Evidence of meeting #47 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was afghanistan.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Smith.
We'll go to Mr. Goldring and then to Mr. Wilfert.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
Dr. Rubin, you'd mentioned earlier that from time to time, instructions are sent forward from some of the tribal areas to the central government. It would indicate there is at least a very elemental basis of communication between the tribal area and the central government from time to time.
Is this being built upon to try to bring it within a more regular type of communication? If they're sending instructions from time to time, would there be some consideration given to being part of a more regular dialogue, which would be the building blocks of trying to bring about governance in the region?
Where does education fit into this? Canada has contributed considerably. There are millions more who are regularly attending school now, as well as girls who are attending school. Would education in the long term, generation upon generation, be an essential element to build knowledge and awareness for the community and people on the benefits of governance and the benefits of communicating from remote regions to the central government in order to eventually have a form of interaction in those regions on a regular basis?
12:45 p.m.
Director of Studies and Senior Fellow, University of New York, Center on International Cooperation
I was actually referring to the fact that the tribes in the Pakistani tribal agencies send messages to President Karzai.
I know that at one time there was an issue involving the border and the Mohmand tribal agency. The Mohmand tribe in Pakistan sent a message to President Karzai saying he couldn't deal with it without consulting them. They consider themselves to be Afghans, as well as citizens of Pakistan, depending on what is more convenient at any particular moment.
I don't always understand how it works. A lot of communication goes on among people who you would think wouldn't be on speaking terms with each other, but they find ways to communicate.
I might add that they are very attentive to media. They listen to the radio, mainly news, for hours and hours a day. They're better informed on many international issues than I would say people in the United States are, even though they may be illiterate.
As far as education is concerned, I would emphasize that the attitude toward education has fundamentally changed in the past several decades. It used to be that the government would try to negotiate with villagers to get them to accept a school, but now they cannot come anywhere close to keeping up with the demand for schools for both boys and girls.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
Is it not a common situation, whether it's in Pakistan or Afghanistan, on how to interact and bring this interaction from the remote tribal areas into the mainstream governance of both countries?
The long-term reality and goal would be to build for that eventual interaction in order to have day-to-day communication from a central government and break down this barrier of difficulties in dealing with independent and remote tribal areas.
12:45 p.m.
Director of Studies and Senior Fellow, University of New York, Center on International Cooperation
I might mention that there's a high level of mobile telephone use in Afghanistan. It's amazing, some of the places they function, including some remote tribal areas.
The problem in the Pakistani tribal agencies, which are not subject to state administration, is different from the problem in the areas of Afghanistan where the social structure is tribal but under state administration. I will say that there are major efforts going on now to try to strengthen the administration at the local and provincial levels in Afghanistan, but it will take a long time to make them more functional.
12:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Centre for Global Studies and Adjunct Professor of Political Science, University of Victoria
As well, in those areas that are, as Dr. Rubin pointed out, legally not under the power of Islamabad, I don't think one should assume that.... I think the fact is that they are quite happy with their present state. They're quite happy with the independence they have. They can play it both ways. They're certainly not interested in becoming a regularized part of the Pakistani government machinery.
12:45 p.m.
Director of Studies and Senior Fellow, University of New York, Center on International Cooperation
I believe there are differences of opinion on that. There are strong economic interests in favour of maintaining the current system, because there is a method of licensing commodities in the region. There are also people who are profiting from the war economy. But there are others, and this is articulated by some of the political parties in the region, who very much do want to be integrated, who want to have government services, education, and the things that go along with it.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you.
We're going to go to the opposition side. Mr. Wilfert's going to ask a very quick question, and then we'll go straight to Mr. Martin. At that point we can deal with both sets of questions.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith, you say we have to be there for a long time, but you also say in here that time is not on NATO's side. You have the quote in here from the first U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. I guess this is the question: Is it winnable?
March 29th, 2007 / 12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Dr. Rubin and Dr. Smith, for the very fine pieces you've put out in this very difficult challenge.
If I'm repeating something, I apologize; I had to leave to go to the House to speak.
I don't understand how we can possibly beat an insurgency whose bases are outside of the country in which we're actually fighting, in this case Quetta, Pakistan, as we all know. I also don't understand why we haven't put more resources into the Afghan national police. While our troops are doing an outstanding job of knocking back the Taliban, I believe a constabulary force has to go in after that in order to maintain security for the people who are there.
My questions are as follows.
One, do you think a regional working group, able to bring in Pakistan, India, Iran, and Afghanistan, is absolutely essential in order to deal with the political challenges of the arena?
Two, the transference of the poppy crop, the opium production...removing that and channeling that from the production of heroin into the production of pharmaceutical-grade narcotics that can then be sold, particularly to developing countries where there's an 80% deficit, would give the country a value-added resource that the farmers would get a reasonable rate of return on. We'd then also be severing that economic tie to the Taliban.
To Dr. Rubin, if you could share with us any of the U.S. administration's conclusions from their review of Afghanistan, we'd be grateful.
Thank you.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We have first Mr. Wilfert's question--Is it winnable?--and then Mr. Martin's questions.
Mr. Smith.
12:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Centre for Global Studies and Adjunct Professor of Political Science, University of Victoria
I'll have a go.
Is it winnable? That's actually the title of our paper, Is it Working?, and I'm basically saying not at the present time. I deliberately said that as starkly as I did because I think it's important to draw attention to that fact.
Now I've come and I'm answering both questions together here. That is because the timetable that Mr. Wilfert pointed out very much focuses not only on military presence, but also on the kinds of levels of military activity that are going on now. Everybody I know who I've spoken to says the tolerance level inevitably goes down over time, so that's why that part is particularly time-sensitive. Even if there were general security throughout the country, I think there's going to be a continued external military presence there, but not the kind of war fighting we now know. As I was saying to Madame Lalonde, the development assistance is going to be there for a long, long time.
On the question of some sort of regional working group, I guess it wouldn't do any harm, and might do some good, but I think ultimately the key is going to be that of outside pressure. The people who can really make a difference are going to be those like the United States, when it gets fully focused on this set of issues--above all, the United States.
Dr. Martin, when you were out we talked a bit about the poppies issue, and my view is, as you know from the paper, that eradication isn't working. I think from your question you agree with that. Whether it is through the purchase of some form of marketing board and the sale for the use of legal drug manufacture, or whether it's some other incentive form, something has to be done to provide the incentives to the farmers to stop growing poppies or to sell their poppies. It can't be such a great incentive that it ends up encouraging other people who aren't producing poppies now to produce them.
As I understand, only 4% of the agricultural land in Afghanistan is now being used for poppy growth. So you have to make sure you don't make the rewards so great that you end up shooting yourself in the foot.
12:50 p.m.
Director of Studies and Senior Fellow, University of New York, Center on International Cooperation
The only thing I'll say about the question of whether it's winnable is if we define our goals in a reasonable way, then it's still possible to succeed. It is not possible to turn Afghanistan into a modern, prosperous, stable, peaceful democracy that has a higher level of representation of women in its political system than the United States, in a short period of time, especially with few resources.
I think the point about not being able to beat an insurgency without bases outside the country is very important. That's one of the conclusions of the policy review carried out by the U.S. government, I believe. I haven't seen the policy review, of course, but I've seen the results, which is more attention to the problem of the Taliban in Pakistan, the doubling of the amount of U.S. assistance that has been requested, and in particular, the focusing of a lot of that resistance on building the police, as you suggested. It is belated, and I go into the reasons for that, but it is very necessary, as you mention.
Of course, I just underline again, if you don't have a functioning judicial system, it's not clear exactly what the police are supposed to do except to beat people up, which is what they do.
On the question of dealing with opium, I want to mention there is a serious problem. There is an international legal regime on narcotics, and opium is an illicit drug, and there are very strict rules under this regime, which is administered by the International Narcotics Control Board in Vienna, about who can be licensed to produce legal opium. One of the conditions for doing that is having a sufficient law enforcement system to guarantee that there will not be any leakage. Because one could easily imagine that if you tell them in Afghanistan that now it's legal to grow opium, everyone will start growing opium. And in addition, you will have a very difficult problem of how to allocate the licences to produce opium in a country where people are not registered with the state and there is no land survey. So the degree of control you need to have to administer such a program under the current international legal regime does not exist.
Now, that puts you in a vicious circle where, because of narcotics and the corruption it entails, you cannot create adequate security, and because of the lack of security, you cannot partially legalize the growth of opium. I certainly would be in favour of examining whether, particularly in post-conflict areas, it is possible to have a different approach to counter narcotics into which this could be integrated, but that would actually require possibly some changes in the international regime. I'm part of a project that is investigating just that question.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen, for coming here today.
My question is on the reconstruction. As we know, the idea that we should have a Marshall Plan has often been talked about. The Marshall Plan was quite successful in Europe, but in Europe the fighting stopped before the reconstruction started. In Afghanistan I guess we're trying to do both. We're fighting a war and we're also trying to reconstruct, which gives us its challenges.
You quoted in one of your summations about a RAND Corporation gentleman. He was quoted not too long ago about the lack of reconstruction done in the rural areas. Some areas are being done with some success, but the rural areas are really being neglected. He says that there is not much effort in branching out to these rural areas and that unless we get out there and do some sort of construction in these rural areas, these people are not going to see the benefit of their future lives and what we're trying to do for them.
With the countries that are there now, is there enough money put on the table and is there a proper plan in place so that reconstruction is going to be successful, not only in certain pockets, but through the whole region?
12:55 p.m.
Director of Studies and Senior Fellow, University of New York, Center on International Cooperation
First, I'm not sure if you're referring to Jim Dobbins and what he said. There is one program in Afghanistan that deals with the rural areas that is rather successful, which is the national solidarity program, which provides block grants to villages for projects that are identified and administered by the village themselves with the help of international organizations to assure accountability for the funds.
This is funded largely by the World Bank and some other donors. I don't know if Canada is funding it or not.
12:55 p.m.
A voice
Yes.
12:55 p.m.
Director of Studies and Senior Fellow, University of New York, Center on International Cooperation
It is. Canada is also supporting it.
I believe the last I heard it had reached one half of all the villages in the country.
What people often comment about it is not first on the economic benefits, but that for the first time they feel like they're really citizens of a country because they are seeing some benefits coming to them from the government. It is extremely important.
However, those projects are at the village level. What I see that has been really missing in the agricultural sector has been the type of infrastructure and institutional changes that are needed above the village level--for instance, larger-scale and medium-sized water projects, which are very essential, and measures that would improve marketing, such as roads, more information, and things like that. Those are actually very key to counter narcotics also, because people need to be able to market alternative crops and create employment and other types of activity.
1 p.m.
Executive Director, Centre for Global Studies and Adjunct Professor of Political Science, University of Victoria
May I just add to that?