Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2006

[A. John Watson]

I was a corporal in the 1960s.

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

Based on your work in Afghanistan under the Taliban, did that work out well for achieving security and helping the people of Afghanistan and helping the world's security situation?

[A. John Watson]

The point of humanitarian work is that, whatever context you are in, you must focus on helping people who need help at the bottom of the pile.

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

Let me rephrase it. Are the people of Afghanistan better off now or when the Taliban were there, when you were helping them then?

[A. John Watson]

The people of Afghanistan are far better off than they were under the Taliban.

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

I think that answers the question satisfactorily about military intervention.

I will now go to our journalist friends.

You spoke about freedom only coming because of the involvement of the international community. You've heard that there is a debate in this country about the appropriateness of our military being involved, together with 36 other countries, in Afghanistan. I heard in your evidence some concern that if the international community pulled out, there would be problems.

If we took the advice of some at this table and the Canadians and the rest of the international community pulled out in the next 12 months, what would happen in Afghanistan?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, it needs to be acknowledged that our guests have courageously made it clear that the restrictions on their freedoms put them at risk and that what they could say at this committee could in fact put them at further risk. We need to show some respect for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Bearing that in mind, the question is still in order. If they at any point in time feel that, for their own security and safety, they cannot answer the question, we would encourage them to pass on the question. But I think it's a very good question.

Go ahead, Mr. Van Loan.

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

My question was, if we took that advice and Canada pulled out in the next twelve months, together with all the other countries in the international community, what would happen in Afghanistan?

[Najiba Ayoobi]

I told you before that if the international community leaves Afghanistan, there will be a lot of problems. Whether it is now or in the next twelve months, if the international community withdraws their soldiers or powers from Afghanistan, there will be problems. That is not only my feeling, it is the feeling of all the people of the country.

We have two processes. These processes have not been carried out and people are still armed. In many parts of Afghanistan, commandos are in power still. These commandos are always afraid of the international community. They say that if they move against Afghanistan, the international community will come and beat them.

The bottom line is that the people in Afghanistan will be in danger if the international community leaves. The present democracy and freedom of expression that we have been able to get will be removed if we cancel. Afghanistan will revert to the situation of five years ago. All the troubles of your countries and our country will be vaporized.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you for that honest answer.

We are going to go to Mr. Martin.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sorenson.

Thank you very much, all, for being here. I especially want to thank you, Ms. Ayoobi and Ms. Aziz, for the courage that you show in your country.

Mr. Watson, I deeply respect the work that CARE does, but I have to fundamentally disagree with your assessment of our Canadian Forces. As former parliamentary secretary of defence, sir, I have to say that our forces are the best in the world and are doing exactly the type of work that you're suggesting needs to be done. They are multi-purpose. They are sensitive to people on the ground. They are not only engaging in critical security work, as you know, but because of their sensitivity and training, intelligence, and excellence, they're also able to deal with asymmetric threats in a way that is required there.

I just want to state that on the record as a matter of fact. It is not a question, sir.

I'd like to direct my question to Ms. Ayoobi.

Could you please tell us how we deal with the insurgency coming from outside Afghanistan? In your comments, you said the people who are killing Afghanis are not from Afghanistan. This is a major challenge that we're trying to grapple with. How can we deal with the insurgency coming from outside of Afghanistan's borders?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

We will give time for the interpretation, and I remind all committee members that this is interpreted back into her language.

[Najiba Ayoobi]

It is not a new thing to say that the forces are attacking Afghanistan from outside. In the last seven or eight years, the people of Afghanistan have shed their blood because of the interference from outside. The people of Afghanistan, who are helpless, are victims of these events, these incidents. People are killed. Suicide bombs are there, along with lots of other problems. People in Afghanistan are trying to fight off the situation. This is not always possible, but they are doing their best to defend themselves.

The remedy for Afghanistan is that Afghanistan should have a strong army of its own, as it had previously. To maintain the security of Afghanistan, 150,000 people would be required.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Would a Loya Jirga that brings in the groups that were excluded from the Bonn agreement be helpful in furthering peace and security in Afghanistan? Would it be beneficial to internal security in Afghanistan?

[Najiba Ayoobi]

The best advance a Loya Jirga made in Afghanistan was that--we did not have a constitution--they managed to put a constitution in. It is a very solid foundation through which the people of the world found out that the people in Afghanistan really are looking forward to having democracy in the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Madame Bourgeois, please go ahead with a very short question.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

My question is for Mr. Watson.

First of all, I want to congratulate you. It took a great deal of courage on your part to share another vision with us. You spoke about helping Afghanistan in different ways, but never against military aid as such.

You've already stated that aid should be supplied on the basis of the needs of the people. Today, you said that we needed to develop alternatives to military intervention.

Mr. Watson, what kind of alternative approach do you have in mind? Furthermore, does Canadian aid, particularly aid targeting reconstruction in the southern part of the country, truly meet the needs of the Afghan people?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Bourgeois.

Mr. Watson, please go, ahead.

[A. John Watson]

If you don't mind, I'd like to answer that question in English, because my French isn't very good.

I want to start by saying first that I don't want to have words put in my mouth, and I think two committee members have done that. I do not believe the Canadian Forces should withdraw. They are going to be required to stay and to fight, and so they should. But in my view, this is an unwinnable war. What we should be looking for is a way to withdraw that gives us a weak central government and strong provincial power. This is what will happen.

As far as the Canadian Forces are concerned, I could have made the same statement Mr. Martin has made. There are no better armed forces in the western world. They're extremely good. They're the best at doing this sort of work—they and the British. That is true.

What I'm saying is that the western armed forces, as they are currently configured, are not very well placed to do counter-insurgency work. If you want to look at a military tradition that is better at doing that, then you have to go back in years, to the colonial era, and see how the military did things then. No military does that now, and we have to learn how to do it.

Now, as far as the question is concerned, the problem with Kandahar relates to what happened in 2002. Two things didn't happen that should have happened. One is that there was no stabilization program. The Americans announced that they were going to continue to fight al-Qaeda, and at that point there was no stabilization program. And by “stabilization”, I mean the simple putting in place of security that allows normal people to function and to appeal to some force to redress their grievances on such things as rape or robbery or whatever else. The Canadian Forces could play that role and could play it very effectively, and they should have played that role in Kandahar in 2002.

The second thing that needs to be done whenever you have conflict ending is that you need to provide employment for young men who have, en masse, been doing the fighting. That was not done in Kandahar in the way it was done in Kabul, the way it was done in the Shomali Valley, and the way it can be done if we fund our humanitarian agencies adequately and put them to that task.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Watson.

Thank you to all who have come. Certainly, we appreciate your input. These Afghanistan briefings have helped us to understand the situation, but also to understand the importance of engagement and continuing a balanced approach to Afghanistan.

We will suspend, and we will then move into the second hour, which, I remind committee members and those guests here, is an in camera meeting.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Order, please.

We have three motions. The first motion is Mr. Van Loan's motion.

Go ahead, Mr. Van Loan. Speak to your motion.

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

The purpose of the motion is to give some structure to our democracy promotion study—which essentially follows the framework that was laid out by the researchers—and then to ensure that it keeps on track. My concern was exactly what we're seeing happening this week and next week. We're getting diverted and are not paying any attention to it, so we will basically have gone a month without any work on it.

However, in the interests of letting the rest of the day flow smoothly and getting the other motions dealt with, what I'm going to suggest is that we simply defer the discussion of this until next Tuesday and try to get it dealt with then. That will also make the wording of any motion here easier, because then we're past next week, which is a short week anyway.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Van Loan. We appreciate the move to consider that on Tuesday.

We're going to go to the second motion, which is Mr. Wilfert's motion. I think we have some friendly amendments to it.

Mr. Wilfert, would you like to speak to this and maybe bring the rest of the committee up to speed on what we've agreed to?

[An hon. member]

Do the amendment first.