Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 8th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Ms. Jones.

Mr. Patry, Mr. Eyking.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Paris, I read your article about NATO, “Go Big or Get Out”. You talked in the beginning about defeat, but it's not going to be a military defeat, in a sense, because the military are there to protect and to bring security, but because the neo-Taliban move away and come back from Pakistan, and everyone is going around....

It seems that about 10% or 15% of the population are backing the neo-Taliban, and some who are not backing them and the rest of the population are just waiting to see what's going on. It seems that you have success with certain things like building roads and schools, for example, but the security of these schools is not 100%.

My question is this. Some people from Congress and the Senate in the United States say we don't need more soldiers, but we need more money for reconstruction. Even if there was some money for reconstruction...the Karzai government don't spend all the money, because they don't know how to spend the money. How do you stop the corruption? One of the problems the population is facing is corruption, judicial corruption, because they don't believe in our government, and if there are any long-term problems they're going to go with the new Taliban because they want a certain sense of security, things like that.

That's my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Paris.

[Dr. Roland Paris]

On the issue of the relationship between military force and reconstruction and the disbursement and use of reconstruction aid, clearly there is an inseparable relationship between the security conditions and our ability to deliver reconstruction aid and fund reconstruction projects. The first point I would make is that what is sometimes presented as a choice between a military approach or a developmental approach, I think, is a false choice, because in the absence of security, it's really not conceivable that we would be able to conduct the kind of development projects that we and other donors and the Afghan government have in mind.

My understanding is that, in fact, a lot of the development projects have been held up precisely because of the security situation that exists in much of the country. From what I read recently in a UN report, it identified one-third of the country as unsafe for development personnel. So I think you need to do both, essentially, if I understood your question correctly.

With regard to corruption, there are some excellent suggestions in the most recent International Crisis Group report, which I had an opportunity to read last night. The principles of transparency and accountability are applicable here, as in other areas when we're concerned with the possibility of corruption. At the very start, I think one needs to take the accountability mechanisms that have been created and make sure they're observed.

For instance, when President Karzai made a number of appointments that sidestepped the vetting process that had been created in order specifically to filter out unqualified candidates, he was not using the mechanism that was in place. So I think Karzai has to be clear that he's going to use the systems that are in place. At the local level, I think similar systems can be established as well, in conjunction with training for local police. The police judiciary, the internal ministry, are really the key, I think, in terms of tackling corruption in Afghanistan, as a start.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Paris.

Madam Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Ms. Jones, you said that CIDA was pressuring you to go to Kandahar and you talked about the lack of security in that city. Do you have ongoing activities? Do you provide aid in Afghanistan? What are the regions where your organization cannot go?

Mr. Paris, I find your proposal quite interesting. However, some elements were obvious as soon as we set foot in Afghanistan, including the fact that from the start of the operation, there were questions about the number of troops required to have an impact.

The Canadian government is not even telling us the truth about what is going on in Afghanistan. They have increased the number of troops in Afghanistan without telling us what was going on in the field.

Who will take the action that you are calling for? Who will be able to exert influence on what government so that action is taken leading either to a resolution of the conflict or to a withdrawal?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madam Barbot.

Mr. Paris, please.

[Dr. Roland Paris]

Obviously there's no simple answer to that question. If there were a simple answer to the question, then the 2,500 troops that NATO has been asking for would be heading to Afghanistan right now.

I think part of the problem here is that there's not a great deal of confidence in the strategy actuelle in Afghanistan. I don't think there's a collapse in confidence, but I don't think there's any great confidence either within the capitals of many members of NATO. There's a sense, I think, of drift in the operation. Hope, certainly, and not abandonment, but a sense of drift.

If NATO were to commit itself to a new strategy, and there are indications, of course—the Secretary-General of NATO's comments this past weekend—that NATO is maybe rethinking its strategy. If NATO were to commit itself to what might appear to be a more effective strategy and face up to the kind of difficult decision that I think it will have to make, then the political circumstances in which the governments are making those decisions might be somewhat different.

I don't have the answer to the question, except to say that the facts need to be presented clearly to all the NATO governments with regard to the trend lines in the country. As I said at the end of my presentation, I'm not pessimistic; I'm hopeful that this mission can be successful if the strategy is reconsidered.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam Jones.

[Linda M. Jones]

In terms of the pressure from CIDA, we have been working in Afghanistan for three years, mainly in the central area and around Kabul. Of course, many partner organizations are working much more broadly in Afghanistan. They have very good programs. We're just getting our footprint established there now.

When we first approached CIDA to do a women's economic empowerment program in Afghanistan, we were specifically asked to do a program in Kandahar. I went to Afghanistan on an exploratory mission. I came back and said to CIDA that we would love to work with them, but that I couldn't ask staff to go to Kandahar; I wouldn't be willing to do that. I suggested that if that was the only region they were going to support, then we would have to wait and see how things went. We said that we would like to work with them. And CIDA did change its mind.

I was in Ottawa last week, and again, CIDA is interested in getting a micro-finance program going in Kandahar. I do think it's good, and we'd like to do it. So we were brainstorming: could we do it cross-border from Pakistan, where, for example, MEDA and I personally have a lot of experience; could we do it through local organizations, where we don't actually have to send staff into Kandahar.

But as I say, MEDA has a fairly limited footprint in Afghanistan right now. Most of the organizations have pulled out of Kandahar. But they're still going there for assessments. I got an e-mail from a Canadian guy this morning who's heading up the UN-Habitat's rural development programming. He just came back from Kandahar, where he was doing assessments. People are still going there, but it's pretty risky.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madam Jones.

Mr. Obhrai, please.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you. I have a short question, and my colleague here will ask the next question.

As I just informed the committee, tomorrow I'm leaving for the Second Regional Economic Cooperation Conference on Afghanistan in New Delhi. We have both political and business community involvement there.

One area I saw in my briefing was that there was no involvement of the NGOs at all, civil society, within the context of the regional countries. I think that's one area you can look into. Write to the department to say you need to be involved with your partners in that forum. I think it would be a great thing. I've seen that happen with the great lakes initiative in Africa, where the NGO community is very heavily involved.

Just quickly, Pakistan lost 45 soldiers today to the Taliban. It seems to me that Pakistan is recognizing that the Taliban is moving internally as well, which is a threat to the Government of Pakistan itself. Hopefully that tack will change Pakistan's attitude, and it will come out strongly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead, Mr. Batters.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Obhrai.

Again, there are more tragic casualties inflicted by the Taliban. It's terrible.

I want to thank the witnesses very much for being here today. This is my first time at the foreign affairs committee. It's truly an honour for me to be here, especially this week, Veterans Week.

I have some quick questions.

Mr. Paris, have you ever been to Afghanistan?

[Dr. Roland Paris]

No, I haven't.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Okay.

Ms. Jones, I wonder if you could comment on the importance of our military--I'll open it up to both of you obviously--in facilitating reconstruction. You mentioned that you walked through the streets and you talked to local vendors as those streets were patrolled by tanks. Our courageous soldiers are providing the essential security that is allowing for the rebuilding of Afghanistan and the important changes.

Let's cover some of those changes, Mr. Chair. Under the Taliban, Afghanistan had no free elections, women had no rights, and most Afghani children were denied the opportunity for basic public education. Today, largely because of Canada's military efforts over the last three years, 12 million Afghan men and women have registered to vote in two elections, and five million children have been enrolled in school, one-third of whom are young girls.

Ms. Jones, I wonder if you could comment on the importance of the security our military forces provides, which allows for the changes I just mentioned and, ultimately, the peace, democracy, and freedom in Afghanistan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Batters.

Ms. Jones.

[Linda M. Jones]

I think it's a very complex question. I can give a brief answer, but it does not pay justice to the question and to the over 40 young Canadians who have lost their lives in Afghanistan.

There are certain areas in Afghanistan that are insecure. When I said I walked through the streets of Kabul as they were being controlled by tanks, I was being somewhat metaphorical. The streets I was on did not have tanks on them. I know people who live in neighbourhoods there, and there aren't tanks in those neighbourhoods. I gave that example not to dismiss the role of security, but to say there is another important side, and that is building bridges between people.

In much of Afghanistan there has been security. When the men and women voted, there were a lot of people out there running the elections who weren't protected by NATO forces. I knew a lot of those people; three of them were kidnapped while I was there. So they're not all being protected all the time. A lot of this is happening with civil society, volunteers, people who aren't protected, people who don't have armoured vehicles. So that's an important part of the reconstruction effort too.

I'm not really qualified to comment on the strategy for Kandahar. I feel I'm qualified to say that investing in civil society and economic redevelopment, as Canada has done, is very important and needs to stay important, no matter what military decisions are made. I believe the more we invest in economic rebuilding, the less we will have to rely on military intervention. But you can't just turn one thing off and another thing on. The world doesn't work that way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Ms. Jones.

Mr. Paris.

[Dr. Roland Paris]

I think the point about the accomplishments in Afghanistan is important, and it's often not recognized. But on the other hand, there are troubling signs there right now, and some trend lines you would look at for progress are heading in the wrong direction.

There's the number of attacks. There have been more suicide bombings this year than in the entire previous history of Afghanistan. The insurgency is using new techniques that are apparently being imported from Iraq. There are growing signs of discontent among the population with the government of Hamid Karzai. This comes not just from anecdotal evidence of people dropping by in Afghanistan and speaking to a few locals, but through organizations like the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. It did sit-down interviews with 1,000 people throughout the country this year and last year.

So there are clearly pieces of evidence that suggest the accomplishments have been extremely real, and others that suggest there are reasons for concern. My concern now is that the negative trend lines risk squandering the real accomplishments you're pointing to in your comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Paris.

Mr. Batters.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To both of you, we've acknowledged that tremendous progress has been made. One can only imagine what life would be like without the Canadian military and other NATO forces in Afghanistan--the very immediate reversal, the burning of schools by the Taliban. Yes, this is very difficult work; this is very heavy lifting. But especially this week, I think all of us in this room and all Canadians can be so thankful for the men and women of the Canadian Forces who are willing to put their lives on the line. We've lost, as Ms. Jones indicated, 42 service members doing this very difficult work that needs to be done. It's our part in the world to advance human rights in Afghanistan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Batters. That sounds more like a radio ad for Remembrance Day. I thank you for that. In a very important week, you certainly point to the good work our Canadian military is doing.

Madam McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for your testimony before the committee. The purpose of our being here is to learn from your experiences and see if we can get a more comprehensive approach to what is a very complex situation.

Ms. Jones, I appreciate and applaud you for your work on micro-finance. You may or may not know that this committee was actually in Stockholm across the street from where they announced Muhammad Yunus' Nobel Peace Prize award. I hope you're giving good solid feedback around the successes of your micro-finance projects, because you may know that CIDA's reduced its commitment to micro-finance over the last five years. In the House today I urged the minister to use the occasion of the Global Microcredit Summit to reverse that.

I want to pursue this a little bit further. I think the main message you've brought to us is that we should be building on strength, and that means working with civil society to do that and--I don't want to put words in your mouth--sort of fan out from there to increase the security more broadly. You may have seen I was scrambling through my papers looking for a map, because you mentioned the province you were in but I can't visualize it. It's in the Kabul area, I assume.

I wonder if you're aware of the project of Future Generations, which actually is the Honourable Flora MacDonald's passion at the moment. She's chair of the board of Future Generations, which has a number of projects in Afghanistan. The approach to poppy crop eradication is the exact reverse of what's happening in Kandahar, with what seems to be spectacular results. In other words, to state the obvious, you don't have people starve by removing the only economic support they have through poppy crops, you work on building the alternatives.

The leadership of the community in, I think, three different provinces where Future Generations is involved is literally engaging the whole population in the poppy crop removal by announcing when they're going out to remove the crops, with the full sanctioning of the community. Therefore, you're not creating the economic chaos and starvation in people's lives that results in their crossing over to the Taliban, who understandably exploit that.

I wonder if I might ask you to briefly speak about that. And perhaps I could add a quick question to Mr. Paris.

Mr. Paris, you talked about the problem of corruption—and this is something this committee has been trying to do its homework on—in frail, fragile, and failing states. One of the things we've been told about the increasing support the Taliban has been building, along with the obvious problems that are feeding into that, is that the Taliban are paying civilians twice the rate of what the local police are being paid. So as people are losing their economic livelihoods, they're increasingly available to be recruited by the Taliban. I wonder if you could comment on any knowledge you have of that and recommendations that flow from it.

Ms. Jones, I think you could go ahead.

[Linda M. Jones]

Okay, absolutely.

The project you described for poppy eradication absolutely sounds like the kind of program that MEDA has engaged in in Peru. It is a community-building process, where you do have to engage the whole community. Surprisingly, the people who grow poppies don't necessarily want to grow poppies; it's the only option they have.

If as a community they get to really envisage where they want their community to go, and work together and make decisions, and they're supported in making those decisions, I think change can be made. Of course, it's way more complex than that, because lots of times you do have drug lords involved and people grow poppies because they're afraid.