This is just part of a larger article by Robert Fisk in the Independent. As a former lobbyist for the arms industry O'Connor no doubt appreciated Rumsfeld because he wanted to make full use of new technology to create a leaner and meaner armed forces that would not be leaner for sure with respect to costly high tech gadgets provided by industry.
Hands up those readers who know that Canada's Defence Minister, Gordon O'Connor, actually sent a letter to Rumsfeld two days before his departure in disgrace from the Pentagon, praising this disreputable man's "leadership". Yes, O'Connor wanted "to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your many achievements (sic) as Secretary of Defence, and to recognise the significant contribution you have made in the fight against terrorism". The world, gushed the ridiculous O'Connor, had benefited from Rumsfeld's "leadership in addressing the complex issues in play".
O'Connor tried to shrug off this grovelling note, acquired through the Canadian Access to Information Act, by claiming he merely wanted to thank Rumsfeld for the use of US medical facilities in Germany to ferry wounded Canadian soldiers home from Afghanistan. But he made no mention of this in his preposterous letter. O'Connor, it seems, is just another of the world's illusionists who believe they can ignore the facts - and laud fools - by stating the opposite of the truth. Bush, of course, is among the worst of these meretricious creatures. So is the late Tony Blair.
Showing posts with label Gordon O'Connor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gordon O'Connor. Show all posts
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Monday, July 2, 2007
Canada in Afghanistan as retribution for 9/11 : Defence Minister
This is from an article in the Edmonton Journal in January of this year. Note that O'Connor claims that when the Taliban or Al Qaeda came out of Afghanistan they attacked the Twin Towers. But the Taliban were not directly involved at all! There were Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan but there were no Afghans directly involved. The level of ignorance displayed by O'Connor is astounding but I suppose not surprising.The justification of the mission is often even worse, a series of pious platitudes. Even the Queen joins in. At least it is possible to criticise O'Connor but most of the justification is such that attacking it would be like attacking Motherhood-- perhaps Canadian Values would be a less sexist way of expressing the matter!
Canadian troops in Afghanistan as 9/11 'retribution
' O'Connor: Attack on New York killed 25 Canadians
Andrea Sands
The Edmonton Journal
Sunday, January 21, 2007
EDMONTON - Canada is fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan in "retribution" for the 9/11 attacks that killed at least 3,000 people, including 25 Canadians, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said yesterday.
The hard-hitting comments, which prompted a round of applause from Mr. O'Connor's Edmonton audience, came in addition to the government's usual reasoning about Canada's duty to help the Afghanistan people.
Speaking at a symposium about Afghanistan, Mr. O'Connor said Canadian soldiers are in the country because Afghanistan's democratically elected government wants them there, because Canada has a responsibility to help as one of the world's richest countries and because the war is in Canada's own interest.
"When the Taliban or al-Qaeda came out of Afghanistan, they attacked the Twin Towers and in those twin towers, 25 Canadians were killed. The previous government and this government will not allow Canadians to be killed without retribution," Mr. O'Connor told his audience of roughly 200 people, many of them military personnel.
In an interview after his speech, Mr. O'Connor said the word retribution doesn't necessarily mean punishment.
"What it means is, if our country is attacked, we are not going to stand blandly by and not do anything about it," he said.
"I don't believe the (former) Liberal government would have committed us to Afghanistan had there not been Canadians killed."
Mr. O'Connor's comments come as a fresh contingent of soldiers -- 2,200 troops from bases in Atlantic Canada, Ontario and Alberta -- prepare to depart for the war-torn country.
There are about 2,500 Canadian troops stationed in Afghanistan, mostly in the south of the country, where the Taliban is the strongest.
Since Canada sent troops there in 2002, 44 soldiers and one diplomat have been killed.
Canada does not want a Taliban government to regain control of Afghanistan because it would provide fertile ground for terrorism, Mr. O'Connor warned.
"If they returned and took the government, they then would allow terrorist organizations to operate in the country, international terrorist organizations. We believe that."
But Saleem Qureshi, a professor of Middle East politics at the University of Alberta, said the federal government should pull Canadian soldiers out of the country.
The soldiers are doing heroic work, but war carried out by the world's most powerful states will always prompt less powerful opponents to use terrorism, Mr. Qureshi argued.
"Political issues can only be resolved by political negotiations."
The Afghan mission continues to be a controversial topic politically, with the NDP calling for a withdrawal of troops and the Bloc Quebecois demanding the mission focus on reconstruction.
After an emotional debate in the House of Commons, Prime Minster Stephen Harper won a vote last year to extend the mission in Afghanistan until at least 2009.
In a recent online poll by Innovative Research Group -- conducted this month and provided exclusively to CanWest News Service -- support for the Afghanistan mission stood at 58 per cent among Canadians, versus 38 per cent opposed. The numbers were up from a previous poll by the same group that showed 54 per cent in favour of the mission and 42 per cent opposed. The poll surveyed 2,206 Canadians and is accurate within 2.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Spectator Capt. Craig Paterson of 15 Service Battalion in Edmonton said he agreed with the minister's reasoning.
By keeping al-Qaeda members "busy on their own land," it is harder for them to launch attacks here, Capt. Paterson said.
"If we leave them alone and allow them to build up their support and their equipment and their planning, it's just a matter of time, I think, before they will come over here," he said.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2007
Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Canadian troops in Afghanistan as 9/11 'retribution
' O'Connor: Attack on New York killed 25 Canadians
Andrea Sands
The Edmonton Journal
Sunday, January 21, 2007
EDMONTON - Canada is fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan in "retribution" for the 9/11 attacks that killed at least 3,000 people, including 25 Canadians, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said yesterday.
The hard-hitting comments, which prompted a round of applause from Mr. O'Connor's Edmonton audience, came in addition to the government's usual reasoning about Canada's duty to help the Afghanistan people.
Speaking at a symposium about Afghanistan, Mr. O'Connor said Canadian soldiers are in the country because Afghanistan's democratically elected government wants them there, because Canada has a responsibility to help as one of the world's richest countries and because the war is in Canada's own interest.
"When the Taliban or al-Qaeda came out of Afghanistan, they attacked the Twin Towers and in those twin towers, 25 Canadians were killed. The previous government and this government will not allow Canadians to be killed without retribution," Mr. O'Connor told his audience of roughly 200 people, many of them military personnel.
In an interview after his speech, Mr. O'Connor said the word retribution doesn't necessarily mean punishment.
"What it means is, if our country is attacked, we are not going to stand blandly by and not do anything about it," he said.
"I don't believe the (former) Liberal government would have committed us to Afghanistan had there not been Canadians killed."
Mr. O'Connor's comments come as a fresh contingent of soldiers -- 2,200 troops from bases in Atlantic Canada, Ontario and Alberta -- prepare to depart for the war-torn country.
There are about 2,500 Canadian troops stationed in Afghanistan, mostly in the south of the country, where the Taliban is the strongest.
Since Canada sent troops there in 2002, 44 soldiers and one diplomat have been killed.
Canada does not want a Taliban government to regain control of Afghanistan because it would provide fertile ground for terrorism, Mr. O'Connor warned.
"If they returned and took the government, they then would allow terrorist organizations to operate in the country, international terrorist organizations. We believe that."
But Saleem Qureshi, a professor of Middle East politics at the University of Alberta, said the federal government should pull Canadian soldiers out of the country.
The soldiers are doing heroic work, but war carried out by the world's most powerful states will always prompt less powerful opponents to use terrorism, Mr. Qureshi argued.
"Political issues can only be resolved by political negotiations."
The Afghan mission continues to be a controversial topic politically, with the NDP calling for a withdrawal of troops and the Bloc Quebecois demanding the mission focus on reconstruction.
After an emotional debate in the House of Commons, Prime Minster Stephen Harper won a vote last year to extend the mission in Afghanistan until at least 2009.
In a recent online poll by Innovative Research Group -- conducted this month and provided exclusively to CanWest News Service -- support for the Afghanistan mission stood at 58 per cent among Canadians, versus 38 per cent opposed. The numbers were up from a previous poll by the same group that showed 54 per cent in favour of the mission and 42 per cent opposed. The poll surveyed 2,206 Canadians and is accurate within 2.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Spectator Capt. Craig Paterson of 15 Service Battalion in Edmonton said he agreed with the minister's reasoning.
By keeping al-Qaeda members "busy on their own land," it is harder for them to launch attacks here, Capt. Paterson said.
"If we leave them alone and allow them to build up their support and their equipment and their planning, it's just a matter of time, I think, before they will come over here," he said.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2007
Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
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
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
Monday, April 30, 2007
Prisoners in Afghanistan
The Tories can't seem to get a common line established on this matter. This certainly leaves them open to criticism by the media. O'Connor does not seem to perform very well when under the gun so to speak although he is no doubt well liked as someone who is stocking the military larder. This is from the http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070430.DETAINEE30/TPStory/TPInternational/Asia/.
There seems never any mention of US torture in Afghanistan or the payment for prisoners and rendering them to Guantanamo. See this site.
PRISONERS IN AFGHANISTAN: WHAT A DIFFERENCE A WEEK MAKES
Tories at odds with NATO on torture
'We have yet to see one specific allegation of torture,' Van Loan says as NATO boss welcomes probe
SIMON TUCK and DANIEL LEBLANC AND BRIAN LAGHI
OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF; With a report from Canadian Press
OTTAWA -- Reeling from the fallout over reports of abuse against Afghan prisoners, the Harper government has changed its position again, now disputing the very existence of allegations that prisoners handed over by Canadian troops were tortured.
As members of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission were finally granted monitoring access to a detention facility at the centre of the story, Tory Government House Leader Peter Van Loan backed off earlier suggestions from the Prime Minister and senior military officers that serious allegations have been revealed in The Globe and Mail.
"We have yet to see one specific allegation of torture," the minister told CTV's Question Period. "The issue is that people like [Liberal MP Ujjal] Mr. Dosanjh keep repeating that there are accusations of torture. If they have a specific name, we'd be happy to have it investigated and chased down, but they continue to repeat the baseless accusations made by those who wish to undermine our forces there."
NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has welcomed just such an investigation. He is the head of the alliance that commands Canadian and most other troops in Afghanistan.
"We have seen that the Afghan authorities are ready to make an inquiry into these allegations - it's still allegations - on the way some detainees were treated. We are in Afghanistan, Canada is, and 36 other NATO allies and partners are there, to uphold and defend what I call universal values. Part of [those] universal values is an adequate treatment of detainees and of prisoners. I'm happy with what I saw, on the basis of these universal values, that the Afghan government is ready to launch an inquiry."
In Europe for a meeting with NATO allies, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said over the weekend that the fate of the allied operation in Afghanistan -- in which 54 Canadian soldiers have died so far -- could reach a "tipping point."
"While I don't want to sound alarmist, I think there is going to be a tipping point unless we are able to stabilize [southern Afghanistan, especially], unless we are able to get on with building the economy, rule of law and government institutions."
A Globe investigation, based on 30 face-to-face interviews with men recently captured in Kandahar province, uncovered a range of horrific stories and a clear pattern of abuse by Afghan authorities who work closely with Canadian troops.
Some of the allegations were made by four men, whose names were published, and who were originally detained by Canadian forces.
Mr. Dosanjh, appearing on the same segment of the program, said Mr. Van Loan's comments were "bunk."
Officials from the Prime Minister's Office and the Department of Defence had no comment, but the Tory minister repeated the government's request for apologies from those repeating the accusations, as various arms of the civil service dispute who is responsible for the Afghanistan mission.
A government document says that federal civilian agencies involved in the Afghan reconstruction were hesitant to help modernize jails slated to house detainees captured by Canadian soldiers.
The document, prepared in January, 2006, by defence officials for a meeting of deputy ministers, says that National Defence planned to approach the Canadian International Development Agency and Foreign Affairs for help to construct buildings for detainees handed over by Canadian troops, but that the civilian departments were disinclined to help.
"DND will approach CIDA and FAC for support of Canadian programming," said the briefing note for the meeting, which has exacerbated internal bickering about who is responsible for the mission. "CIDA officials have been reluctant to get involved in corrections work, arguing it is not listed as one of the assistance priorities in the (Government of Canada) Country Strategy. ... Foreign Affairs has shown support but similarly would not like to see a major change in priorities set for Afghanistan," said the document, which was created for a meeting of deputy ministers in Ottawa on Jan. 24th last year.
The document, unearthed by the NDP through an access-to-information request, comes as government departments involved in the Afghan mission engage in a public display of infighting after a week in which the Conservatives were rocked by reports that detainees turned over by Canadians soldiers are being tortured.
NDP MP Dawn Black said departments seemed to want to get out of the way of a difficult and controversial file. "It was a hot potato between the different departments of government and no one wanted to take leadership and deal with it directly."
Asked about the briefing note, a senior defence official said on the weekend that it shows the Canadian Forces are the driving force on the mission in Afghanistan, even on an issue such as the human rights of the detainees that could have been tackled by other departments.
"Defence is simply doing too many things that are not in their security mandate because the absence of CIDA and [the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade] is putting the success of the military mission at risk," the defence official said. "In order to succeed in Afghanistan, we'll need the three departments, plus Public Safety, to work together."
On the issue of detainees, the official added the document is "proof that Defence has to push everyone to make things happen."
Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has also complained privately that he felt that he was left isolated by other departments on the issue of the detainees.
Canadian forces routinely hold detainees for a few days of questioning at Kandahar Air Field, then give them to the National Directorate of Security, Afghanistan's feared intelligence police. But detainees described how Canadians tied their hands with plastic straps, marking the start of nightmarish journeys through shadowy jails and blood-spattered interrogation rooms.
None of the abuse was inflicted by Canadians, and most Afghans captured -- even Taliban sympathizers -- praised the Canadian soldiers for their politeness, their gentle handling of captives and conditions in their detention facility.
CBC News yesterday said that members of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission were allowed into the prison run by the National Directorate of Security. The report said the monitors were "warmly received" by directorate agents, although two agents followed them as they tried to interview detainees.
The issue of whether detainees captured by Canadian troops are being properly treated in Afghan jails has troubled the Conservative government -- Mr. O'Connor in particular -- since last year when it was revealed that the agreement between the Canadian military and the Afghan government offers weaker human-rights safeguards than a deal struck with the Dutch.
In March, Mr. O'Connor was forced to acknowledge in the House of Commons that the International Committee of the Red Cross does not inform Canada of the treatment of detainees captured by Canadian troops and transferred to Afghan authorities.
The government's changing story
Officials of our government will be following up these allegations with officials of the government of Afghanistan.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Monday
[We're] taking this matter seriously
Brigadier-General Al Howard on Tuesday
We have heard these allegations. We always take these allegations seriously.
Primer Minister Stephen Harper on Wednesday
... to make that suggestion [of torture] solely based on the allegations of the Taliban, I think is the height of irresponsibility.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper later on Wednesday
If they have a specific name, we'd be happy to have it investigated and chased down.
Government House Leader
Peter Van Loan yesterday
There seems never any mention of US torture in Afghanistan or the payment for prisoners and rendering them to Guantanamo. See this site.
PRISONERS IN AFGHANISTAN: WHAT A DIFFERENCE A WEEK MAKES
Tories at odds with NATO on torture
'We have yet to see one specific allegation of torture,' Van Loan says as NATO boss welcomes probe
SIMON TUCK and DANIEL LEBLANC AND BRIAN LAGHI
OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF; With a report from Canadian Press
OTTAWA -- Reeling from the fallout over reports of abuse against Afghan prisoners, the Harper government has changed its position again, now disputing the very existence of allegations that prisoners handed over by Canadian troops were tortured.
As members of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission were finally granted monitoring access to a detention facility at the centre of the story, Tory Government House Leader Peter Van Loan backed off earlier suggestions from the Prime Minister and senior military officers that serious allegations have been revealed in The Globe and Mail.
"We have yet to see one specific allegation of torture," the minister told CTV's Question Period. "The issue is that people like [Liberal MP Ujjal] Mr. Dosanjh keep repeating that there are accusations of torture. If they have a specific name, we'd be happy to have it investigated and chased down, but they continue to repeat the baseless accusations made by those who wish to undermine our forces there."
NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has welcomed just such an investigation. He is the head of the alliance that commands Canadian and most other troops in Afghanistan.
"We have seen that the Afghan authorities are ready to make an inquiry into these allegations - it's still allegations - on the way some detainees were treated. We are in Afghanistan, Canada is, and 36 other NATO allies and partners are there, to uphold and defend what I call universal values. Part of [those] universal values is an adequate treatment of detainees and of prisoners. I'm happy with what I saw, on the basis of these universal values, that the Afghan government is ready to launch an inquiry."
In Europe for a meeting with NATO allies, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said over the weekend that the fate of the allied operation in Afghanistan -- in which 54 Canadian soldiers have died so far -- could reach a "tipping point."
"While I don't want to sound alarmist, I think there is going to be a tipping point unless we are able to stabilize [southern Afghanistan, especially], unless we are able to get on with building the economy, rule of law and government institutions."
A Globe investigation, based on 30 face-to-face interviews with men recently captured in Kandahar province, uncovered a range of horrific stories and a clear pattern of abuse by Afghan authorities who work closely with Canadian troops.
Some of the allegations were made by four men, whose names were published, and who were originally detained by Canadian forces.
Mr. Dosanjh, appearing on the same segment of the program, said Mr. Van Loan's comments were "bunk."
Officials from the Prime Minister's Office and the Department of Defence had no comment, but the Tory minister repeated the government's request for apologies from those repeating the accusations, as various arms of the civil service dispute who is responsible for the Afghanistan mission.
A government document says that federal civilian agencies involved in the Afghan reconstruction were hesitant to help modernize jails slated to house detainees captured by Canadian soldiers.
The document, prepared in January, 2006, by defence officials for a meeting of deputy ministers, says that National Defence planned to approach the Canadian International Development Agency and Foreign Affairs for help to construct buildings for detainees handed over by Canadian troops, but that the civilian departments were disinclined to help.
"DND will approach CIDA and FAC for support of Canadian programming," said the briefing note for the meeting, which has exacerbated internal bickering about who is responsible for the mission. "CIDA officials have been reluctant to get involved in corrections work, arguing it is not listed as one of the assistance priorities in the (Government of Canada) Country Strategy. ... Foreign Affairs has shown support but similarly would not like to see a major change in priorities set for Afghanistan," said the document, which was created for a meeting of deputy ministers in Ottawa on Jan. 24th last year.
The document, unearthed by the NDP through an access-to-information request, comes as government departments involved in the Afghan mission engage in a public display of infighting after a week in which the Conservatives were rocked by reports that detainees turned over by Canadians soldiers are being tortured.
NDP MP Dawn Black said departments seemed to want to get out of the way of a difficult and controversial file. "It was a hot potato between the different departments of government and no one wanted to take leadership and deal with it directly."
Asked about the briefing note, a senior defence official said on the weekend that it shows the Canadian Forces are the driving force on the mission in Afghanistan, even on an issue such as the human rights of the detainees that could have been tackled by other departments.
"Defence is simply doing too many things that are not in their security mandate because the absence of CIDA and [the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade] is putting the success of the military mission at risk," the defence official said. "In order to succeed in Afghanistan, we'll need the three departments, plus Public Safety, to work together."
On the issue of detainees, the official added the document is "proof that Defence has to push everyone to make things happen."
Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has also complained privately that he felt that he was left isolated by other departments on the issue of the detainees.
Canadian forces routinely hold detainees for a few days of questioning at Kandahar Air Field, then give them to the National Directorate of Security, Afghanistan's feared intelligence police. But detainees described how Canadians tied their hands with plastic straps, marking the start of nightmarish journeys through shadowy jails and blood-spattered interrogation rooms.
None of the abuse was inflicted by Canadians, and most Afghans captured -- even Taliban sympathizers -- praised the Canadian soldiers for their politeness, their gentle handling of captives and conditions in their detention facility.
CBC News yesterday said that members of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission were allowed into the prison run by the National Directorate of Security. The report said the monitors were "warmly received" by directorate agents, although two agents followed them as they tried to interview detainees.
The issue of whether detainees captured by Canadian troops are being properly treated in Afghan jails has troubled the Conservative government -- Mr. O'Connor in particular -- since last year when it was revealed that the agreement between the Canadian military and the Afghan government offers weaker human-rights safeguards than a deal struck with the Dutch.
In March, Mr. O'Connor was forced to acknowledge in the House of Commons that the International Committee of the Red Cross does not inform Canada of the treatment of detainees captured by Canadian troops and transferred to Afghan authorities.
The government's changing story
Officials of our government will be following up these allegations with officials of the government of Afghanistan.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Monday
[We're] taking this matter seriously
Brigadier-General Al Howard on Tuesday
We have heard these allegations. We always take these allegations seriously.
Primer Minister Stephen Harper on Wednesday
... to make that suggestion [of torture] solely based on the allegations of the Taliban, I think is the height of irresponsibility.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper later on Wednesday
If they have a specific name, we'd be happy to have it investigated and chased down.
Government House Leader
Peter Van Loan yesterday
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Gordon O'Connor: A man with the right connections
Lobbyists for defence industries certainly now have a person who supports increased military spending and in effect wants to further their cause. Harper too wants to increase military spending. As the earlier Dobbin article pointed out the whole attitude toward the military is being changed in Canada. No longer will we be just peacekeepers but we will be willing junior adjuncts to the US imperial project whether training Iraq police in Jordan, or working in the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan with ISAF.
New defence minister a former industry lobbyist
Updated Wed. Feb. 8 2006 8:48 AM ET
Canadian Press
OTTAWA -- The new defence minister is a retired general who once lobbied government on behalf of some big military contractors, a background which some find troubling.
Gordon O'Connor says he's beholden to no one, but others say it looks odd to have a one-time lobbyist sitting in the minister's office.
"It's a bad message to be sending,'' says Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch.
O'Connor, 66, is the first defence minister in 20 years to have actually served in the Forces. But it's his post-service lobbying that has raised eyebrows.
O'Connor left the army after a 30-year military career. He was a brigadier-general and director of military requirements when he retired.
He went into business and in the 1990s became a senior associate at Hill and Knowlton, one of the world's largest public affairs firms.
Up until February 2004 -- when he left the firm to run in the June election -- he was a registered lobbyist. He represented defence contractors such as Airbus Military, United Defense, General Dynamics Canada and BAE Systems as well as a variety of other, non-military clients.
His work mainly consisted of setting up meetings and contacts between clients and government officials.
Conacher said O'Connor can't help but make ministerial decisions that affect former clients.
"Policy decisions overall help those companies or hurt them'' Conacher said.
O'Connor says he has no remaining ties to a job he left two years ago.
"I have no shares in any company, I get no remuneration from any company, I don't have any loyalty to any company, so no there was no concern at all,'' he says.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he won't discourage people from private industry coming to government.
"Having worked in an industry in the past does not constitute a conflict of interest in the present.''
Still, Steven Staples of the Polaris Institute says O'Connor's lobbying activities look bad.
"I think there could be a problem of optics,'' Staples said.
"If you look at the list of companies he's represented, it's as long as your arm.
"It does play to the optics of him being very closely aligned with some very big players in the international arms industry. With billions of dollars coming through the pike for new acquisition of equipment, is there a conflict of interest perception here?''
Doug Bland, chairman of defence management studies at Queen's University, said it makes no sense to set the bar impossibly high.
"If every person of experience is precluded from cabinet, the pickings would be slim,'' he said.
David Rudd of the Canadian Institute for Strategic Studies says he sees nothing amiss with O'Connor's appointment.
"If you've severed all ties two years ago, I think that should be fine.''
However, Rudd says politics could produce an artificial tempest over the minister's lobbying background if it arose during a particularly touchy acquisition program.
"I can't think why it would be an issue, but that doesn't prevent the Opposition from raising the issue and the media love nothing more than a good fight.''
That could make the military's procurement process -- already long and Byzantine -- even more difficult.
"It could become so politicized that nothing is done.''
Bland said military procurement has long been a political tangle.
"I would not be surprised if (O'Connor) made getting the politics out of defence procurement a major issue.''
Brian MacDonald, a retired colonel now a defence analyst, said there was a time when it was an advantage to have a minister come out of industry because he or she was then familiar with the issues.
"The fact that we've had O'Connor spending some time as a paid lobbyist; it's out in the open, everybody knows about it, so what's the problem?''
New defence minister a former industry lobbyist
Updated Wed. Feb. 8 2006 8:48 AM ET
Canadian Press
OTTAWA -- The new defence minister is a retired general who once lobbied government on behalf of some big military contractors, a background which some find troubling.
Gordon O'Connor says he's beholden to no one, but others say it looks odd to have a one-time lobbyist sitting in the minister's office.
"It's a bad message to be sending,'' says Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch.
O'Connor, 66, is the first defence minister in 20 years to have actually served in the Forces. But it's his post-service lobbying that has raised eyebrows.
O'Connor left the army after a 30-year military career. He was a brigadier-general and director of military requirements when he retired.
He went into business and in the 1990s became a senior associate at Hill and Knowlton, one of the world's largest public affairs firms.
Up until February 2004 -- when he left the firm to run in the June election -- he was a registered lobbyist. He represented defence contractors such as Airbus Military, United Defense, General Dynamics Canada and BAE Systems as well as a variety of other, non-military clients.
His work mainly consisted of setting up meetings and contacts between clients and government officials.
Conacher said O'Connor can't help but make ministerial decisions that affect former clients.
"Policy decisions overall help those companies or hurt them'' Conacher said.
O'Connor says he has no remaining ties to a job he left two years ago.
"I have no shares in any company, I get no remuneration from any company, I don't have any loyalty to any company, so no there was no concern at all,'' he says.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he won't discourage people from private industry coming to government.
"Having worked in an industry in the past does not constitute a conflict of interest in the present.''
Still, Steven Staples of the Polaris Institute says O'Connor's lobbying activities look bad.
"I think there could be a problem of optics,'' Staples said.
"If you look at the list of companies he's represented, it's as long as your arm.
"It does play to the optics of him being very closely aligned with some very big players in the international arms industry. With billions of dollars coming through the pike for new acquisition of equipment, is there a conflict of interest perception here?''
Doug Bland, chairman of defence management studies at Queen's University, said it makes no sense to set the bar impossibly high.
"If every person of experience is precluded from cabinet, the pickings would be slim,'' he said.
David Rudd of the Canadian Institute for Strategic Studies says he sees nothing amiss with O'Connor's appointment.
"If you've severed all ties two years ago, I think that should be fine.''
However, Rudd says politics could produce an artificial tempest over the minister's lobbying background if it arose during a particularly touchy acquisition program.
"I can't think why it would be an issue, but that doesn't prevent the Opposition from raising the issue and the media love nothing more than a good fight.''
That could make the military's procurement process -- already long and Byzantine -- even more difficult.
"It could become so politicized that nothing is done.''
Bland said military procurement has long been a political tangle.
"I would not be surprised if (O'Connor) made getting the politics out of defence procurement a major issue.''
Brian MacDonald, a retired colonel now a defence analyst, said there was a time when it was an advantage to have a minister come out of industry because he or she was then familiar with the issues.
"The fact that we've had O'Connor spending some time as a paid lobbyist; it's out in the open, everybody knows about it, so what's the problem?''
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)