Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 12th, 2008

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

You can answer that on my time.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I was about to make a point of order, but I won't.

[Randolph Mank]

I am very sorry about that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

What you can do is answer Mr. Dewar, and then we'll come back to Mr. Goldring and Mr. Khan's questions.

[Randolph Mank]

I see. I understand. Okay, thank you very much.

These concerns that you have about Pakistan as a nuclear power, as a country that faces enormous challenges to its own internal stability, and the fact that we have significant diaspora interests in the sense that we have many Pakistani Canadians in our country and we have other interests in the country and have long been connected to it suggest that it's a country we need to keep close contact with and keep a close eye on.

Your letter suggested things we should do. I'm very happy that we very much had a meeting of minds on most of those things. Those were things we felt we should do, and the minister went ahead and decided we should proceed to advocate on behalf of, for example, a Commonwealth action, which finally occurred. They remain suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth.

As I said in my remarks, we've also been actually contributing funds to support the electoral process. We very much want to see a return to democracy, and that's exactly what we're working towards, as well as making contributions, as appropriate, to the security situation, the security of the border.

You asked whether additional resources have been made available for consular purposes at the mission. I don't think so in the sense of new staff being deployed there, but we have looked very closely at the consular situation. We have sent a small team out to do the normal kind of contingency planning we do at all our missions around the world, to make sure everything's in order in the event that we need to exercise our planning.

On the pipeline issue, of course, we're aware of the dialogue on this, but we're not involved in it. We're waiting to see how that develops. Energy security is obviously an important subject for all of those countries of the region and for just about every country in the world these days. It will be an important part of the economic futures of these countries in the region.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Dewar, you do have another minute.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I just wanted to follow up on that issue, if I may, on energy security. The reason I brought it up is that my notes here have that we had been involved in a dialogue in Delhi in November 2006 on the whole Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline. It's a matter not only of energy security, but of course the security in terms of what our troops are doing, certainly in Afghanistan.

Many people see Afghanistan as a bridge. I think Turkmenistan has the fourth-largest gas fields in the world. This pipeline, by the way, is being proposed to go right through Kandahar and it will be going through Pakistan and India, as I'm sure my colleagues are aware.

The reason I brought it up, and underlying my opening remarks, is that it's not just about Pakistan in and of itself and the stability there, but it seems to be a wider dialogue and investment around security of the pipeline. I brought it up simply because I'm wondering if DFAIT has underlined this issue, along with the nuclear issue, about the concerns of stability of Pakistan. If so, what are the concerns around the pipeline that you might have?

[Randolph Mank]

It's been discussed in the context of the regional economic development framework. That's the meeting you were referring to. It's on the agenda. It's seen as part of the economic package that is going to be required for the future of the region, but we haven't taken a position in pushing it one way or the other in a positive or a negative direction.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

So you're observing it, though.

[Randolph Mank]

We're watching.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Khan did have the question about whether we see Pakistan as the answer to some of the problems in Afghanistan. I'm not certain if he meant more democratization of Pakistan or....

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

I can clarify that, Mr. Chair.

When we are talking about Afghanistan and Pakistan, I think we have to recognize that Pakistan is a country that has institutions, that has infrastructure--although perhaps not up to standard--and that has a very strong and disciplined military. It has all kinds of institutions, whereas Afghanistan has naturally hardly any of that.

So the commitment it has made, and the terrorism that has spread within the country, with, as I mentioned, the assassination of Benazir, bombings every day, Baitullah Mehsud doing all that stuff.... And I can tell you that there's a full-fledged war going on in Waziristan, with tanks and airplanes. I know that because my nephew, who I brought up like a son, is a general fighting that war in that region.

What I'm trying to ask, then, is do you agree that we need to bring more stability in Pakistan, which will then help stabilize Afghanistan?

[Randolph Mank]

Yes, I think that's a broad consensus among allies, that Pakistan is very important both in and of itself--Pakistan qua Pakistan--and for regional stability. Clearly they have some severe security challenges, as you've outlined. What we need to do is encourage them and support them, to the extent that we can, in meeting those security challenges. That's in all of our interests.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you for appearing here today.

I have a question along the lines of what my colleague was asking. Understandably, it would be very hard to quantify the number of Taliban we're looking at in the region, but I'm asking this because a reporter on TV yesterday did quantify it, coming up with a number of 40 million--in other words, under the assumption, I suppose, that all Pashtuns are Taliban.

Could you in some way comment on that type of number, and then maybe try to advise on where the major belligerents would be dispersed, by percentage numbers, in Pakistan or Afghanistan or other regions? It seems to me that some of the numbers being bandied around are just incredible, and very misleading.

[Randolph Mank]

I don't want to get drawn into the numbers game, because you can imagine how inaccurate census processes would be in such a situation. It's really hard to guess on the numbers.

It is a mistake to equate the Pashtun people with the Taliban. Whereas the Taliban might well draw from the Pashtun people for support, and for recruits even, they are a very small subset, a minimal subset, of the Pashtun people.

I'm no historian, and I'm not a particular expert in this area, but my understanding is that the Pashtun people have been there for an awfully long time. Their traditions of moving across that territory cause the problems that exist for that border as it's currently situated. It doesn't necessarily mean that all the Pashtun people, whether there are 30 million or 40 million of them, are doing something that might be nefarious or harmful to our interests. It's the Taliban, the radicalized people who are looking to use violence to further their ends, that we're concerned about.

In fact, extremists are in quite a minority in Pakistan. We should remember and we should put a line under the fact that most Pakistanis are quite moderate people. We're not really dealing with a highly radicalized country in general. We're dealing with, as is so often the case, a very small minority of radicalized and violent people who are causing trouble for all the rest.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Goldring, we'll come back to you. Your time is up.

We'll go to Mr. Patry and Mr. Martin, who can do a split. Go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen.

We are all aware that Pakistan's stability is crucial for democracy and for the security of the entire region. In the past, Afghanistan stood with India in countering the influence of the United States on Pakistan. In March 2007, Afghanistan and Pakistan signed an agreement in Ankara. In June of the same year, they signed a tripartite agreement that included Iran.

We spoke about the frontier region. We met with the ambassador of Pakistan who told us that more than 100,000 Pakistani soldiers are in the Northwest Frontier area and the FATA as a whole. They have lost 7,000 men. He told us that their main mission was to track down foreigners. By "foreigners", they mean Uzbeks and all the Arab presence that comes in large part from the Middle East. Not the Taliban, because they are all Pashtuns. Of necessity, the Pashtuns are allies of the government in Islamabad and of the Pakistani secret service.

You are with the Department of Foreign Affairs, not with the Department of Defence. Is the Department of Foreign Affairs working with the Commonwealth or the United Nations to try and find a diplomatic solution and hold an international conference that will bring together Afghanistan, Pakistan and the neighbouring countries? Is your department putting pressure on Pakistan, or indirectly on Saudi Arabia, to stop the funding of madrasahs? You know what madrasahs are. Why, for example, could we not ask Pakistan to lift the embargo on Afghan products en route to India?

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

Mr. Mank and Mr. Nickel, I just have two quick questions.

First, what is needed for the ISI and other groups inside Pakistan to stop supporting the insurgency coming from Afghanistan?

Second, what are the conditions, do you think, for civilian government to be acceptable to the ISI and the military, rather than the military side of the equation undermining a civilian regime in Pakistan?

Thank you.

[Randolph Mank]

Thank you.

Again, the question of the number of soldiers who are deployed in Pakistan to deal with the instability in the tribal regions is up for debate. The Pakistani authorities are the best sources of accurate numbers in that regard, and I don't want to guess or second-guess what the ambassador, the High Commissioner for Pakistan, has said about that.

We are working within our alliance, obviously within the Commonwealth, as I detailed in my remarks, to bring pressure to bear on Pakistan. There is no stone left unturned, as far as we're concerned, in trying to encourage them to get back to a path to democracy, whether bilaterally, regionally with our allies, or multilaterally through the UN.

What the neighbours are doing, of course, factors into Pakistan's situation itself, and we're encouraging everyone to stick to their own knitting and allow a country like Pakistan to deal with the challenges it faces with its own security and cooperation with those who want to help it in a positive sense, and that includes Canada.

On the question of the role of the ISI, as you put it, to stop supporting the insurgency, and how to get the ISI to accept democracy—

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

A civilian regime.

[Randolph Mank]

—I think what you're alluding to is essentially a phenomenon that President Musharraf perpetuated by wearing the uniform while he was still president. That was something that the minister, the Government of Canada, spoke out very strongly against. This disentanglement of the military interests from the civilian rule...that's essentially at the heart of everything we're saying to Pakistan, that we want those institutions.

There's nothing wrong with a military institution if it sticks to military work. Most countries have important military institutions, but they should do military work. There's a huge security job to be done in that country, and they know very clearly what we expect of them in terms of controlling their border regions and working towards stabilizing that. We obviously insist that they accept civilian rule. We wouldn't accept any other position from the military side, or the intelligence side, or anyone else. That's our expectation; that's the demand we're exhorting of Pakistan all the time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Mank.

Mr. Obhrai, you have five minutes.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I just want to say something. The elections.... It's very good to see I excite my friends on the other side here. That means I am doing a good job.

I just wanted to say that the Liberals keep putting on extra pressure. I hope they don't mean what their leader said about invading Pakistan. I hope that's not what you mean by....

My colleague out here would like to—

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chairman, point of order. Just for the record, that was not true, and you know that, and that was clarified. That was not what was said, and the member knows that. For the record, I want to make it clear that was not done. I don't want him to mislead the committee. That would be a point of order.