Afghanistan Committee on Oct. 20th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'd like to bring this meeting to order.

We have decided to divide the remainder of the meeting into two equal parts, and the clerk will indicate the approximate time for those.

For the first part of this meeting, I would like to welcome His Excellency Mr. Jawed Ludin, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada.

Welcome, sir. We appreciate you taking the time to come before this committee. We look forward to the discussion. Our usual practice is to allow approximately seven minutes. If you would like to make an opening statement, you're welcome to do so at this time.

Welcome again, and go ahead whenever you're ready.

[His Excellency Jawed Ludin, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada, Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair and honourable members of the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan, thank you for your invitation.

It is a pleasure and a distinct honour for me to appear before this distinguished committee today and to have the opportunity to discuss with you the ongoing situation in my country.

On behalf of my government and the Afghan people, I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the committee and to each honourable member for your engagement, your friendship and your support of my country, often in difficult times.

Over the past nine years, Canada has been part of a truly international effort to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan and help the Afghan people restore their basic rights as human beings and as citizens. Our shared achievements are historical, and we Afghans are proud of them. We are grateful to the international community, and particularly to those countries, including Canada, whose commitment and support to Afghanistan has come at a significant cost in blood and treasure.

Honourable members, we are gradually nearing the end of 2010, which has been a momentous year for Afghanistan. Marked by a number of significant milestones, the year has also been an accurate indicator of the sense of urgency in what has been a rapidly evolving context. The military surge, spearheaded by additional U.S. troops, ordered by President Barack Obama last year, has successfully unfolded in southern Afghanistan. While the success of the surge, measured in terms of sustained security enjoyed by the population and the establishment of a functioning government will take time to materialize, early signs of success are apparent in Helmand, and even in Kandahar, where the surge is currently under way.

In addition, we are optimistic about the refocusing of the war strategy to take into account the regional dimension of the terrorist threat and the existence of sanctuaries on the other side of our southern border. This aspect, in our view, has been the missing link in the conduct of the war, and with this piece of the jigsaw falling into place, hopefully, we can be confident about succeeding in the fight against terrorism in the region as well as the fight against the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

You will recall, honourable members, that your visit to Kabul last June coincided with the convening of the landmark peace jirga, organized by the Afghan government to generate consensus across Afghan society for the goal of reconciliation with the Taliban. Earlier, at the London conference of January 2010, the Afghan government had consulted the international community on its strategy for reconciliation and reintegration.

While a consensus, both nationally and among our partners from the international community, seems to have emerged behind the reconciliation agenda, there is still considerable anxiety, honourable members, among Afghans about the price they will be asked to pay to achieve peace. In our view, no reconciliation will be desirable, or possible, if it comes at the cost of compromising our freedom, our rights, and the prospects of a democratic future we are trying to build for our country. It will also be a mistake if some among our partners from the international community use the reconciliation agenda to pave the way for a premature departure of the international forces from Afghanistan.

Honourable members, the Kabul conference of July 2010 was the most important event on our national calendar this year. An important outcome of the Kabul conference was the agreement with regard to the buildup of Afghan security institutions and their gradual takeover of responsibility for security in the country. As we have said many times before, we Afghans are extremely eager to take responsibility for the security and defence of our homeland and to create the conditions for a dignified and victorious return of all international forces to their home countries. However, the extent and timeframe for achieving this goal will depend on the extent of the international community’s contributions to the training, equipping, and building of the capacity of Afghanistan’s security institutions: the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Police, and the National Directorate of Security.

Another major event on this year's calendar was the parliamentary elections on September 18, which took place in a relatively secure environment despite the pronounced intention by the Taliban to try to disrupt this national process. As of today, the preliminary results have been announced and we are eagerly awaiting the inauguration of our new parliament later this autumn. Evidently, the elections have not been free of challenge, including voting irregularities, but I am pleased to observe that the relevant institutions, the Independent Election Commission and the Electoral Complaints Commission, have dispensed their roles in a robust manner to ensure a just outcome of the election process.

Aside from the positive developments I have enumerated today, and many more that I have not, significant challenges remain, chief among them the challenge of bringing security to the lives of the Afghan people. Judged by the net amount of violence reported from some parts of Afghanistan, mainly in the south, by the level of casualties suffered by Afghans and our international partners, and by the continued support and protection that our terrorist enemies enjoy beyond our borders, the war we are fighting is far from won.

Within Afghanistan our critical institutions will continue to need the help of the international community for a few more years in order to gain the strength and confidence they need. Tackling other challenges, such as corruption and the drug trade, will also require patience and perseverance.

At the regional level we must have a stronger, more determined response from the United States and NATO members to the problem of sanctuaries, as well as sincere cooperation from the Government of Pakistan if we are going to see progress on the war front.

Honourable members, today the key question to ask is not whether Afghans want to and can change our destiny--we do, and we can--but to ask to what extent will the international community persevere with us as we continue on this arduous journey. As Canada ponders the future of its engagement in Afghanistan beyond 2011, this question applies to you more so than to any of our other international partners.

As I have told some of the honourable members individually on multiple occasions before, we Afghans are extremely grateful for Canada's friendship and contribution during some of the most difficult years in the past. We honour and we will never forget the sacrifices of 152 soldiers and four civilians from Canada who have lost their young, promising lives in my country. In our view, for Canada to remain in Afghanistan will not just be an appropriate response to the needs of Afghanistan, but also a fitting tribute to the legacy of those Canadians who have served with honour and distinction in my country over the past years. The nature of Canada' s mission beyond 2011 will be for the Canadian people and their rightful representatives in this august House to decide. Afghanistan needs all it can get from its friends, and Canada is a friend with many capacities and strengths to offer help.

For the time being, security is the topmost important concern for the country. In that context, the training of our national security institutions, particularly the ANP, the Afghan National Police, and the NDS, the National Directorate of Security, and providing them with enablers, including equipment and support, are among our top priorities.

On the civilian side, apart from the investment in the building of democratic institutions--the civil society and the rule of law--we look to engaging Canada's private sector in investing in the enormous wealth in our nation and in our geography that needs to be unlocked.

The bottom line, honourable members, is that Canada has been a friend and partner during our hard times. We would like Canada to be with us during the good times when they inevitably arrive.

Merci beaucoup.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much, sir.

We'll move immediately to our questions and comments round. The first round is seven minutes per member.

We'll begin with Mr. Wilfert, please.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I have two questions, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, Ambassador, it's good to see you again. Again, we appreciate working side by side with members of the Afghan National Army in particular.

When we were in Kabul in June, one particular person who impressed me was Dr. Massouda Jalal, a former minister for women's affairs, formerly dealing with the Afghan human rights, and twice presidential candidate. We talked a lot about reconciliation. The concern she raised on the issue of women's rights was that, depending on what types of arrangements are made with Taliban--we're know they're not monolithic, but it depends--if they come into Parliament, the erosion of women's rights....

In other words, take the number of children we've seen who have gone to school: over six million. Of the 600 doctors who graduated a couple of years ago, half of them were women, etc. The concern is that the national action plan for women that the Afghan government launched in 2007 would be in peril. And I'd like you to comment on that issue.

The second question I would put on the table is really always the elephant in the room, and that is the state of corruption in Afghanistan, and particularly the issue of aid money that is going and is not being properly utilized or is simply disappearing--or there's not the capacity to utilize it.

Then one of my colleagues will take the second round, or even this round, depending on the answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

That's if there's time left in the seven minutes.

Go ahead, sir.

[Jawed Ludin]

Thank you, honourable member.

On the question of reconciliation, as I stated in my brief statement, those are exactly the concerns many have had, including me, personally, not necessarily as a spokesman of the government but as an Afghan, first and foremost.

President Karzai has been very clear in his definition of the reconciliation process, and that is that reconciliation will be used as a strategy to help in the ongoing war we are fighting against terrorism in the counter-insurgency. To that extent, it will be aimed at winning over some of the people who are not tied irrevocably with terrorism, with al-Qaeda, and who can be won over by a political strategy.

He has also been very clear that reconciliation will not come at the cost of changing the Afghan constitution and reversing the achievements and the democratization process we have had in the past nine years.

I think the kinds of concerns Afghans have had, and the ones Mrs. Jalal raised, are exactly along the same lines. They are answered by those clarifications from President Karzai. At least as far as President Karzai is concerned, in his definition of reconciliation, it should and must not come at the cost of Afghanistan's achievements. Inasmuch as it's important to win this war, to win it through political as well as military strategy, it's more important in the minds of the Afghan people to safeguard our own achievements and not compromise them.

On the question of corruption, it's a problem. There is no question. But I think the perceptions of corruption, even though they do in a lot of cases relate to reality, should be seen as one of the challenges we have together. The last thing we should do, really, is enter into a kind of blame game. It will be so unhelpful that at the end of the day, not only will the problem of corruption not be addressed but we will lose momentum in some of the other areas where we have to work together.

I think, unfortunately, that this happened because this is a very logical and natural outcome for a country that had totally lost its state institutions and nine years ago suddenly became the recipient of one of the largest aid programs in history. This inevitably causes a lot of complications. Corruption is first and foremost a question of capacity. It's not really a question of culture. Other people have raised this, and it's absolutely wrong. It would have happened in Africa. It would have happened in Europe. It would have happened in any other part of the world if you had had a country like Afghanistan as it was nine years ago facing the situation we did.

So I think it should be seen as a problem we need to work on together.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chairman, there's no question that it's a problem we need to work on together. Obviously, capacity building is critical. But it's not what the Government of Afghanistan says, it's what the Government of Afghanistan actually does in addressing this, in terms of the officials, whether they are ministers or bureaucrats.

What we heard in June, when we were there, was that this is fundamentally the critical issue. Unless there is a real strategy that demonstrates both in terms of the rhetoric and in terms of the delivery, this is going to continue to undermine whatever the work of the government is. Could you comment on that?

My other quick question goes back to women. My concern, and the concern I heard there, was that legislative changes could occur if the balance were to change. It's very nice of the president to say that this is where he stands, but the question is whether he will have the ability to stand behind those words if, in fact, there is a parliament that becomes increasingly hostile, if you will, or unsympathetic to women's rights.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

There is very little time to respond.

[Jawed Ludin]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The second point is very important, honourable member, if I may just respond to it. It's music to my ears that you, honourable member, are raising this issue, because there is no stronger, more important, guarantee than I as an Afghan would like from the international community than an emphasis on those kinds of issues, on women's rights and on our prospects of our own democratic future.

I really hope that as we go into this, because a lot of people.... I told you about President Karzai, but there are a lot of actors, and not all of them share the vision that we have for our own country. There is a lot of interest and there are still big risks for our country, including risk for reversal of all those things that you're talking about.

The only thing that will safeguard those interests will be a position from the international community and from countries such as Canada that have a big voice to say that there are limits to what the reconciliation program can be about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Now we'll go over to the Bloc.

Mr. Bachand, you have seven minutes.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to welcome Ambassador Ludin. We had long discussions not only here, in the committee, but also at the embassy and elsewhere. He is a very active diplomat and an excellent advocate for his country.

However, Mr. Ludin, I have always told you, because I consider you as a friend, that I would invariably tell you the truth and always say exactly what I think. Before deferring to my friend Mr. Dorion, I want to talk about election results. The independent commission said in a statement that it would probably reject partly or completely the votes from 430 voting sites and that hearings are being held about 830 other sites because they suspect massive fraud took place during the elections.

This is my first question to you, Mr. Ludin. The commission was to hold a press conference on Monday of this week. Two hours before the expected time, the commission said the press conference could not be held because they needed more details but that an announcement would be made on Wednesday, which is today. As the ambassador, can you tell us if this announcement was indeed made today?

[Jawed Ludin]

Merci beaucoup.

I was struggling with the translation--it's still not working, for some reason--but as I understood your question, you were asking about the parliamentary elections and the fact that the announcement was supposed to be Monday.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Now it's postponed until Wednesday: until today.

[Jawed Ludin]

Exactly. There was an announcement today that the counting and the looking into complaints have now been final. There are over one million votes that have been invalidated. It was an important thing to do for the commission, and that represents about 25%, as you've said, of the turnout, of the total votes.

The reason it was important to do is that, as you remember, there was a bitter experience from the presidential elections. What happened as a result of that was that there was a blame game. Afghans were blaming the international community and the international community was blaming Afghans.

This time the difference was that both institutions involved in the elections were mainly made up of Afghans, and they had to show that there was integrity in the process. The integrity is not really the absence of fraud or the absence of irregularities but what is done in order to respond to those. For that reason, they took a long time to look into all the complaints. They have now looked into complaints, and wherever there has been enough evidence of fraud, they have invalidated the whole voting site.

As a result, preliminary results were announced today, but the final announcement has now been delayed because there will still be a process involving one last element. When the preliminary results are out, there is again an opportunity for the candidates to complain. After that process, there will be an opportunity to announce the final results.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

If one million votes have been invalidated, what are the consequences, particularly if these votes all came from the same area? Let us take the case of a candidate in a district where three quarters of the votes were invalidated. I guess this candidate cannot be declared elected. What are the consequences of today's decision?

[Jawed Ludin]

In the final analysis, the turnout was 5.6 million, which was more than 50%. If you invalidate a million votes--and I know it's an enormous number of votes to be invalidated--it's about 20% of the total turnout.

If you remember correctly, at the time people did believe that we would be really happy, given the kind of environment Afghanistan was in, given the fact that there were security risks, given the fact that a lot of people, including in Kabul--because there were security attacks in the week before--did not come out to vote. So in that sense it was still a success. The legitimacy of the election process was not affected.

It is very regrettable that those invalidations took place at that scale, but it also shows that the institutions did their job. That aspect has to be borne in mind.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

There's less than a minute. Go ahead.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Ambassador, thank you for being here.

You referred to the existence of sanctuaries in neighbouring countries. I guess you meant Pakistan in particular.

Do you think it is still possible for the Afghan government or for the UN allies to reduce the number of these sanctuaries? Would you go as far as to support intervention in Pakistan against the forces that are launching attacks against the Afghan government from that country?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Go ahead.

[Jawed Ludin]

Thank you very much, honourable member. I don't think the Pakistani government will do it on its own. We have had nine years now to show that it will not happen without a systematic, principled, and strong position from the international community--from the United States in particular, but from NATO at the same time.

If there is one strategic shift today in the way this war is being conducted at this stage, it is the realization that this war is not really so much in Afghanistan; it's going to be won on the Pakistani side of the border.

We are optimistic to see some engagement from the United States with Pakistan through the Pakistani government. There is also pressure through the use of drones. But I think much more has to be done, and we are not seeing enough signs of activity yet on that front.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Hawn, please.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ambassador Ludin, for being here. It's good to see you again.

First of all, I want to congratulate you. Even with a million votes invalidated, from the numbers you gave that's still a 41% turnout. We've had an election in Alberta, in my city of Edmonton, and the turnout was 33%. So congratulations on the progress you're making there.

Obviously, voting is fundamental to a functioning democracy. One of the other things that's fundamental is the justice system. I'd like to talk about that a little bit, since you raised the private sector. We've thought often in terms of Canada's support of, obviously, military and CIDA and the whole-of-government approach, and that's all great, but we've got a huge capacity in this country in the private sector for capacity building and training and mentoring and whatever else. The justice system, obviously...you know, you can have an army and you can have a police force and all the rest of that stuff, but if you don't have a basic functioning justice system to bring criminals to justice in an appropriate length of time and in an appropriate way, then you're never going to get past being a lawless state.

The NDS is a key to that. It's obviously a lot smaller than the Afghan army and a lot smaller than the Afghan National Police. It's something that maybe a country like Canada could help get its arms around with our capacity for that kind of thing.

One of the things we did hear in June, when we visited Kabul, from Ahmad Nader Nadery of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, was that, you know, the NDS is far from perfect, but how much better they are than they used to be, the progress they've made and the fact that they are probably one of the better institutions in Afghanistan.

Could you comment on that, on perhaps something that Canada could do in general terms? You're very familiar with our private sector and how we operate. Would it be things like providing something for the NDS to get them to that next level where they can be a solid part of a functioning justice system?

[Jawed Ludin]

Thank you very much, sir, for the kind words, and also for this very important question. As I mentioned in my statement, Afghanistan will really need all it can get from our friends, security being the topmost important concern for the country for the time being above all the other concerns. One of the priorities that we have, and this is something that we will be looking to Canada to continue to support, is in the area of training, capacity building, equipping, and essentially strengthening and making confident the institutions that are responsible for security.

The question of NDS is particularly important here, because the two other institutions, the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police, being by far bigger and important in one respect, also at the same time receive a lot of assistance already. The United States has obviously had a significant role in building up the Afghan army, and also in the police training as well. Now they have multi-billion dollars' worth of programs to support the Afghan National Police.

Canada has a tremendous capacity in building and mobilizing and giving support, and they've done a good job in the past. We would like Canada to focus on areas where there is a comparative advantage, and where their support can actually be tangible. The NDS is already one such institution. I know there is good cooperation between CSIS, the Canadian intelligence organization, and NDS. I know if there is interest in pursuing any role in the future or support to our security institutions, that would definitely be one area. It should also include support, not only at the technical level but also management support, because a lot of these institutions need to become strong, need to be able to manage their own affairs. As much as technical capacity and skills are important, it's also important that they receive support as an organization. It would be an important area for Canada to consider.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

We've had people come and talk to us--and I've had people come and talk to me--about counter-IED proposals and some flying training proposals and various training proposals. Have you had any contact with the Canadian private sector about specific capacities or capabilities? Would there be things that you could bring to us to suggest that the Government of Canada could maybe talk to these people and perhaps find a way to help?

[Jawed Ludin]

You see, honourable member, that's another area that's extremely important. I've been going around, since coming back after the summer, to speak to some of the private sector organizations in Canada. My focus in the past has mainly been on the mining industry, in which Canada has tremendous potential, or on some of the other investment opportunities.

One area in which we do have a lot of capacity here in Canada is defence. Particularly with reference to counter-IEDs, I know this has been an important consideration for NATO as well. Most of the Canadian troops that have lost their lives have actually lost them to IEDs. So these have been a concern for them.

NATO has the resources and the technical capacity to at least do something as far as their own protection is concerned. But what about the future of the Afghan institutions? Our police lose their lives by a factor of one to four: more than the national army. Our police are at the forefront of this war against terrorism. They do not have the necessary protection. In fact they have minimal protection for their lives. It would be such a valuable contribution by Canada to engage the private sector capacity that exists here, technological and otherwise, to help the Afghan security institutions, particularly the police, in this particular area.

At the risk of being politically inappropriate by raising a particular name, I am aware of at least one particular organization that is a world leader in this, and that is Allen-Vanguard, which specializes in this particular area that I've seen.