own whether to hold talks with the Taliban. Bernier however retains his high moral ground of not negotiating with terrorists--although I guess it might be OK if they disarmed apparently. If they disarmed there would be no need to talk with them! Bernier apparently hasn't noticed that the US approved Karzai's move even though they too mouth platitudes about not negotiating with terrorists most of the time.
Bernier has a rosy attitude to the security situation just as a suicide attacker kills several on the road to the Kabul airport. Others see the security situation worsening. The Brits seem to think it might take up to 30 years to put down the Taliban. So ten or twenty years from now if a Conservative government is in power you can just imagine them lauding our progress in Afghanistan and claiming we need to stay the course that the many more Canadian casualties by then should not have died in vain.


Canada's position on talks with Taliban unchanged: Bernier
Last Updated: Saturday, October 6, 2007 | 3:40 PM ET
CBC News
Afghanistan's government will decide on its own whether to hold talks with the Taliban, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier said after a meeting Saturday with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul.


Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, left, and Afghan counterpart Dadfar Spanta hold a news conference Saturday in Kabul.
(Paul Chiasson/Canadian Press) He added, however, that Canada maintains its position that the Taliban must renounce violence before any deal with the Afghan government can be reached.

Karzai announced last week that he would meet for peace talks with two insurgent leaders, including Taliban leader Mullah Omar, and offered to give the militants a position in government if they renounced violence.

A spokesman for the Taliban soon rejected the offer, saying talks would only go ahead if foreign troops leave Afghanistan.

Bernier is on a tour of Afghanistan with International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda. The two held a joint news conference with an Afghan cabinet minister and were peppered with questions by Afghan reporters about the deteriorating security situation in the country.



Oda said security in the south, where Canadian troops are based, has improved over the past year. She also pointed to the millions of Afghan children who are now in school.

Canadian aid guaranteed until 2011
The two ministers were also touring Canadian-supported development projects in the war-torn country.

Their second stop of the day was Kandahar Airfield, where the foreign affairs minister said Canada plans to provide Afghanistan with development aid until 2011, while the military commitment runs until early 2009.


Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier and International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda visit the Murad Khane district of Kabul under tight security Saturday.
(Paul Chiasson/Canadian Press) The minister refused to exclude the possibility of extending the military mission.

"That debate will happen at Parliament," he said. "It will be a democratic process to decide the role of the mission in the future."

Just hours before they arrived in Afghanistan, a suicide bomber attacked a U.S. military convoy on the road leading to the Kabul airport, killing one U.S. soldier and four Afghan civilians.

It was the third bombing in the Kabul area this week and came on the sixth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan.

This is the first visit to Afghanistan for Bernier and Oda since Prime Minister Stephen Harper shuffled them into their current cabinet posts in August.



Canada has some 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, the majority in the violent southern province of Kandahar. Seventy-one Canadians have died in the country since 2002.



With files from the Canadian

Canada Issues Afghan rally cry.

The will to uphold human rights in Afghanistan? So a female member of parliament is tossed out for pointing out the obvious facts that former warlords who grossly violated human rights are in the parliament.
Or is it the right to convert from Islam to another religion. In Afghanistan that merits a death sentence. In fact an Afghan who did so was saved only by being granted asylum in Italy.
The rule of law? Well the above is Sharia law according to some interpretations and surely the ambassador knows that the department of Virtue and Vice that was infamous under the Taliban has been re-introduced by the Karzai government to appease some of the Islamists in the government.
We are rallying to save the illegal overthrow of the Taliban government by the US and its allies including us. The Karzai government is desperate to retain power, so much so that it is willing bribe groups it brands terrorists to come into the government. In case anyone wants to know what a moderate Taliban is the definition is simple. Any Taliban no matter how radical or extreme who supports the Karzai government.

Canada issues Afghan rally cry
TENILLE BONOGUORE

Globe and Mail Update and Canadian Press

October 2, 2007 at 1:11 PM EDT

Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier issued a rallying cry Tuesday to the United Nations, calling on member nations to support the bid to appoint a special UN envoy for Afghanistan.

In his debut speech to the UN General Assembly, Mr. Bernier said the world needed to show the “determination” and “political will” to truly uphold human rights in the country.

And they can rely on Canada to be “a reliable partner” in that effort, he said

“Security is the crucial pillar on which everything rests, and long-term stability means the sustainable development of the country,” Mr. Bernier said.



Bernier at UN

Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier addresses the UN General Assembly



Canada is calling for the appointment of a high-level Afghan envoy, to be modelled on the work of former British prime minister Tony Blair in the Middle East peace process.

Mr. Bernier said the very foundation of democracy in Afghanistan relies on strong support from other nations.

“Canada believes a united international community must support efforts to rebuild Afghanistan. No one country can do this alone,” he said.

“... The challenge is great, we all know that, but the principles we defend are even greater.”

Without security, he said, there was no way to ensure democracy, political stability, health services or education.

“The challenges which we must face to preserve our security are of such a magnitude that no country can hope to tackle it alone,” Mr. Bernier said.

“... Canada will remain a reliable partner for all countries that want to promote freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.”

Mr. Bernier said the efforts of about 60 countries and international groups in Afghanistan are commendable, but a new high-profile envoy for the NATO effort should be able to attract more help and better co-ordinate efforts.

The UN's role in Afghanistan is the world body's “most important special political mission,” he said.

Bernier has talked about the idea in some 30 bilateral meetings at the UN last week.

“We built a strong case,” he said after the 10-minute speech. It was not immediately clear how UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will respond.

Mr. Bernier, who used the meetings to ask for military and humanitarian aid for Afghanistan, said the French government committed to putting more planes into the southern province of Kandahar and sending 150 more soldiers to train Afghan forces.

Mr. Bernier, who became foreign minister in a cabinet shuffle in August, also said Canada wants the UN to extend the stabilization mission in Haiti.

And he praised the UN Human Rights Council for holding a special session on Myanmar, the Southeast Asian country also known as Burma.

“In Burma, it is imperative to restore democracy and human rights. We expect the UN to be at the forefront of these efforts,” he said.

In Sudan, he said, peacekeeping missions are forming a security framework for durable peace.

“The international community must demonstrate the political will to find new solutions.”

The prime minister usually addresses the annual General Assembly session, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper couldn't get on the roster last week on the day when U.S. President George W. Bush and other leaders spoke. He chose to speak to a special UN panel on climate change instead

The CBC National on Canada's Afghanistan Mission

There was a reasonably extended special segment of the National on the Afghan mission. I thought that overall it was really not very informative and that many significant issues were not even brought up. To a considerable extent this may have been due to the framing of the whole discussion.

The frame of the discussion was an alleged change in Harper's speeches from clear and resolute support of the mission to a much more muted support and even perhaps a desire to cut and run when the mission runs out in 2009. As a result of this framework there was no real discussion of why Canada was there in the first place. There was absolutely nothing about the legality of the invasion .
There was nothing about the obvious change in Canada's role from peacekeeper to active combat roles. There was nothing about our relationship to the US. In fact with a straight face people debated whether Canada would win or lose the war in Afghanistan. Huh! Where are the US, the Brits, and the others in ISAF and the NATO mission. No one even hinted that we might be in Afghanistan to help promote US policies.
No one mentioned the return of strict Sharia laws, the female legislator kicked out of the legislature for criticising her colleagues. Nothing about the convert to Christianity who had to be spirited away to Italy before he was executed. And the CBC presentation was probably far better than anything you might see on FOX news for example.

Jack Layton on the Afghan Mission

This is almost a year old but is perhaps the most extensive public speech Layton has given on the Afghan mission. I didn't realise that the Canadian mission was ever solely devoted to reconstruction. As I recall Canada supported the original US led missions. Layton nowhere suggests the original overthrow of the Taliban of the US with the help of the Northern Alliance was itself wrong.


Statement by NDP Leader Jack Layton on Canada's mission in Afghanistan
Thu 31 Aug 2006 | Printer friendly
Good afternoon.

Four years ago, Canadians embarked on a mission to help reconstruction efforts in war-ravaged Afghanistan, and to bring some measure of stability and security to that country’s fledgling government in Kabul.

Last fall, under the former Liberal government, Canada’s mission in Afghanistan changed dramatically, from reconstruction to fighting in the US led counter insurgency war in Kandahar and surrounding regions.

This spring, Stephen Harper announced plans to extend the Liberal-initiated aggressive combat mission in southern Afghanistan through to 2009.

Challenging the Harper government’s plans, New Democrats called for and secured a debate and vote in the House of Commons.

With the support of Liberal MPs – who either voted with the Conservatives or refused to show up at all - Stephen Harper extended Canada’s aggressive mission in Afghanistan. In contrast, every single New Democrat MP stood in their place and voted against the extended combat mission.

Throughout the debate, some voices, including that of the Prime Minister, suggested that by failing to support this mission Canadians were failing to show support for their troops. Some equated opposition to the mission with being unpatriotic. It was even suggested that those who were expressing concerns about the mission were putting our soldiers at greater risk.

This is wrong. And it does a disservice to the democracy that we ask our women and men in uniform to defend with their lives. The role and responsibility of parliamentarians is to ask tough questions and to make responsible decisions.

New Democrats support our Canadian Forces. We are proud of the work that they do. We grieve with each family that loses a loved one in this and all conflicts, or sees a loved one injured in the line of duty.

It is precisely because of this deep respect for our soldiers that we have consistently asked tough questions of the Harper government - a government which is keeping Canadians in harm’s way without clearly-articulated objectives, timelines, or criteria for success.

In April, I asked the Conservative Minister of Defence, Gordon O’Connor, a number of key questions. In fact, I asked the very same questions of him that he had asked the Liberal government just a few months before.

What are the goals and objectives of this mission and how do they meet Canada's foreign policy objectives?
What is the realistic mandate of the mission and how is it being enforced?
What are the criteria to measure progress?
What is the definition of success?
And what is the clear exit strategy for this mission?
Last year, while in opposition, Gordon O’Connor said that these questions must be answered when intervening in failed states. Now, after seven months in office, the Conservatives, just like the Liberals before them, have failed to answer these questions.

Despite the lack of answers, the government continues spending billions of dollars on the war in Afghanistan – a war that the government refuses to explain. A war that has claimed dozens of Canadian lives, and left dozens of other Canadians wounded.

By participating in this aggressive counterinsurgency war, Liberals and Conservatives claim to be making Canada safer. But Canadians are asking themselves whether Canada's role in this war is actually making our country less secure. These are valid questions.

Our efforts in the region are overwhelmingly focussed on military force - spending defence dollars on counter-insurgency. Prime Minister Harper need only look at the experience in Iraq to conclude that ill-conceived and unbalanced missions do not create the conditions for long-term peace. Why are we blindly following the defence policy prescriptions of the Bush administration?

This is not the right mission for Canada. There is no balance - in particular it lacks a comprehensive rebuilding plan and commensurate development assistance.

Canadians are looking for meaningful debate on Canada's place in the world, and they're looking for leadership that presents bold, progressive ideas that will make Canada and the world more secure - now and into the future.

That's why I'm announcing that as a first step, New Democrats are calling for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from the combat mission in southern Afghanistan. Withdrawal should begin as soon as possible - working with our international partners to ensure a safe and smooth transition - but with a view to having it complete by February 2007.

Canada can then focus on building a made-in-Canada foreign policy that moves us toward reclaiming Canada's place in the world. One that is clear, comprehensive, and balanced.

New Democrats believe in such an approach. Canadians believe in such an approach. Canadians want a foreign policy rooted in fact, not fear. One that is uniquely independent, not ideologically imported. And one that leads the world into peace, not follows the U.S. into wars.

Stephen Harper wants to take Canada in the wrong direction. The Liberals now want to take Canada in every direction.

New Democrats have a clear, comprehensive vision that moves Canada in the right direction - where our role in Afghanistan is through humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and a comprehensive peace process - not a George Bush-style counter-insurgency war.

Naturally, we must continue to work multilaterally to get tough on terrorism. But, we also understand that making the world a safer place requires us to go much further. Issues like international development assistance to combat global poverty, reforming international institutions, peace building and securing human rights are all part of the solution.

So is the strategic use of our highly-skilled and well-respected Canadian armed forces. Canada has a long history of stepping into the breach when called upon by our international allies. Unfortunately, the number of conflicts around the world today, including deepening tensions in the Middle East, mean that we must carefully choose where we can make the greatest difference.

New Democrats understand the need to send troops into combat and the risks involved. We support and have supported appropriate missions. Our duty is to ensure that Canada participates in missions where the objectives and mandate are clear and where there are clear criteria for success.

Next week, our party gathers in Quebec City for our major policy convention. I’m asking New Democrats to send a strong message to all Canadians, and to the world, by supporting, in overwhelming numbers, motions that call for the withdrawal of our forces from the Liberal-Conservative mission in Afghanistan.

It’s time once again for a made-in-Canada foreign policy that reflects the values and dreams of Canadians. It’s time to reclaim Canada’s place in the world.

Thank you.

Harper: Canada will stay in Afghanistan for now.

It seems that the main reason for withdrawing troops from anywhere ultimately comes down to reduced public support for missions because of casualties. The fact that the Afghanistan mission was not legal in the first place and basically an extension of the US drive for world hegemony is irrelevant as are the profits the wars bring to the military industrial complex. The supposed mission of spreading freedom and democracy is pure poppycock as recent expulsion of a female critic from the legisature shows as well as the case of an Afghan convert to Christianity being threatened with the death penalty.


PM firm on troops remaining in Afghanistan
Fallen soldiers weigh on Harper's mind, but mandate intact
Last Updated: Thursday, July 5, 2007 | 8:09 PM ET
CBC News
Canada's soldiers will stay in Afghanistan until at least February 2009 in spite of mounting Canadian deaths in the region, Prime Minister Stephen Harper reiterated Thursday.


Prime Minister Stephen Harper is piped aboard HMCS Halifax as he arrives to make a defence spending announcement in Halifax on Thursday.
(Andrew Vaughan/Associated Press)
"That's the position we've given to our allies and our military men and women are very committed to that," Harper said in Halifax.

The government has already been "absolutely clear" on its mission mandate and will not back down, the prime minister told reporters and members of Canada's Atlantic fleet.

Harper made his comments the day after a roadside bomb in the Panjwaii district, 20 kilometres southwest of Kandahar City, killed six Canadian soldiers.



He expressed condolences to the families of the six fallen Canadians but said that while casualties weigh heavily on his mind, "I'm aware also of the pride [families] feel for their loved ones and the ultimate sacrifice they made for their country.

"Of course you do a dangerous job; a job that is not without personal risk and sacrifices," he said, addressing the naval officers gathered before him. "Our government knows — particularly on a day like today — the importance of that sacrifice."

When pressed further by reporters on whether the deaths of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan was beginning to influence his perspective of the mission, Harper said the day should be about showing Canada's appreciation for the soldiers' work, not questioning it.

"Today is not the day to engage in political debate about this mission," he said. "We have the House of Commons for that."

Focus on families, not debate
A senior military commander echoed Harper's plea to save the debate for later.

Col. Jon Vance said Thursday that Canadians should focus on offering support to the grieving families of slain soldiers instead of focusing on the debate over the mission in Afghanistan.

"This is the saddest of days and saddest of events for the brigade," said Vance, commander of 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group.

The group includes the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, which four of the most recently fallen soldiers belonged to.

Vance, speaking to reporters in Edmonton, said the focus should be on repatriating the soldiers and ensure their families receive a "clarion call" of support from Canada.

"The families are well aware that there is debate on this mission," Vance said. "Nonetheless, in this particular point in time, the most sensitive and I think mature approach would be to show to them an absolute clarion call of love and support as these soldiers died in a mission that they believe in, and see progress occurring."

Vance said no one embraces the right to debate more than the Canadian Forces and that one of the purposes of the mission is to give the people of Afghanistan those same rights.

Opposition leaders call for troop withdrawal
Opposition leaders were quick to call for a troop withdrawal following news of the six deaths on Wednesday, one of the deadliest days for Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

Both Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and New Democrat Leader Jack Layton are against extending the mission past February 2009.

Dion told a news conference on Wednesday that Ottawa should give the NATO coalition in Afghanistan 18 months notice for a pullout, while Layton in a separate news conference called for an immediate withdrawal.

Since the mission began in 2002, 66 Canadian soldiers and one Canadian diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan.

Harper says consensus needed to extend Afghan mission.

I wonder what Harper is up to? Is it a face saving tactic or does he really think that he will gain support from the Liberals or BQ great enough to claim a consensus. It will be a strange consensus if some parties oppose any extension at all as the NDP might unless the role is solely aid for reconstruction.

'Consensus' needed to extend Afghan mission: PM
Last Updated: Friday, June 22, 2007 | 2:25 PM ET
CBC News
The Conservative government will not extend Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan beyond February 2009 without a consensus in Parliament, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday.

"I will want to see some degree of consensus among Canadians on how we move forward on that," Harper told reporters Friday in Ottawa.

"I don't want to send people on a mission if the opposition is going to, at home, undercut the dangerous work they're doing in the field."

The 2009 deadline was set in May 2006, when the Conservatives announced a vote on a two-year extension for the mission and, a few days later, squeezed it through Parliament in a vote of 149-145.

But Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has since made it clear that his party will oppose any extension of the mission beyond February 2009.

'He wants to stay': Dion
Dion accused Harper on Friday of deliberately creating ambiguity over Canada's future role in Afghanistan.



"If he were responsible, he would tell the Afghan government and our allies that the Canadian combat mission in Kandahar would end in February 2009 and they should prepare themselves on that basis," Dion told reporters after Harper spoke.

"To keep saying these ambiguous things, it's because he wants to stay."

Harper said Friday that he didn't believe Canadians wanted "simply to abandon" the democratically elected Afghan government and said he hoped for a "meeting of minds" in determining Canada's role beyond the deadline.

His comments came a day after NATO chief Jaap de Hoop Scheffer appealed for Canada to remain with the fighting and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan beyond 2009.

Since Canada started its Afghan mission in 2002, it has lost one diplomat and 60 soldiers, including three soldiers who were killed this week by an improvised explosive device.

Scheffer claims Canada fighting to preserve universal values in Afghanistan.

The entire article is at the Globe and Mail.
NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, standing before the Vandoos's red-coated honour guard in Quebec City's historic Citadel, told the soldiers they were fighting to preserve universal values.
Scheffer does not say what the universal values are. In Afghanistan we are preserving the war lords, the religious police, the death penalty for converting from Islam to any other religion etc.etc. Perhaps one of the universal values is US global hegemony.

Tories urged to define Afghanistan commitment

Why ask the Tories for more rhetorical garbage. The main point is to force them to withdraw as soon as possible. There is more and more nauseating patriotic stuff. Just as our TV programs often imitate the Americans so does our support the troops apparatus with ribbons etc., although we seem to delight in covering funerals whereas the US discourages this on the national scene it would seem --although I do not watch US TV much. The idea that our entire intervention was against international law and that we through NATO are just furthering the neo-conservative US agenda seems to escape most Canadians. Of course it is forgotten that even the present Afghan govt. has a department of Virtue and VIce. It is also forgotten that not long ago a Muslim converted to Christianity was sentenced to death and only escaped his demise by being allowed refuge in Italy. It is also forgotten that the allied invasion finished off the work of the worst warlords associated with the Northern Alliance. Well we must be happy with new "democratic" Afghan government with the US puppet Karzai defended by a US private security firm.


Tories urged to define Afghanistan commitment
Last Updated: Thursday, June 21, 2007 | 5:48 AM ET
CBC News
The federal government is facing more pressure to make a decision on the future of the Afghan mission as Canada mourns the loss of three more soldiers.

NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer will meet Thursday with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay in Ottawa to discuss the mission.

"I think what we're going to have is a very frank discussion about the mission itself," MacKay said outside the House of Commons Wednesday.

De Hoop Scheffer's visit comes after three Canadian Forces soldiers were killed in Afghanistan Wednesday when their unarmoured supply vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device.

The deaths of Cpl. Stephen Frederick Bouzane, Pte. Joel Vincent Wiebe and Sgt. Christos Karigiannis bring the total number of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan since the mission started in 2002 to 60.

Harper's government has been under pressure in the House of Commons to define the length of Canada's commitment to the mission and make its intentions in Afghanistan clear.



Canada has committed troops to the war-torn country until February 2009. But its allies in southern Afghanistan are starting to ask questions about Canada's combat commitment, and whether it will last beyond that deadline.

"Will he now clearly say to the House how long this combat mission will last?" Liberal Deputy Leader Michael Ignatieff demanded during question period Wednesday. "Canadians deserve to know. Isn't it time for the truth?"

Canada has sustained the bulk of its casualties in and around Kandahar, where it is looking for some help from its allies, MacKay said. Some NATO countries have insisted on caveats that limit their how their troops can be deployed in the mission.

NATO chief's Quebec visit questioned
De Hoop Scheffer is also wading into the the unfavourable political climate in Quebec. He is scheduled to meet soldiers from the province's famed Royal 22nd Regiment — better known as the Van Doos — who are slated to take over operations in Afghanistan in August.

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe said the Harper government has it wrong on Afghanistan and expressed his displeasure with the military organizing a rally and parade on Friday through Quebec City, which de Hoop Scheffer is scheduled to attend.

"We're supporting men and women for whom we've got of admiration — those in the Canadian Forces," Duceppe said. "But we are not supporting the policy of the government and we think that they're using the soldiers for their own purposes."

Quebecers' support for Canada's mission in Afghanistan is the lowest in the country, but MacKay said people in the province have a strong interest in hearing directly from de Hoop Scheffer about the mission.

"Let's not forget the Van Doos regiment — some are already deployed, more will be going. So they will want to hear about the mission and how it impacts on their sons and daughters," he said.

Defence minister refuses to budge on Afghan detainees

o'Connor always seems to be battling for credibility. At least the Canadian forces are not deeply integrated with the US as far as policy is concerned. However, the Canadian public would be better informed in this case if we were! I suppose the idea behind the Canadian policy is that the information would somehow help the enemy but it seems that if it helps them at all it would be minimally helpful.


Defence minister refuses to budge on Afghan detainees
Last Updated: Thursday, June 7, 2007 | 4:22 PM ET
CBC News
Liberal opposition MPs continued to hound Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor on Thursday to release information regarding Afghan detainees captured by Canadian forces, but he said he won't co-operate because the issue is "a matter of national security."

During question period in the House of Commons, O'Connor reiterated what he said on Wednesday before a joint meeting of the parliamentary committees on national defence, and foreign affairs and international development.

"We do not intend to do anything to impede military operations in Afghanistan," he told the Commons.

Leading the latest attack was Ontario Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla, who accused the Conservatives of a coverup.

"After repeatedly misleading this House, the ministers of defence, of foreign affairs and public safety were forced to admit there are two new detainee capture cases [involving abuse allegation]," she said. "Will the minister tell us how many detainees have been captured by Canadian forces or will they admit once and for all that they just do not know?"

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay told the Commons that Canadian officials have had "unfettered and private" visits to holding facilities in Kabul and Kandahar since reaching a new monitoring agreement last month.

Continue Article

On Wednesday, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day told the joint parliamentary meeting that four prisoners have complained of mistreatment since they were captured by Canadian forces in southern Afghanistan, and that the Red Cross and Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission were investigating.

Day revealed news of the first two cases of alleged abuse in April.

No numbers of alleged abuses released
While both Day and MacKay were forthcoming with numbers on abuse allegations, no information has been released on how many prisoners Canada has captured while fighting the Taliban.

"The U.S. issues a press release about every detainee they capture," Dhalla said Thursday in a statement directed at O'Connor. "Why does this minister refuse to be as transparent?"

The defence minister said that in Afghanistan, each country involved in defence and reconstruction determines its own policies.

"In the case of Canada, the military has determined that the public release of information on detainees would be detrimental to their military operations," he said. "The operational chain of command has a responsibility for deciding what kind of information is releasable or not. It is a military decision, not a political decision."

Since the beginning of May, the U.S. military has issued 25 media releases detailing the capture of at least 100 Afghan prisoners.

Information in the releases is posted on a U.S. army website and includes:

Where the captures occurred.
The number and type of weapons seized.
Information about the prisoners, such as rank and sometimes even

McQuaig on Canadian Prisoners in Afghanistan

Linda McQuaig is a long time left leaning author and commentator. This article is about a week old but is worth reprinting I thought.


Afghan furor shows we're slipping into U.S. orbit
>by Linda McQuaig
May 11, 2007
It was almost enough to revive one's faith in Canada as a functioning democracy, not to mention a member of the civilized world.

After two weeks of unrelenting pressure — led by the media and the opposition parties in Parliament — the Harper government was forced to abandon a deal that made Canada complicit in torture in Afghanistan.

Before we go farther, let's emphasize that the much-improved deal governing the treatment of our detainees in Afghanistan came about despite the sustained and determined efforts of the Harper government to thwart such monitoring of human rights.

For more than a year, the Conservatives had been content to hand over detainees to Afghan custody, despite ample evidence — including from Canadian officials — that Afghanistan routinely tortures those in its custody.

Even after controversy erupted over the situation last month, the Harper government was evasive and unco-operative, dismissing detailed reports of torture as mere “allegations of the Taliban.” This dismissive approach was echoed by The Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente who made clear that her sympathies lay with Canadian military leaders, not with Afghans who reported being hung upside down and punched so hard their teeth fell out.

“I have deep sympathy for our military leaders,” wrote Wente, explaining what she saw as the difficult bind our generals are in. “They can fight a war. Or they can babysit 'our detainees' ...”

To Wente, ensuring that our detainees aren't tortured — a requirement of the Geneva Conventions, which Canada has signed — is the equivalent of “babysitting” them.

Then there was our top general, Rick Hillier, whose fingerprints are all over the original deal, and who made light of the furor last week by diligently trying to divert attention onto the flashy arrival of the Stanley Cup and a group of NHL old-timers in Kandahar.

First stop for the hockey celebrities was the local Tim Horton's that Hillier famously brought to Afghanistan. Sadly, it seems Hillier's taste for Canadian traditions doesn't necessarily extend beyond hockey and doughnuts to include respect for human rights and the rule of law.

Surely it doesn't need to be noted that torture is among the lowest forms of human depravity. While it has lost its acceptability in civilized circles in recent centuries, it's made a disturbing revival under U.S. President George W. Bush.

Invoking the atrocities of 9/11 as a justification — as if there were no atrocities on this scale in history — the Bush administration has demonstrated a comfort level with torture that would befit the most brutal medieval king.

If we needed any evidence that Canada was being sucked into this maw of depravity by our involvement in Bush's “war on terror,” we've now got it. Indeed, the detainee transfer agreement that Hillier signed with the Afghan government in December 2005 had overtones of Bush's “extraordinary rendition” program, under which terror suspects are handed over to a brutal country for detention and interrogation.

In both cases, there was clear knowledge that torture would occur, and no steps taken to prevent it.

That 2005 deal, put in place during Paul Martin's Liberal government reign, also illustrates how far we've drifted from our European allies in NATO, who insisted on considerably more stringent monitoring of detainees they handed over to Afghanistan.

All this suggests a chasm between the values traditionally espoused by Canada — fairness, decency and the rule of law — and the nefarious post-9/11 set of notions in which the leader of the “free world” is given a free hand to do as he wants with “evil-doers.”

The Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin wrote last week that the “new Canada has abandoned the independent strain we had” and that, in our growing closeness to Bush's America, we are “consorts now.”

That sort of subordinate role is clearly what the Harper government, as well as some élite military and media types, have in mind for us.

But it doesn't seem to be what the Canadian public is willing to accept.

This Afghan saga reminds me of the case of Maher Arar, the Canadian engineer tortured in Syria. In both cases, Ottawa tried to downplay a growing scandal about Canadian complicity in torture. But Canadians demanded accountability and eventually forced Ottawa to abide by the rule of law, not the lawless ways of the Bush administration.

It seems that, while our political leaders may be comfortable accommodating Bush, most Canadians have yet to develop a taste for toadying.

Linda McQuaig's column is originally published by The Toronto Star.

NDP joins Conservatives to Defeat Liberal Motion

Presumably the NDP supported the Conservatives because they want Canada to withdraw immediately or as soon as possible. However there is no chance of a vote passing to withdraw immediately so rather than defeating a motion that at least put a date for the mission to end the NDP is in effect leaving the Conservatives free to extend the mission and stay the course indefinitely. This is a piece of prime stupidity not a position of principle. Politics is the art of the possible not the art of being as stupid as possible.


Juliet O’Neill and Mike Blanchfield, CanWest News Service
Published: Tuesday, April 24, 2007
-- As MPs defeated a Liberal motion to halt Canada’s combat mission in Afghanistan in February 2009, the head of the European Commission in that war-torn country appealed to Canadians to stay the course.

"It would be sending a very negative signal if today, for example, one nation, which is seriously involved here, would decide to call it off and to pull back its troops," Hansjorg Kretschmer, the European Commission ambassador to Afghanistan, told CanWest News Service Tuesday in an interview from Kabul.

The motion, which called upon the government to notify NATO allies immediately that Canada’s combat operations in southern Afghanistan will conclude in February 2009, was defeated 150-134 later in the day by Conservative and New Democratic Party MPs.

The Liberals were supported by the Bloc Quebecois.

Kretschmer said a withdrawal of military forces would compromise the billions of international dollars already invested in rebuilding Afghanistan.

Canada pledged $1.2 billion in development spending to Afghanistan between 2001-2011, making it the single largest recipient of Canadian aid money.

The European Commission is the executive arm of the European Union, which has pledged more than $5.5 billion over five years to Afghanistan.

And Kretschmer said the real work in rebuilding Afghanistan would begin after the current Taliban insurgency is pacified by NATO troops and would entail a long-term commitment of many years.

"When you look at the need to build the education system, build the economic structures, to build a functioning government, a functioning court system, this is not done within two, three, four years," Kretschmer said, hours before the vote on the Afghan motion. "So everyone in the world that is contributing to this effort of building Afghanistan must be aware of that … It will be a long haul exercise."

In question period earlier, a heated debate erupted over alleged abuse of Afghan prisoners transferred by Canadian military to Afghan intelligence police.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said it was "disgraceful" that opposition critics would impugn Canadian troops on the basis of unverified allegations of torture from Taliban prisoners.

But he promised to take corrective action if necessary.

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, at a terrorism conference in Quebec City, characterized the majority of detainees as brutal cowards who show no regret about mowing down children with machine guns, decapitating or hanging elderly women, or torturing innocent people.

Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor, under pressure from opposition parties to resign, said the government had not received any confirmation of reports in the Globe and Mail that as many as 30 detainees were tortured by intelligence police or that the Afghan human rights commission does not have the resources to provide oversight on prison treatment.

O’Connor said the Afghan human rights officials are in regular contact with Canadian military and diplomatic representatives and "they have not raised any issues."

The Canadian military has operated in Afghanistan since 2002 and now includes about 2,500 troops.

Last year, the mission was extended for two years to February 2009 in a Commons vote in which the Conservative government was supported by a group of Liberals who broke party ranks.

Harper and O’Connor have repeatedly told the Commons the current mission is until February 2009 and that if the government wants to extend the mission, it will seek Commons approval at the appropriate time.

Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre issued a statement saying Canadians deserve to know how long and under what circumstances Canadians will remain in Afghanistan.

"We cannot ask our military to continue to shoulder such a large share of this burden for an indefinite period of time," Coderre said.

During question period, deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe attacked the government over the detainee question, saying Canadian troops may be breaking international law.

"The honour of our country is at stake," Ignatieff told reporters. " We have - our military have - a great record of compliance with the Geneva Conventions but we’ve got to get control of this situation."

O’Connor said Afghan human rights officials have confirmed "they can do what we asked them to do" under an agreement with Canada to provide oversight of prisoner treatment and report abuse to Canadian authorities.

When Ignatieff accused the government of disgraceful handling of the situation, Harper replied that if the prisoner transfer arrangements are not being respected, "we will obviously act."

"But what is disgraceful is to simply accept allegations of Taliban suspects at face value," Harper added. "That’s not appropriate for a Canadian member of Parliament."

Harper also said it was the height of irresponsibility "to suggest that Canadian Forces would deliberately violate the Geneva Convention and to make that suggestion solely on the basis of allegations of the Taliban."

Day said at Quebec City the detainees are "people largely who’ve been captured in the firefights, who realize they’re overwhelmed and even though they encourage others to commit suicide aren’t prepared to do it themselves and they lay down their arms- the majority of the people."

Day said they are interrogated for up to 72 hours by Canadian soldiers and handed to Afghan authorities because Canadians do not have the right to detain other people in their country.

"And quite rightly we should be concerned about their human rights," he said.

Day also rejected Liberal Leader Stephane Dion’s suggestion Canada bring its Taliban prisoners home to Canada.

“We want the Taliban to stay in Afghanistan,” he said.

Ottawa Citizen/with a file from Kevin Dougherty (Montreal Gazette)

© CanWest News Service 2007

More evidence of Afghan abuse

Why is there no question of transfer to US custody? US prisons in Afghanistan have also been singled out as places where torture occurs. There is no questioning of our presence in Afghanistan defending a country that practices torture. It also is the world's main supplier of heroin.


Latest Afghan abuse claims spark cries for O'Connor's resignation
Last Updated: Monday, April 23, 2007 | 8:54 PM ET
CBC News
The opposition made calls for the defence minister's resignation Monday, after the publication of a damning report about the torture Afghan detainees face when Canadian soldiers transfer them to Afghan security forces.

The Globe and Mail published interviews Monday with 30 men who say they were beaten, starved, frozen and choked after they were handed over to Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security, a notorious intelligence police force.

Some of the men said they were whipped with bundles of electrical cables until they fell unconscious. Others said they were stripped naked and left outside all night, when Kandahar temperatures dipped below freezing.

One man said he was hung by his ankles and beaten for eight days, while another said he was choked while a plastic bag was held over his head.

In the House of Commons Monday afternoon, the NDP, Bloc Québécois and Liberal parties attacked the Conservative government about the allegations and called for Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor to step down.

"The torture in Afghanistan is awful," NDP Jack Layton said.

Continue Article

"Will the government do what must must be done now and stop transfers immediately, and launch a public inquiry, and fire the defence minister?"

Allegations taken seriously: O'Connor
O'Connor, along with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, countered that Canadian soldiers treat detainees properly and with care.

Still, the allegations will be looked into, Harper and O'Connor said.

"We take these allegations seriously, O'Connor said. "The [Afghanistan Independent] Human Rights Commission promised to advise us if any of our detainees are abused."

Opposition leaders weren't the only ones attacking the government over the allegations on Monday.

Law professor Michael Byers, who specializes in international law and human rights, questioned whether O'Connor, as well as chief of defence staff Gen. Rick Hillier, can remain in their positions.

Byers, who teaches at the University of British Columbia, said the Globe's allegations are extremely serious. The report would suggest the Canadian military is aiding in the act of torture, by handing detainees over to torturers, he said.

"If this report is accurate, Canadians have engaged in war crimes," he said at a press conference in Ottawa.

'Transfers must stop immediately': professor
Another law professor and human rights expert, Amir Attaran, said the Canadian military must stop the transfers by the end of the day on Monday.

"There is no room for manoeuvre, no room for bargaining," Attaran, a University of Ottawa professor, told CBC News. "The transfers must stop and must stop immediately."

He said Hillier signed an agreement in December 2005 that allowed for the transfers, but didn't include a clause giving the Canadian military the right to inspect detainees after transfers have taken place.

He said European countries that have transfer agreements have included this clause, which is crucial.

"If we hand detainees over to known torturers … and we tell them, 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink, we will not be back to inspect them,' that gives them a lot of latitude," Attaran said.

Other allegations of torture
Attaran brought other allegations of abuse to light in February.

Through the Access to Information Act, he said he received documents from the Department of National Defence that show three Afghan prisoners were abused while in the custody of Canadian soldiers.

Those allegations are being investigated by the military and the Military Police Complaints Commission, a civilian agency.

When those allegations surfaced, O'Connor came under fire when he suggested on March 4 that Canada would get reports and updates about alleged detainee abuse from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

On March 19, he admitted the Red Cross is under no obligation to report to Canada, only Afghanistan.

Canada does have an agreement with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission stating the commission will monitor the treatment of detainees on Canada's behalf as an extension to the agreement Hillier signed in 2005.