This is the text of a talk by Jack Layton at the Univ. of Ottawa from the
NDP site. This is an interesting article and makes some good critical points against the view that a combat role is most important but on the other hand parts of his paper represent idealism on steroids and Layton completely fails to locate the Canadian mission in a global context and to its relationship to US imperialism. Layton doesn't examine how we got into the mission in the first place or question the self-defence arguments of the promoters of Operation Enduring Freedom. Apparently my own view does not exist as an option: withdrawing altogether and using aid money saved in places where it will have more effect and not become part of an imperialist strategy.
NATO in Afghanistan: From Bad to Worse – The wrong role for Canada
Wed 30 Jan 2008
Jack Layton's speech at the University of Ottawa
Introduction
It is great to be with you here tonight.
I want to thank the Group of 78 for inviting me here tonight.
I also want to thank the University of Ottawa NDP club and our Foreign Affairs Critic and Member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre, Paul Dewar for helping with tonight and the promotion.
It is a pleasure to be here with you to discuss a topic that has rightfully captured the attention, of not only scholars of foreign relations, the academic community, and Parliamentarians, but also everyday Canadians in every corner of this country.
I have the opportunity to travel extensively across Canada. Everywhere I travel, people raise the issue of the war in Afghanistan.
And that’s a good thing.
For the worst thing to happen to a country during war-time is to somehow become indifferent.
Canadians are anything but indifferent.
Afghanistan is important to us as a people, because the manner in which we help the people of Afghanistan is integral to how we, as Canadians, define who we are and the role we aspire to for Canada to play on the world stage.
And in the coming weeks, Parliament will once again be called upon to make decisions that will draft the definition of who we are as a country for an entire generation.
I believe there are two very different visions emerging about what Canada’s role in Afghanistan should be and ultimately, how we wish to define ourselves as Canadians.
One vision suggests that Canada should continue to participate in a counter-insurgency war with increased soldiers, helicopters and unmanned drones until quote “the job is done.”
This vision has its roots planted in the Liberal government’s executive decision to send Canadian troops into Afghanistan six years ago without a deadline, an exit strategy or any definition or measurement for success.
This vision is premised on the notion that through a counter-insurgency combat mission, NATO forces will create the conditions that bring about security and stability and improve the lives of the Afghan people.
To date, not only has this approach failed to achieve these goals, it has had the opposite effect.
At the same time, there is a second vision for Canada’s role in Afghanistan – one that focuses on bringing about security, stability and improving the lives of the Afghan people by building a path toward peace.
This is the approach that I believe Canada must follow.
It’s also the approach that millions of average Canadians believe should be followed and I’m proud to lead the Party that gives voice to that shared vision.
It’s also an approach that we are encouraging other Parliamentarians to embrace.
I can share with you tonight that earlier today I spoke with Mr. Dion, leader of the Liberal Party and appealed to him not to follow Mr. Harper in extending the combat role for Canada in Afghanistan, but to join with us charting a new direction to truly help the people of Afghanistan.
Just as Mr. Harper has extended a hand to Mr. Dion for his approach, so too am I extending a hand to Mr. Dion to embrace our approach.
Mr. Dion has some decisions to make. And I look forward to a continued dialogue over the coming days and weeks.
And tonight, I want to talk about our approach. I want to lay out our vision for the role that Canada should play in Afghanistan.
But first, it is important to understand the current situation and why the approach being taken by NATO, the previous Liberal and the current Conservative government is not working.
Review of the Current Situation in Afghanistan
According to Canadian government officials, one of the main reasons for participation in the counter-insurgency combat mission is to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid.
But the situation is not getting better - it’s getting worse.
In September 2006, Malalai Joya, the courageous Afghan MP who has dared to take on corrupt and violent officials in her own Parliament, told 2,000 people at the NDP’s convention that there has been “no fundamental change in the plight of the Afghan people” since this recent war began.
She told us that “then entire country is living under the shadow of guns and warlordism.”
In the year and a half since she stunned me and the 2,000 others in that room, the situation has not improved.
Over the last few months, food prices, particularly for wheat and wheat flour, have increased by 60 to 80 per cent.
Because of these price increases, 3 million Afghans cannot afford to eat.
In addition to rising food costs, the number of areas that are too dangerous for aid workers to access is growing – once concentrated in the south they have now spread to pockets all over the country.
Aid groups have long warned of the dangers of blurring the divide between military and humanitarian efforts.
According to Gerry Barr, who speaks on behalf of Canada’s development groups:
“There needs to be some space between them. They need to be independent. If not, we can end up with civilians being targeted.”
Yet the bulk of Canadian spending continues to be funnelled to the combat mission – at the expense of development.
In fact, this morning we learned that total spending on the military mission in Afghanistan has reached a total of $7 billion – more than half of that spent since Canadian troops joined the combat mission in Kandahar.
Over the same period, only $670 million was spent on development aid.
Sadly, we have seen the results of a blurring of the divide between military and humanitarian operations in the pattern of attacks on schools.
Oxfam has found that schools built by international military forces are twice as likely to be targeted by militants as those built by civilian agencies.
Nonetheless, more and more development dollars are going through the Provincial Reconstruction Teams, so that, in fact, military interests are driving increasingly who gets aid, and what kind of aid they get.
The deteriorating humanitarian situation was also highlighted extensively in the report of the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan.
In addition to the deteriorating humanitarian aid situation:
Opium production, which finances the insurgency, is up;
Crime is up;
Corruption is up;
Rates of insurgent and terrorist violence are up; – 20 per cent since 2006.
The number of Afghan civilians killed is up; – doubling since 2005.
The counter-insurgency combat mission has failed to build;
security for the Afghan people;
a robust economy;
a vibrant democracy;
gender equality; or
a stable and lasting peace.
The evidence suggests that the current approach – after being given seven years to prove itself effective – is not working.
NATO’s Role: The Wrong Approach
And one reason that it’s not working is because NATO is the wrong organization to be in charge.
NATO is a regional defence organization that has been searching for a purpose since the end of the Cold War.
It is a military organization that does not possess the experience, expertise or inclination to deal with the diplomatic and humanitarian needs in Afghanistan.
In short, NATO’s military focus makes it a questionable fit for the task of nation-building.
And aside from it being a bad match in Afghanistan – it has executed its activities poorly.
Coordination efforts in Afghanistan have been hampered by internal divisions.
The US, Canada and Britain have taken on the bulk of the counter-insurgency, while the other European countries have placed considerable caveats on their involvement.
Those caveats are not the result of cowardice.
Rather, they indicate certain scepticism about the prospects for military victory.
Even the Manley Report noted the “harmful shortcomings” in NATO’s counterinsurgency campaign.
I’m quoting here:
“A top-heavy command structure at ISAF headquarters in Kabul;
An absence of a comprehensive strategy directing all ISAF forces in collaboration with the Afghan government;
Inadequate coordination between military and civilian programs for security, stabilization, reconstruction and development.”
The Wrong Mission for Canada
But the blame cannot be laid on NATO exclusively; the Canadian government must also take responsibility.
Just look at the detainee transfer issue that once again emerged as a top issue this week – and with good reason.
While other NATO members are forthcoming with information, Canada is keeping its citizens in the dark.
And the response of the Prime Minister reminds me of the guy who being in the driver’s seat, never admits to being lost and is too stubborn to ask for directions.
And sometimes, our prime minister doesn’t want to be in that driver’s seat, like yesterday when I asked him why the British, Dutch, and Americans release their detainee information to their publics without compromising their national security. He said if our military wanted to give out such information, it would be up them!
Many who have read the Manley report have observed that its recommendations do not logically flow from the body of the report.
The report devotes page after page to describing the short-comings of the NATO mission as well the worsening conditions for the Afghan people, yet its key recommendation calls for a continued combat role for Canada if increased soldiers and equipment can be secured.
Despite the fact that things are getting worse, the Manley report says that Canada should do more of the same.
I think that’s wrong.
When we know that a particular approach is failing, we have a choice.
We can pick another approach.
Today, there are two choices in front of us – the approach that successive Canadian governments have set or we can embark on a new approach.
The current approach intensifies the war.
It is an approach that many others have taken before in Afghanistan …
From Alexander the Great, to the British in 19th century, to the Russians in the last century.
The Russians were in Afghanistan for 10 years.
At one point they made decision to switch from a ground effort to using helicopters because they thought that it would mean fewer casualties for soldiers.
This is what Manley is proposing Canadian troops do.
But when the Russians made the switch, insurgents secured ground to air missiles and shot down helicopters.
Is that where we are headed?
Towards an increasingly intense and armed combat approach?
There is no evidence that that approach will work. In fact the evidence illustrates that it won’t.
It doesn’t make sense to think that adding 1,000 soldiers to 36,000 that are already there is somehow going to tip the balance.
It’s time for Canada to make a break with the past.
The Liberals and Conservatives have taken us down an all too familiar path.
But the signposts are clear: they say “Cul de Sac”.
Why do we have to go all the way to the end to see for ourselves?
Imagine ourselves 10 years from now.
We could be having a debate about whether to add yet more troops so as to finally secure victory in Afghanistan.
This is where I predict we will be if the government’s proposals are adopted.
A wearied Canadian public will be grappling with the same questions and many more families will be mourning the loss of their loved ones.
Now, imagine that we pick the other approach.
In ten years the history writers will be recording that there was a turning point in history when the clarion call of Canada was heard.
They will be teaching that Canada’s decision provoked a reconsideration of the impasse into which the Afghan conundrum was finding itself increasingly locked.
The first step along this path is the clear indication that we are withdrawing our troops now through an operational plan for a safe and secure withdrawal.
Some ask: Why start there?
Quite simply because, being combatants, chasers of insurgents, and escalators of war – will deny us any credibility to serve as leaders for peace.
Some say that by pulling out Canada would be harming NATO.
Yesterday, NATO spokesperson James Appathurai, flatly denied that speculation.
As reported in the Ottawa Citizen this morning he said and I’m quoting “I think that making links between this (Canada’s possible withdrawal) and NATO’s credibility are quite frankly unnecessary”
In the debate over the future of Afghanistan ours is not the only voice calling for a new approach. President Karzai, Afghan Parliamentarians and aid groups have all spoken of the need to kick-start the dialogue that will bring about a lasting peace.
Even former deputy minister of foreign affairs, Gordon Smith, has recently said that: “What is needed is a process of substantial conversation or reorientation of anti-state elements into an open and non-violent political dynamic”
I believe that Canada should be working to ensure that exactly this type of ‘conversation’ take place in Afghanistan.
We should be using the considerable skills and expertise of Canadians to bring the various actors in Afghanistan to the table.
We should be working to put in place an effective disarmament programme.
65% of Afghans say that disarmament is the most important step toward improving security in Afghanistan.
But the current effort has not gone far enough to make a significant impact.
Taking the path to peace through diplomacy also means involving regional actors in discussions. Pakistan in particular.
Regional cooperation is vital to any successful strategy for regional security and peace.
The path to peace requires a political, not a military, approach.
To carry out this vision, the key international body involved in Afghanistan must be the UN, not NATO.
Unlike NATO, the UN’s explicit mandate is to preserve and promote international peace and security.
The UN agencies tasked with carrying out this mandate have a vital role to play in meeting the challenges of Afghanistan:
UNICEF
The United Nations Development fund for Women
The World Health Organization
The United Nations Development Programme
The United Nations Disarmament Commission
And of course, the United Nations Peacebuildng Commission headed up by Canadian Carolyn McAskie
All too often, we focus on the UN-led peace-keeping missions that did not succeed. Missions in Somalia, Rwanda, and Bosnia.
But there are many other examples of successes – like East Timor, Cambodia or Mozambique.
Consider for a moment the enormous impact that the UN peacekeeping mission had in East Timor.
UN efforts there helped to protect a nascent and fragile independent state.
With the help of the UN, the Timorese were able to surmount incredible odds – years of violence and repression – and create a largely stable and successful state.
There are lessons to be learned from the UN’s failures – but also from its successes.
It’s time to apply these lessons to Afghanistan.
To do this, one of the UN’s member states must boldly suggest this approach.
I believe that Canada should be that state, and make this our calling in the months to come. This role resonates with our values and our hopes here in Canada.
Conclusion
I believe that Canada can and should be a voice of moderation, realism and peace on the world stage.
And to become that voice, we must embrace a new approach for Canada as well as for the international community.
One of the tenets of just-war theory is that a country must have a reasonable chance of success in order for that war to be legitimate. But under the NATO approach, there is no evidence of such a success in Afghanistan.
The experience of the last seven years of NATO engagement has shown that a military approach is not working.
It’s time for Canada to change its approach, withdraw from the combat mission and lead a process for peace and stability.
Michael Byers, one of Canada’s leading experts in Global Politics and International Law, has warned that:
“Our involvement in the counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan, has challenged our commitment to international humanitarian law and precluded our involvement in important UN peacekeeping missions elsewhere.”
Canadians have prided themselves on their principled, strategic and compassionate stand on foreign affairs.
They are proud of the accomplishments of Canadians on the world stage:
Of John Humphrey who drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
Of Stephen Lewis who has tireless fought for AIDS sufferers in Africa;
And many more like them.
We could add that list; Afghanistan – but we must be willing to lead the way on the path to peace.
As Lester B. Pearson said: “Of all our dreams today there is none more important - or so hard to realise - than that of peace in the world. May we never lose our faith in it or our resolve to do everything that can be done to convert it one day into reality.”
It will take courage and leadership, as it always has.
But in the end, I believe that is the approach Canadians will want to take because that is how Canadians wish to define themselves and the role they aspire Canada to play on the world stage.
Thank you very much.
