Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 12th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good afternoon, committee.

This is meeting 13 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, Tuesday, February 12, 2008.

Our orders of the day today include a briefing on the situation in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

As witnesses today we have senior officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. First of all, we welcome back Mr. Randolph Mank, director general, Asia South and Pacific bureau; and Jim Nickel, director of South Asia division.

In our second hour we will proceed with our committee business, but in this first hour we will hear from our officials on the briefing out of Pakistan. It seems like only a couple of weeks since we said hello. You're back again, and we appreciate it.

To the committee, because this was put together fairly quickly, there is no written text of what they're saying. They're here to give us just a verbal briefing.

We very much appreciate your coming on short notice, and the record will bear that short notice. We appreciate it, and we look forward to your remarks.

[Randolph Mank, Director General, Asia South and Pacific Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Mr. Chairman, honourable members, mesdames et messieurs, I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss the government's active role in working with the Government of Pakistan and other key international players to help Pakistan boost its security and return to democracy.

Pakistan is an ally in the global campaign against terrorism, and we seek and receive a high level of cooperation from the Government of Pakistan. Though Pakistan is of obvious relevance to our objectives in Afghanistan, I'll focus my presentation today on Pakistan itself.

Committee members will recall that on November 3 last year Minister Bernier issued a statement condemning the imposition of emergency rule in Pakistan at that time and urged the Government of Pakistan to cancel the state of emergency and the new provisional constitutional order. In our view, these measures were undermining democratic development, judicial independence, and the possibility of free and fair elections, to which the people of Pakistan are, of course, entitled.

The minister has called for the government to end the state of emergency and has urged it to respect the judicial process, to restore the powers of the judiciary, to abide by the principle of the rule of law and to allow free and fair parliamentary elections as scheduled. He has also asked all parties not to resort to violence and to respect human rights; he also stated that Canada expects the Government of Pakistan to continue its efforts to improve the security of the region.

Canada has played a pivotal role in the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, which, last November 12, issued a statement urging the Government of Pakistan to fulfill its obligations in accordance with Commonwealth principles through the implementation of the following measures:

- immediate repeal of the emergency provisions and full restoration of the Constitution and of the independence of the judiciary. This should also include full restoration of fundamental rights and the rule of law that have been curbed under the proclamation of emergency;

- President Musharraf to step down as Chief of Army Staff as promised;

- immediate release of political party leaders and activists, human rights activists, lawyers and journalists detained under the proclamation of emergency;

- immediate removal of all curbs on private media broadcasts and restrictions on the press;

- move rapidly towards the creation of conditions for the holding of free and fair elections in accordance with the Constitution.

As you know, Prime Minister Harper took part in the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting held in Kampala at the end of November. With all the other heads of government, he approved the decision to suspend Pakistan from the Council of the Commonwealth. Canada played a key role in the discussions. He specifically pointed out that, while some progress had been made towards fulfilling the conditions imposed by the Commonwealth, Pakistan had not succeeded in meeting them all. In particular, the state of emergency had not been lifted and General Musharraf had not stepped down from his position as Chief of Army Staff, though he had promised to do so on several occasions.

Fortunately, some progress was made after that. We acknowledged that publicly, too. On December 15, 2007, the minister issued another statement, which welcomed President Musharraf's lifting of the state of emergency and his stepping down as chief of the army staff. However, the minister also encouraged the Government of Pakistan to create the conditions necessary for free and fair elections by clearly allowing electoral oversight by an independent judiciary, by releasing all persons detained during the state of emergency, and by lifting all restrictions on the media.

Then tragedy struck. Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated at a political rally. Again, Canada urged the government and the people of Pakistan to continue to reject all forms of violence and to resist those who seek to destabilize their country. The elections were delayed by a month to their current timeframe.

We believe that it's important to maintain close engagement with Pakistan, given its importance as a pivotal country for regional security. While Canada has now rotated off the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, after serving two consecutive terms, a Commonwealth mission will visit Pakistan following the February 18 parliamentary elections to assess the situation with regard to its readmittance to the councils of the Commonwealth.

The many high-level bilateral visits that have taken place lately, such as the visit of Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs in January 2007, the visit to Canada of the Speaker of the National Assembly of Pakistan and, more recently, the visit to Pakistan of Canada's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs in January 2008, demonstrate that our bilateral relations with Pakistan are solid.

We continue to encourage the government and the people of Pakistan to remain on the path to restored democracy and specifically to hold parliamentary elections on February 18 in a transparent, peaceful, free and fair way.

Canada is committed to supporting a return to democracy in Pakistan, because we believe this is a key to security and development.

We're providing $1 million to a United Nations development program project to strengthen Pakistan's electoral processes and $1.5 million to the Free and Fair Election Network, involving over 30 non-government organizations spread throughout Pakistan.

As we do in other places, our high commission in Islamabad will also be unofficially observing the election, with officers travelling to key areas throughout the country on election day, provided of course that the security situation permits.

Given the fast-moving political developments in Pakistan, we continue to review our bilateral engagement to determine how best to influence a return to the path of democracy, while remaining mindful of our security interests in the region.

As a partner in the fight against terrorism, Canada continues to cooperate with Pakistan to address the cross-border movement of insurgents between Afghanistan and Pakistan. In particular, we acknowledge Pakistan's loss of about 800 soldiers in this fight. Canada urges the government of Pakistan to resist those who seek to destabilize their country. We are concerned that political instability in Pakistan is being exploited by Taliban, al-Qaeda, and other extremists who threaten Afghanistan, the international community, and Pakistan itself.

Canada strongly supports cooperation between Pakistan and Afghanistan and believes that positive relations are crucial for the long-term stability of the region. We're very supportive of the Pakistan–Afghanistan peace jirga process, recognizing that this must remain a process led by the parties involved.

We continue to support efforts to manage the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, including the provision of technical assistance.

We're also providing support to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime for work on border management and counter-narcotics and have increased our development assistance in the border regions.

In a rather unique initiative, Canada convened senior officials from Pakistan and Afghanistan from October 30 to November 1 in Dubai for a confidence- and capacity-building workshop to discuss bilateral cooperation on customs, immigration, law enforcement, counter-narcotics, and economic development of the tribal areas. It's not always easy to get these parties in the same room, but they seemed willing to work together. We're now preparing for five follow-up workshops to be held in the spring of 2008.

The goal of these workshops is to produce a Pakistan–Afghanistan-inspired action plan and list of capacity-building priorities. We see this as practical and important work that could have a positive effect down the road.

Canada's commitment to Pakistan, however, is not just limited to security interests. The record shows that Canada's engagement with Pakistan goes back many decades and has focused on a range of basic development needs, such as education, primary health care, governance, and gender equality. Our development assistance in 2007-2008 totals $43 million: $30 million in bilateral programs and $13 million for the ongoing response to the October 2005 earthquake.

The Canadian development assistance program has also been rapidly growing in recent years. CIDA programming has recently been expanded to include the Pakistan–Afghan border area in Baluchistan province and in the federally administered tribal areas of northwest Pakistan.

Canada also initiated the recent Pakistan–Canada debt conversion program, under which Pakistan's outstanding debt is converted into educational programming. This is Canada's largest debt-conversion initiative in the world, valued at about $450 million. Education is an area of obvious need, and we hope to make a difference with this support.

I'll conclude my remarks with that, since I know there will be many questions.

We are deeply aware that Canada's engagement with Pakistan is extremely important, as are our efforts to work with that country towards democratic development, particularly at this crucial time in its history.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Mank.

We'll proceed into the first round of questioning. We have about three on the list here, so we'll let them figure it out.

We'll begin with Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chairman, if I could put mine on the table and Mr. Chan put his on the table, then we'll go from there.

Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Mank, it's good to see you back here. You're becoming a regular.

Reports this week suggest that Pakistan has reached a ceasefire agreement with the Pakistan leader, Baitullah Mehsud. What is the view of our government regarding the ceasefire, given the fact that in previous ceasefires, it has allowed the Taliban and al-Qaeda to rearm? Do we have any estimates of the number of Afghan Taliban, Pakistan Taliban, or al-Qaeda in Pakistan?

Finally—and this may not be a fair question—the Department of National Defence put out in October 2007 a report called 3-D Soviet Style, on the Soviet role in Afghanistan. Are you familiar with it? Maybe you want to comment on the observation that basically national reconciliation is the only way to solve the problem in Afghanistan, rather than a military solution. And that would obviously very much deal with the issue of the peace jirga process that you had talked about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Chan, go ahead and ask your question.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you once again, Randolph, for being with us.

One of the frustrations that we have in dealing with Pakistan is that we've been working in that country for so many years. We've poured so much money in for capacity building, good governance, and so on, yet the country, even though it's what they call a democracy, is still very tribal. And the brightest light that I've experienced is with the judicial system there. The legal sector is one of the most open, I think, compared to all the other sectors.

It was really disturbing for me to watch on TV, once again, a couple of days ago, the police continuing to use brutality on the legal professionals who were demonstrating. Is there any way we can have more impact in stopping the violence that the government is exercising on the legal sector?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Chan.

Mr. Mank.

[Randolph Mank]

Thank you very much for those questions. I'll take them as they came.

In regard to the reports of a ceasefire agreement between the Pakistani authorities and Mr. Mehsud, of course we've heard these reports. We don't have any way of confirming those independently.

Our message to the Government of Pakistan is always a consistent one: that they ought to be taking appropriate actions to put a stop to the violence in their own country, particularly in the tribal and federally administrated areas, and they ought to be doing whatever they can to control the flow of Taliban across that very important border, which is, of course, of tremendous importance to Canada at this particular time.

We haven't changed our messages to the authorities in any way in that regard. We'll wait for them to explain whether they are pursuing a ceasefire, and what that might mean in terms of their own efforts to achieve those two objectives that we insist they work towards achieving.

On the numbers of Taliban in Pakistan, I don't have those, I'm afraid. I don't have access to those numbers. We are, of course, concerned. The bottom line is that there are Taliban in Pakistan, and there is tremendous movement across that border with Afghanistan for historical tribal reasons related to the movement of the Pashtun population, which is enormous, as you know, and that is a matter of great concern. I think numbers would be very, very difficult to ascertain.

On national reconciliation within Afghanistan, I'm not going to really comment on issues related to Afghanistan, but of course our focus is on supporting the jirga process, which involves getting people together for a dialogue. To the extent that they want to initiate that, our belief is that we should be supportive wherever that kind of activity is going on.

On the question from Mr. Chan about the legal sector, I agree with you. We were very encouraged to see the independence of the judiciary, the way it had been developing last year; and then, of course, we're very concerned, equally, by the crackdown that was imposed upon that judiciary. The minister was on record as expressing Canada's concern in that regard.

What you're referring to, the imagery of the protests of the lawyers, and then repeated crackdowns on them, including the one that you saw recently, is something that concerns us equally. It's certainly not an image that gives anyone very much comfort around the world in watching Pakistan and hoping for national reconciliation and democratic development there. This is not a good sign. So our call has always been for respect for the judiciary, and for that matter, respect for peaceful protest.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Is there any additional pressure that we can put on the government, maybe calling the ambassador or something like that, to make a strong point on this particular issue?

[Randolph Mank]

We can certainly do that. We have been doing it, and we intend to continue to do that when incidents arise that generate our concern. We have a regular habit of talking bilaterally, whether it's through the ambassador, whom we call in locally, or in Islamabad through our own high commissioner.

As to what we can do to stop it directly, it's very difficult, but of course we're going to be part of that moral suasion that's brought to bear on Pakistan to respect the rights of peaceful protest and assembly of its own citizens.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll proceed to Madame Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, gentlemen.

Canada has redoubled its efforts, not only to try to help the people of Pakistan but also to stabilize the situation so that they can live in peace, or at least in a climate of greater security. However, a number of observers are saying that there is no real will on the part of the Pakistani government, especially in stabilizing the tribal areas.

Do you think that this is the case? Furthermore, do you think that the Pakistani government has the means to undertake something like that? If not, do you not think that we should be targeting our assistance to that area specifically?

[Randolph Mank]

The degree to which the Pakistani government is sincere in its commitment to combating the tribal chiefs in the region has recently been strenuously debated. My colleague, Mr. Nickel, had the opportunity recently to travel to the border. He could perhaps comment on the present situation there. The situation is quite different from what we see on the border between Canada and the United States, for example.

[Jim Nickel, Director, South Asia Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you very much.

It is difficult to bring lasting solutions to that area. In fact, the Pakistani government has little power to influence the development of the border regions between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The approach that Canada and our G8 allies have adopted, together with the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan, is to deal with this very complex situation in various ways, choosing solutions that impact different aspects. For example, in economic development, those in the area face economic problems and extreme poverty. Here, our aim is to encourage greater cooperation between the Pakistani and the Afghan governments in helping the people who cross the border freely and whose families live on both sides.

We are also dealing with the problem of Afghan refugees who have been living in the area for 25, almost 30 years now. There are still 2.1 million refugees from Afghanistan in that border region today, on the Pakistan side. Then, of course, we cannot achieve security without dealing with the problem of drug trafficking, which is very serious in the area.

Working with the other members of the G8, and, of course, with the Pakistani and Afghan governments, Canada is trying to deal with at least four problems: economic development, the Afghan refugees who are still in Pakistan after 25 years, security, including the drug trade, and one more that I have not mentioned, border control. We foresee the border remaining wide open, but, with some investment made in the capabilities of Pakistani and Afghan guards, improvements could be made to border control, on both sides and with mutual cooperation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Madame Barbot, vous avez deux minutes.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

How can the border be controlled if, as we are told, the people in the region recognize no government for all practical purposes? They cross from one side to the other. Development is needed too, but how can we succeed in reaching these people?

[Jim Nickel]

True, that is perhaps one of the most difficult problems to solve in the area. As you know, even when the British were there, they had no way to tackle the problem. Nevertheless, strategies have been put in place. There is the strategy presently being adopted by Pakistani government with the support of various development and international aid agencies, including ones from Canada, to develop the frontier region.

Canada's investments will mainly be made at community level and will target education, heath, the status of women in the area and ways to find jobs other than those provided by the Taliban or the drug trade. This is new for Canada and it is being done as part of CIDA programming. Targeted programs have only been in place for two years in Baluchistan, one of the provinces right beside Kandahar. It is new. We must find partners, and historically we do not have any there. It is going to take time. Of course, this is one of Pakistan's least developed regions. As I said earlier, it is a region where the Pakistani government has little authority.

The question is a good one: what challenges do we face in having a positive influence in the area? It is very difficult and very complex, and we are only just beginning to tackle the problems.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Monsieur Nickel.

Mr. Khan.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Mank and Mr. Nickel, for appearing in front of the committee.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister for his leadership in the Commonwealth and for the strong statements the Minister of Foreign Affairs has made in this regard.

I also want to compliment our mission in Pakistan. I have visited several times. They have good access, and they utilize that access to the best of their ability.

I just have a comment. Pakistan has up to 100,000 troops deployed on the border. And, sir, your estimate of 800 is an underestimate; I am told that there have been up to 4,000 casualities. They don't want to disclose all the casualities, because the people of Pakistan, naturally, don't want to see their soldiers dying in the war against terror.

I want you to understand the added pressure my colleague was talking about. What pressure can you add? It is time to work with people, and I think the DFAIT people are doing a great job of that. Certainly, on the pressure, the comments of the leader of the opposition about withdrawing from the United Nations mission in Afghanistan and about military intervention in Pakistan, a sovereign nuclear power.... As you said, sir, Pakistan is an ally in the global campaign against terrorism, which receives a high level of logistic and military assistance from the Government of Pakistan. These comments are foolish, foolhardy, and dangerous. This is not the type of pressure that's required in that country.

Having said that, we are also talking about the elections. General Kayani is the new chief of the army staff, and he recently made statements that there will be no military intervention. The military will be there only to assist the civilian authorities to keep law and order. I think that is a good sign. The politicians I spoke to over there are hoping for a free and fair election. The new chief of the army staff has indicated that there will be no intervention. They will also be getting transparent ballot boxes. They have representatives from all parties who will be deciding and counting the votes, instead of the elections commissioner announcing the results. They will be counted.

With all those things happening, this is a step forward. Once again, that is the outcome of continued diplomatic engagement and diplomatic pressure by Canada and the Commonwealth.

My question to you, sir, is whether there is anything else you are doing. The EU has observers in Pakistan. Is Canada going to be sending any observers? Or are we going to rely only on the deployment from the mission in Pakistan?

Is there a plan for settlement of the FATA? There is a plan. Is Canada considering any participation in that?

I think I will ask my next question after you answer these two.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Khan.

Go ahead, Mr. Mank.

[Randolph Mank]

Thank you for those comments.

On your questions, we're certainly looking at the issue of observers. I will defer to my minister to make his decisions on that and any announcements in that regard. What the mission will be doing is on a more informal basis, as you've alluded to. We think that can be very useful. We've done that in the past in countries, and it certainly gives Canada a sense of what's actually happening on the ground during an election, so it's very useful for our own purposes.

I think your main point--that a lot of effort has been made by the international community to ensure that Pakistan will move in the right direction and hold these elections in as free and fair a manner as possible--is extremely important . It's important that they realize the world will be watching and that there is a set of expectations we all have. We think the real future for Pakistan lies in starting to get some of this right in returning to democracy and ensuring that elections can be done in the open and in a fair way. In the long term that is the key to development and security, in our view.

In terms of settlement of the FATA, the federally administered tribal areas, yes, there is work going on there. Canada is, as I mentioned in my remarks and as Mr. Nickel has reinforced, looking at activities in Baluchistan through our CIDA program, which we see as highly complementary to that ongoing work in the FATA. There's potential for doing more there. I assume there's lots of potential for many countries to get involved. It remains under consideration by our friends at CIDA in terms of the development program. I'll let them explain in greater detail what their future plans are, but I think your point is a very good one. That's an area that requires support and assistance.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you.

Do you agree that Pakistan needs to be looked at through a Pakistani prism, rather than a war on terror prism? The ambassador, as you know, has been kidnapped. Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated. It is going through a difficult time, and its capacity-building to handle these issues is crucial. Is Pakistan, as I believe--and I'd like to receive your comments--the solution to the Afghan problem, or another problem added to it? There are 160 million people in a destabilized country that is fighting terrorism. Obviously it is facing an enemy right at its border, unlike us; they're across the Atlantic and many miles away. Do you believe that Pakistan is a solution to the problem, and should we look at it separately from Afghanistan?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'll tell you what I'm going to do: I'm going to let you answer that question on the second round. Could you just make note of that?

We'll go to Mr. Dewar, and then we'll come back to Mr. Khan and Mr. Goldring.

Go ahead, Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our guests for their presentations.

Many of us of course continue to be worried about the situation in Pakistan. In and of itself, just the situation within the borders of Pakistan is of concern—a nuclear power, with many, many expatriates here in Canada. I guess my concern, however, is not just confined to within of the borders of Pakistan but also to what has been alluded to as the Doppler effect, if you will, or the effect within the region of what's happened in Pakistan.

As a party, we have written to the minister. Back on November 6 I wrote to the minister asking for the following actions: to call on the Government of Pakistan for the restoration of constitutional rule and timely free and fair elections, unencumbered by the Pakistani military; to call for international observation of the elections; to offer Canada's experience in observing the elections; to empower Pakistani democrats and human rights activists in developing civilian leadership, free from military interests; and we called on the Commonwealth to suspend Pakistan's membership until such time as democracy has been restored. Some of those things were followed up on, I'm glad to say.

As for the idea that we can have elections there of the same standard as Canadian elections, I don't think anyone would assume those are going to happen. But you mention that there are going to be unofficial observations of the elections. I'd just like to know if we've provided additional resources to the consular services already in the area, and if so, how many resources have been afforded to our mission in Pakistan since the crackdown.

Secondly--this is related, but might seem like it's a little off topic--I'd like to know whether or not the whole issue of the pipeline presently proposed to go from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and to India has come up. The reason I'm bringing this question up is that it's something we certainly haven't debated here, but it relates to energy security. I know it's going to be an issue that will be raised at the NATO meetings this spring. I think most Canadians are unaware that energy security has been an issue at NATO.

I'm just wondering if there's been any dialogue with our mission there about the security concerns regarding the proposed pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[Randolph Mank]

Thank you.

First of all, as to Mr. Khan's question about whether we should see Pakistan—