Foreign Affairs Committee on March 13th, 2008

[Sally Armstrong]

Well, they're in it now. They're in it with their new task force.

In any case, the point of village councils, for me, is that men and women are meeting together, and this is a first. And they are effective.

But I think the point you're making comes back to the ministries. They simply have to reform the ministries. They have to get rid of the ministers who are not serving Afghanistan or not representing the people, and they've done that in many cases. I think that's where a lot of the problems are. We have to train people. I think Canada is very good at helping with training within ministries.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Jackson.

[Robert Jackson]

It is an important question that requires a lot of technical knowledge. The national solidarity program, I would think, is what you should look into if you haven't done so. There is a wonderful CD that describes all the details of it. It is, of course, controlled by the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development. It's also one of the departments that Canada's Strategic Advisory Team has helped quite a bit. In fact, it's one of the places where we could make a case that Canada has actually helped with the very thing that you're suggesting needs to be done.

I think that fits with my argument, although I wasn't able to talk about the topics that the other people talked about, but you need a connection between what is being done in the centre, in Kabul, with what is happening at the local level. The two need to be brought together in order to have a central government that is functioning and is seen to be functioning out in the regions. But at the same time, the regions have to be active and have funds available for them to be able to do the kinds of projects they wish to put in place.

I think it's the nexus of those two, and that is done to a large extent by the national solidarity program. If you want to see the CD but can't get it, I'll get you a copy of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Ms. Wijeyaratne.

[Surendrini Wijeyaratne]

In relation to the question about how you address impunity inside the Karzai government, there are a couple of opportunities coming up in the near future that could at least address it in a small measure.

One is that there's a recommendation in the Afghanistan Compact, as it is right now, for a senior appointments panel. The senior appointments panel is meant to vet all appointments to the administration—the police chiefs, local district governors, and so on. Canada and other donors have a distinct opportunity to take a very strong diplomatic role in ensuring that the senior appointments panel functions fully and credibly and doesn't become manipulated by the government.

The other is, in the elections that are coming up in 2009, making sure that people who run for Parliament are not linked to illegal armed groups out there. There is reform of the electoral law going on right now, and it's a question of taking a stronger diplomatic role to make sure these things are consistent with our norms and standards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Heinbecker, I hate to impose on you, but there were three questions asked. If I could ask you to answer one question, it would be Mr. Patry's question specific to what the UN could do.

[Paul Heinbecker]

Speaking specifically to the UN, there are two or three factors that explain the current situation. One is that the UN was attacked in Iraq in 2003, and I don't think they have quite got over it—not yet. They lost some of their best and brightest, and it made the UN, as a secretariat institution, quite nervous about its role in the world.

The second thing is to bear in mind that Afghanistan is one of 17 UN missions. The UN has something like 100,000 soldiers and officials in the field—quite a bit more than that if the Darfur operation ever gets off the ground properly. It has a budget of something like $6 billion. And Afghanistan is one of those missions.

What I would like to see done is that the Canadian government should—and I presume it's doing this, but given the circumstances it would have to do more—make a greater effort to persuade the UN to take this more seriously, to raise its profile, to raise its place in the UN list of priorities.

I understand that Ban Ki-moon described a dozen priorities the other day, and Afghanistan wasn't even one of them. Here we're transfixed, engrossed in Afghanistan, but at New York I don't think that's the case.

That's what we need to do.

By the way, let me offer one word, if I may, on SAT. SAT is a very good idea, but if there were ever a case for a whole-of-government approach to something, this would be it. It's not perfectly obvious to me why this should be done by military planners, especially when the ground rules are that they don't do military activities. What I would have said on SAT is that there's been some controversy over how it's being managed. There's no reason that operation should not be part of the overall Canadian operation, and it should be run like every other part of the Canadian government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Heinbecker.

Madam Barbot, you have seven minutes.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Heinbecker, you recently said that Canada’s goals are not those of the US. Canada wants to rebuild, to establish a viable government, to build schools and to promote human rights. In the present context, Canada is devoting more efforts to war than to development. Canadians want Canada to dedicate more of its energy to development in order to improve people’s lives in Afghanistan. They are massively against the combat role. However, most of Canada’s efforts are devoted to combat.

Of the major recommendations of Mr. Manley’s report, what was taken into consideration is mainly the addition of 1 000 soldiers, as if this was going to solve the problem. In a context that is said to be explosive, in a war that admittedly cannot be won militarily, how can Canada rebalance its action so that it can produce proper results and be compatible with what the Canadian people want?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Merci, madame Barbot.

Monsieur Heinbecker is next.

[Paul Heinbecker]

You made a number of contentions, not all of which I would share. It's not obvious to me that the Canadian population is massively against the military effort in Afghanistan, if I understood you correctly. And it's not obvious to me how you're going to carry out a development effort unless you have an adequate measure of security.

The UN has just said that most of the south of Afghanistan is not safe for aid workers, and it's not safe for aid workers because of the efforts of the Taliban. To my mind, it starts with that. Unless you can provide the requisite amount of security.... You can build the schools, as someone said, and the Taliban can burn them down again. And they can do much worse than that. So I think it starts with security.

What I would agree with is that we should be doing more on the development side. That I do agree with, but I don't think we're in a situation where we can say, “Well, we've got this out of balance and we'll do it like that, and then we're going to fix it.” Because I don't think that's the case. I think we have to do this, and I think--

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Obviously more security is needed but at the present time, other countries do not seem to be working towards this goal. Canada is expected to do this job while taking care of all the rest. This is where I see a problem.

[Paul Heinbecker]

That's why I was saying there are a couple of considerations. One is that I think, as a responsible member of the international community, we have to be conscious of the fact that we could be decisive to failure. As I said, I don't think we can do enough to win, but I think we could actually be decisive to failure. We could make that mission unravel if we were to just up and leave.

At the same time, I think we have every interest in pushing our allies to do more. I think the government has begun to do that. That's what I think is going to be happening at Bucharest, where there is a lot of effort going on behind the scenes, evidently, to try to find an extra battalion.

I don't think a battalion is enough. If you look at the number of forces we put into Kosovo--at the end of the Kosovo conflict--proportionately, the number was vastly higher than what we've put into Afghanistan. As Mr. Jackson said, the consequence is that you get a lot higher rate of civilian casualties, because you get the military relying on air power and on other kinds of activity.

So we're in a position where we need a lot more troops on the ground. I guess 1,000 is a number to start with. I don't think it should be the end.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Heinbecker.

Ms. Armstrong, you may quickly comment.

[Sally Armstrong]

I want to add a comment to what you said about this massive portion of the population that's against our being there, and your comment about development and war going on in Afghanistan.

I think it's valuable to remember there are 34 provinces in Afghanistan. Almost all of this insurgency is going on in four provinces.

The area where Flora MacDonald's work is going on has seen a tremendous amount of improvement. A lot of the places I've been to have seen improvement. So there is no doubt there is improvement, and with the exception of the four southern provinces, I think it's fair to say that people are marginally better off. What we're questioning is, how come they're not a lot better off?

And as for the protest against the war in Canada, I think it's very important for all of us to understand who's informing us. Most of the protest, if you look at the studies, is based on the fact that people say that we invaded Afghanistan. We did not; we were invited by the government. Protest is based on the fact that we are occupying Afghanistan. We are not. It would be a lot easier for the military if we were, but we are not. And at every protest, you hear the notion that the Afghan people wish we would leave. In my opinion, you'd be hard-pressed to find a single Afghan who wants Canada to leave, except for the extremists.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Ms. Armstrong.

Mr. Jackson, very quickly, and then we'll move to the next question.

[Robert Jackson]

Very quickly, I think Paul and I do disagree about SAT. I just want to put it like this.

These SAT people work for Afghan ministers. Let's assume an American diplomat was on secondment in the Department of Foreign Affairs here in Ottawa. Would we want that person to report back to Washington, or would we want him to report to his minister here in Ottawa? Of course we'd want him to report to his minister in Ottawa.

The whole point about this staff is that they need to work for what the Afghan ministers want them to do, and not for what Canada wants them to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Jackson.

We'll move to Mr. Lebel.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I don't know what to do for my next 30 years, Mr. Jackson. I will follow the Afghanistan issue.

Mr. Jackson, you said that unfortunately there will probably be more violence, more soldiers killed, more suicide bombings and more IED’s in Afghanistan. I was very pleased to hear Mr. Heinbecker say that our action should be driven more by the results of our efforts than by politics and target dates. Indeed, we may have to deal with schedules that are of a human rather than political nature. Ms. Armstrong said she saw results because houses are still there. She believes things are improving and people's lives are getting better.

Ms. MacDonald earlier said that 78% of the people still live in villages. The international community is devoting its efforts to the various regions of Afghanistan. What impact will urbanization have on this country?

Ms. Wijeyaratne, you returned from Afghanistan in January or February. What do the Afghan people think of the international support they are getting, and more particularly Canadian support? How do they like what we are doing to help them become a democratic country, as I think they want to?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Merci, monsieur Lebel.

We'll have Madame Boucher, very quickly, and then Mr. Goldring.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you for coming today. Your contribution helps us better understand many things. Last week, we were fortunate to meet with a number of Afghan women parliamentarians who told us about their experiences, their struggles and some of their achievements. My only question deals with women. What was the greatest victory for women since Canada went to Afghanistan?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

We'll got to Peter, very quickly.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you for appearing today.

It's evident from your comments that simply cutting and running is not an option, particularly with the Taliban positioned to return, and to return the same repressive regime they had.

My question is more general. I understand that the Taliban in Pakistan, too, share this concern about the Pakistan government and the interpretation of the Koran and sharia law. They have taken it much more seriously and much more severely. Could you suggest any way, any mechanism within legislation or the constitution or something, that could be worked upon within the governance of Afghanistan to bring out a more acceptable, broad-based modernity or moderation that would be broadly acceptable? I feel that many of the Taliban might accept some of this, too, if it were possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

The first question was actually directed to Ms. Wijeyaratne and then to the Honourable Flora MacDonald.

[Flora MacDonald]

I want to speak to them afterwards.