Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for your invitation to be with you today. It's certainly a privilege.
The brief before you today is entitled “Canada's Role in Afghanistan,” and it's a consensus position of the Canadian Counsel of Churches, which is the broadest ecumenical body in Canada. We have 22 member churches representing the Anglican, Evangelical, Orthodox, Protestant, and Roman Catholic traditions. For that reason, the statement before you is a remarkable one. The recommendations before you were formed from a shared belief that a robust public dialogue on Canada's responsibility for advancing peace in Afghanistan is urgent.
The Manley panel noted that public and parliamentary dialogue would make an important contribution to sound and sustainable policy on Canada's role in Afghanistan. We indeed urge this committee to widely consult civil society and citizens in Canada and Afghanistan as you explore next steps for the mission.
The events and announcements of the last few days convinced us of the importance of such dialogue as I've just talked about. The churches will most certainly need more time to consider the evolving mission in order to sharpen a substantive and constructive contribution to this important dialogue. Nevertheless, today our comments will be framed by the brief in front of you.
As the Canadian Council of Churches president, Reverend Bruce Adema, wrote in his forwarding letter to the Prime Minister last December, Canada should focus on two priorities. First is to support Afghans in implementing participatory reconciliation programs and responsive governance at the district and local level. Second is to encourage the international community to give significant new attention to diplomatic efforts to end the war.
We will also briefly comment on the recent announcements concerning a training mission in Afghanistan, in light of the council's recommendations.
We recognize, of course, the sacrifice made by many in the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan and the profound suffering of the people of Afghanistan through decades of war. Canada's future efforts in Afghanistan should honour such sacrifice and suffering with integrity and commitment.
Through a process of research, analysis, and dialogue with many of you, we have concluded that peace in Afghanistan cannot be achieved solely through military means, and that peace is a generational project requiring international commitment and resources well beyond July 2011. It is a generational project. This is particularly true with respect to the challenges of reconciliation and peace-building at both the national and sub-national levels.
The question before us is where and how Canada can best make its contribution to sustainable peace in Afghanistan. Let me start by saying that reconciliation in Afghanistan is a complex, multi-level endeavour that will advance incrementally. Efforts towards reconciliation at the local and district level are distinct but are related to national negotiations for political reconciliation and reintegration of the insurgents.
My colleague John Siebert will address the national and international aspects of this in a moment, but right now I'll make some specific comments on sub-national governance and reconciliation.
The reasons for conflict in Afghanistan, as you well know, are diverse. Conflicts spring from disputes over land and water, family and tribal grievances, the presence of the Taliban and other insurgents, warlords and criminal elements, international forces, and corrupt Afghan security forces and government officials.
The reconciliation priority, or priority number six in the quarterly reports, has struggled to gain traction. The reports suggest that this is due to the inability of the government of Afghanistan to focus on a direction and to zero in on a lead agency. Canada, to this point, has properly been deferential to Afghan-led reconciliation, but it is clear that the working definition of Afghan-led is national-government-led. That's an unfortunate limitation.
We know Afghanistan is culturally and geographically complex. Indeed, central governments historically have rarely exercised national reach. Authority, governance, and basic service delivery are frequently focused at local and district levels.
There are documented indications of continuing support--dramatic support in fact--for local, informal, and traditional authorities in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is then essentially a hybrid system of interdependent formal and informal power holders.
As such, local Afghan leadership for governance and sub-national reconciliation is a significant resource for peace-building, one that needs further exploration and then support for its incremental development. Our brief details some of the complexities of sub-national governance and reconciliation activities, and we can certainly explore those in the question period.
Suffice it to say now that beyond 2011 it is our hope that Canada will put new energy and commitment into a sub-national reconciliation priority, specifically in collaboration with civil society organizations with a track record of support for local governance and peace-building activity in Afghanistan.
I'll pass it over to my colleague. John.