Afghanistan Committee on Oct. 20th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You have thirty seconds.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I'll just go back to the election for a second. You talked a lot about the election reforms and things you're doing with the complaints commission and so on. Obviously, I think, you have made some good progress, as dramatic as having one million annulled votes is. Do you have a map of the road ahead, or is it too early to say what lessons have been learned out of this one and what you're going to do better on the next one?

[Jawed Ludin]

We had already learned a lot from last year's presidential election, which we took into account in the conduct of the elections in September.

A democracy is inevitably going to be a process of trial and error. It has developed in progressive democracies of today including Canada. And it will be for new democracies such as Afghanistan. But I was really pleased to see that this year, as I said, as unfortunate as it is to see one million votes invalidated, it also has to be seen that these institutions did their jobs appropriately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Harris, go ahead, please.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ambassador, for joining us. We're pleased to have you with us.

I listened very carefully to your presentation. I want to say, as one who does not support a military role beyond the 2011 date or even a combat military training role.... You didn't mention that in your presentation. In fact, you talked about potential support from Canada for the ANP and the NDS in the context of support for the rule of law.

I want to say first of all that I think the rule of law is extremely important in nation-building--in my view, and of course not only mine--to have the population respecting the process, giving rise to the respect for governmental institutions as a result.

You did respond to Mr. Holland's suggestion for some private sector involvement in that. Perhaps you would elaborate slightly on what kind of support the Afghan National Police might need for policing from a country like Canada.

[Jawed Ludin]

That's a very good question, honourable member. The ANP needs not just training but support in more comprehensive ways, for a number of reasons. One, unlike the Afghan National Army, which was an institution that was built from scratch nine years ago through the intervention of the United States.... That involved not just recruitment and training but actually the build-up of a new, effective structure. As a result, that institution has become today, despite all its challenges, perhaps the most respected and most efficient and effective institution in the country.

The AFP has not had that. The police were not abolished at the beginning. The police did not receive an investment on the same scale at the outset. As a result, even though a lot of investment has gone in over the years and a lot of work has taken place, it still lacks a lot of very basic capacities. This is in a situation where they are, as I said, at the forefront of this war. They suffer more casualties than any other institution, whether within or outside Afghanistan.

So they would require organizational support to restructure, to take the reform process that's ongoing. Canada is already helping through the RCMP. I know this is one element of that.

As I said, by far the biggest provider of support is the United States, mainly on the training side. There are ways in which Canada can complement that. As I said earlier, I think one example, in a very specific area, is how police can handle the problem of IEDs. That would be an enormous contribution to the Afghan police if they were able to have that capacity, the equipment, the technical skills. They would also benefit from specialized training.

In addition to the police, the NDS, the National Directorate of Security; the reason it would be more appropriate for Canada to focus on that is because, in terms of scale, I think Canada would be a more appropriate organization to deal with it. It's a much smaller organization. As I said, it's an organization that already has had some cooperation with the Canadian government.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

The second area I want to talk about is the peace jirga. You mentioned it was held around the same time as our visit. There was also the establishment of the peace council over the summer by President Karzai. Of course, in the last number of weeks we've heard reports of discussions or the beginning of discussions and meetings with representatives or at least elements of the Taliban. I'd like you to comment on that.

Some of the recent reports talked about the removal of some preconditions, one of which was that they wouldn't talk about peace or reconciliation until the troops left. That seems to no longer be a precondition. I realize we're talking about a rather ephemeral process, but can you tell us anything from your point of view as ambassador about what's going on?

[Jawed Ludin]

What's going on is that President Karzai realizes the reconciliation process is not something the government can do only on its own. There is a need for a consensus across the country from all groups to support that. That's why he organized the peace jirga and that's why he has now almost delegated this particular function to a non-government national body. That is the High Council for Peace.

The High Council for Peace will lead the process. I know this will vastly draw on the government's channels with the insurgents, on government capacities, but they will essentially lead it in a non-governmental way. There are contacts already. The government has been able to build a lot of contacts over the years with some of the Taliban.

I know you're probably aware of one case in which the number two in the Taliban leadership was almost on the brink of joining the reconciliation process when he was arrested on the Pakistani side of the border. That disrupted the process. I think there is renewed potential now, renewed momentum behind that. I can say with certainty it will only work if Pakistan supports this process, because most of the leadership of the Taliban is based in Pakistan, and without the leadership there is not much you can do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Very briefly, Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Just what would you hope for from the international community to help that process? There are obviously a lot of players in the region, aside from Pakistan, and what would you hope to see?

[Jawed Ludin]

From the international side we would like two things, essentially. One, we would be really pleased to have a consensus from the international side, a sort of certainty about how they see the reconciliation process. As I said earlier in my statement, there are some views--I don't necessarily subscribe to them, and they don't necessarily represent the majority view--that some of our friends in the international community see the reconciliation essentially as a way of getting out of Afghanistan, as an exit strategy. That would be disastrous and that would just not be desirable. And it will not work, either, because it's really important to be clear about the objective of this strategy and then to do it.

Number two, what we want from the international community is to leave the actual process to Afghan leadership, to President Karzai, and the mechanisms that he has created, and then to push Pakistan in this direction. Because as I said, again, the key of making this a success is in Pakistan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Obhrai, please.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you very much.

Ambassador, thank you very much for coming. One of the key issues for this committee is for Canadians to understand what is happening in Afghanistan. Your presence, coming here and being televised, gives Canadians an understanding of what is going on in your country.

As you know, your country, for all practical purposes, as you said, a ground zero failed state coming into functioning state, requires a lot of effort, which we are discussing here--security, corruption, development aid, and everything you have discussed. But a key element most Canadians are looking for right now has to do with this election process that is taking place in Afghanistan. My colleague Mr. Hawn, as well as everybody else, has gone, and are looking to you to see about this process of the election. Despite the fact that over a million ballots are gone, and that 40% turned out, the key element here is that this is your second parliamentary election. You had your presidential elections. What comes out of all of these things are the questions about invalid votes, intimidation, and everything.

Rightly so, you've pointed out that these are new areas where these things are happening. But Canadians would like to hear from you, out of this whole process, where are you progressing? Has this election actually...? I mean, we're talking about a million votes being invalid. We're talking about 224 candidates under investigation and all these things. But bring it down to the ground zero level and say to Canadians that this election has seen remarkable improvements over the previous elections, and where it is going, and where it is headed. Because at the end of the day, the election, and whether you can have your peace process....

When I was in the United States, I listened to your president on Larry King Live talking about the peace process and everything. But at the end of the day, the Afghanis are going to say, what is in there for me? Was there any improvement?

If they cannot make the judgment of who is going to represent them in a transparent manner, is that...? That is the key element Canadians are asking about, so I would like your impression of what is coming out now, and for you to tell us that there have been, oh, remarkable improvements that you can identify for us.

[Jawed Ludin]

Thank you, sir.

I can't answer that question without confessing that certainly we could have been in a much better environment today, five years after the first time we had parliamentary elections and a national process. Had we been in a better situation, where we would have had a more secure country, much stronger civil society institutions, we probably would have had a next parliament that would have been, without any reservations, a great improvement over the previous one.

That's not to diminish the importance and value of the first parliament. If anyone were to ask me if there was value in having the first parliament, despite all its drawbacks and shortcomings I would say absolutely, without any reservations. It did a great job.

In the next parliament we'll do the same. It will improve, and in fact it's better than it could have been given the circumstances. We were fearful before the elections about whether enough women candidates would come forward, for example, particularly given the security environment, whether other independent contenders would come forward, and whether the elections would happen in the first place. I think all those concerns have now been addressed. There were enough women who came out.

From what I know, and from the preliminary elections, I think a lot of those people have the people's confidence. They had the votes. It did take place; it will take place in the next parliament.

As I said, I think they have to be seen in the context of the ongoing situation in Afghanistan. Security is not just having an impact on the troops who are fighting there, or in terms of the general development of the country; it's going to have an impact on all aspects of life in Afghanistan, including politics.

Politics will only mature and become better when we have a country that's secure. It will definitely be a big improvement on the last parliament, but we still have a long way to go before we can have a parliament that resembles this great House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

We have a couple of minutes left.

Mr. Rae, please.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Preliminary to my question, Ambassador, I noted that the news report today mentioned the possibility of talks. They referred to representatives of the Quetta Shura, the Peshawar Shura, and the Haqqani group, all of which to the best of my knowledge are based in Pakistan.

Is that not correct?

[Jawed Ludin]

Yes.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

So obviously your statement that Pakistan needs to be involved in finding the solution is clearly the case. I just want to support that.

[Jawed Ludin]

Yes.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

In your remarks, Ambassador, you did stress the fact that you believe that training, equipping, and building capacity for the army, the police, and the NDS were all still necessary. These are still requirements, and you foresee those as being necessary post-2011.

[Jawed Ludin]

Absolutely.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Is it your view that Canada could play a useful role in that regard?

[Jawed Ludin]

Without any reservations, Canada has great capacity in this area. It has already done a great job in Kandahar with the national army and the national police. It's an important priority for us.

I think if the people of the Canadian government and this Parliament accept in principle that the mission in Afghanistan is not finished and Canada would be willing to help Afghanistan in the future, then this would probably be the most important area to help in.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Later, we're going to hear a brief from CARE Canada making a very eloquent argument that Canada should be engaged in the area of women's rights and advancing the cause of equality in your country. In terms of advancing human rights, and in particular equality rights, I wonder if you could tell us how you think those are felt and perceived by the people of Afghanistan.

[Jawed Ludin]

Honourable member, that is one area that's not just crucial for our future and frequently overlooked; it's also an area where an international partner would need credibility to assist and to be there. It's a very sensitive area. A lot of people look with suspicion at our country to be seen to have a democratic process and to engage directly with civil society, with human rights, and with the rule of law sector.

Canada does have that credibility. It's a country that's seen as not having an agenda that's beyond the agenda of assisting Afghanistan build its own future. It's a country that has an international reputation. It's a country that countries like Afghanistan look up to, so I think all the right ingredients are there. On the civilian side of any future role that Canada will have, it would certainly be my expectation as an Afghan to put democratization and support to the democratic process, to civil society, and to human rights organizations as a priority.

I think in the face of challenges that we have today, from reconciliation to the war itself to all the others, those institutions look for support. They need that support, and they're not getting it from anywhere else. If you don't help, if Canada doesn't help, countries from the region will not do that. There are many interests that are involved there to suppress these institutions.