Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you for that answer.

We will go to the government side. Next is Mr. Obhrai, and then Mr. Van Loan.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you very much for coming.

Mr. Watson and Madam Ayoobi, Afghanistan went through a terrible war, and through that war all the infrastructure and everything collapsed. We are starting from ground zero coming up here.

You talked about a balanced approach to development. I just came back yesterday from the second annual reconstruction conference in New Delhi, organized by the Government of India and the Government of Afghanistan. Twenty-five countries, including NGOs, came over there to create a plan.

I'll tell you what impressed me in that conference. It was a regional conference with the regional countries surrounding Afghanistan. Everyone was at the table. They were at the table because they recognized that the instability in Afghanistan was going to affect them completely and that it was in their own interests, all the countries, that Afghanistan be stable.

They are ready now, and willing to put money. They're ready now, willing to put this thing. Yes, it'll take time. Yes, things are wrong. They talked about the national grid of electricity and they talked about building roads, but these are small incremental steps that are going to be taken.

Therefore, while we are going to paint a picture of Afghanistan--you paint this situation, and I remember it--as being very critical, and you comment to say that Canada is making a fatal mistake, I want to tell you that in the international community, every player over there.... Not a single country--neither Iran, nor Pakistan, nor China--was pulling out, but they were recognizing the fact.

When there is so much goodwill, when there is so much understanding that we've got to do something for Afghanistan, then I think we need to support it very strongly instead of coming along and looking at cracks and fissures. As I said, Afghanistan is starting from level zero, so let's work together there, because it is in the general interest of everyone, including that region.

Don't you think these steps that are being taken, including this one, are the future of Afghanistan and will make Afghanistan prosperous?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead, Mr. Watson.

[A. John Watson]

Well, I'm glad the conference went well, but I have to disagree.

Afghanistan's a very odd country. I can think of no other country that is surrounded by states that have an ethnic basis that bleeds directly over the border into Afghanistan. In my opinion, there is no chance that there will be a strong state in Afghanistan precisely because of that.

If you want to take one example--this is what I mean by the groupthink--it doesn't seem that we as Canadians, who used to be very good at putting ourselves into other people's shoes, can do that anymore. If you put yourself in the shoes of a Pakistani, you have to your south a budding superpower with whom you've gone to war several times in the fairly recent past. You have a very fixed border on that side. Ask one of our military men whether they, if they were in the position of a Pakistani general, would recommend that the border with Afghanistan be tightened up. They don't. It is in their interest to have an unstable Afghanistan, because they have a national policy of defence in depth because of the threats coming from India.

Let us be very clear about this. In the 1960s and early 1970s—

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I don't understand what you're talking about.

[A. John Watson]

Well, if you don't understand what I'm talking about, I do not think you can put yourself in the position of a Pakistani.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I think we can quite well disagree. You're talking about the past, but I would seriously disagree with what you're saying, because the dynamics of what is happening in Afghanistan have already changed, and in that region it has changed, yet you want to live in the past and criticize that. So I would disagree with you.

[A. John Watson]

Mr. Obhrai, on this trip I spent a week in Pakistan. Whatever my position is, I think I understand that the Pakistanis do feel a threat from India. Whether it's justified or not, that is the way they feel.

Understand that in our position in the 1960s and 1970s, we were not involved in counter-insurgency efforts in Vietnam; we are now involved, all of us--the European powers and Canada--in counter-insurgency efforts in an unwinnable war in Afghanistan. We are caught up in the same sort of groupthink that pertained in the Vietnam era and that pertains with regard to Iraq, and the same thing is going to happen. So this committee--whether you're government or Liberal or NDP--is going to have to come to grips with a coming crisis in how we handle our aid, in how we organize our military, and in how we relate to our minority communities within Canada, and it's going to be a bigger crisis because you have very little dissent with regard to our policies in Afghanistan.

That's my position.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam McDonough, please go ahead.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to our guests for being here today. I had the opportunity to welcome Ms. Ayoobi and Ms. Aziz in my home city of Halifax last week, and I'm very pleased you're here today.

I have to say I feel very constrained and conflicted about putting very strong, direct questions to you, because I respect your honesty and your courage in sharing with the committee. Actually, it feels as though press freedoms are being crowded, are being squeezed, in the last while. I'm wondering and worrying whether you would be put in a position of jeopardy if you speak very frankly here and then go back to Afghanistan.

[Najiba Ayoobi]

Thank you for your question.

For someone working in Afghanistan, media is always a risk. I am one of the people fighting for freedom of expression in Afghanistan. I am working in groups who want freedom of expression to become the standard in Afghanistan. I am sure that whatever I say here, when reflected in the press in Canada or throughout the world, would create problems for me when I go back, but I can assure you that whatever I say is required to be said. That's why I accept the risks and I want to explain everything formally.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

If I have a moment at the end, I'd like to come back for another question, but I'd like to just briefly speak to Mr. Watson.

I actually found it astounding for it to be suggested by a government member that you're living in the past and that somehow we're the future-oriented country as it relates to Afghanistan at this point.

I want to ask if you would expand a bit further on your wrap-up statement, because I know yours has been a clear voice of concern about the impact of the militarization of aid, and about the concerns with respect to our military actually performing development functions. Could you speak a bit further about that?

I don't know whether it seems like an artificial distinction, but when people speak just about Afghanistan in general, it seems to some of us that it's difficult to have a clear picture of what commentary and criticisms pertain to the Kandahar quagmire and what actually pertains to Afghanistan as a whole or Afghanistan in the north. So in your comments, if you could make any distinctions if they make sense to you or if you think we need to understand that there is some distinction, that would be very much appreciated.

[A. John Watson]

In terms of the military, first of all, let me say that I have benefited from being the NGO dissident voice at so many military training missions. One of the best things about the western military, and the Canadian military in particular, is that they have always made room for dissident points of view, if you like.

There are two problems with the current situation. Our guys are about as good as you get in terms of western militaries, but one problem is that in terms of western militaries coming out of the Cold War era, it's hard to think of a military that would be less suitable for fighting this sort of war. They are again coming out of a military culture that, for fifty years, had them preparing to fight battles in northern Europe. That means they are self-contained, they are very high-cost, they are tied to their computer screens, and they are the exact opposite of the kind of colonial military that could go in and do stabilization activities. So on the military side, we really need a long-term, if you like, JTF-3 that would concentrate on security and stabilization exercises.

This is not the old peacekeeping. This is robust military work. This requires some things that are not very palatable. For instance, they need slush funds to buy intelligence, to buy informers, to bribe people in these conflict zones, and they should get them. I want to be clear about that.

What I think is also the case is that, in this country, we have never had any funding for humanitarian aid agencies, no funding to develop the kind of stand-by capacity you need to mount these heavy programs for the employment of young fighters after the conflict is over. We are having discussions about that now with CIDA, and after thirty years, I think it is about time that we had, as they have in almost every other country, the kind of program funding for humanitarian aid agencies that we have for our development sector. But we haven't had that to date, so you're put in a ridiculous position where the military, which can't do stabilization work adequately, instead of addressing that, says the problem is that we're not doing humanitarian work.

My response would be that it's just wrong on both counts. The military must change, and there have to be resources put onto the humanitarian side.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Watson.

Mr. Van Loan, for the second round.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I'm going to start with Mr. Watson.

I understand CARE was in Afghanistan in 1989. Is that correct?

[A. John Watson]

We were not there during the Russian period.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

But you were in under the Taliban.

[A. John Watson]

Yes.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I heard you quite comfortably criticizing the Canadian military aid. Do you have any military training?

[A. John Watson]

Yes, I do, in fact.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

You're an expert in military matters?

[A. John Watson]

I wouldn't say I'm an expert, but yes, I've written a book on weaponry, I have studied military matters and military—

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Were you ever in the armed forces?

[A. John Watson]

Yes, I was.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

As what?