National Defence Committee on Jan. 30th, 2007

[Rina Amiri]

I have about four brief points in terms of peace-building. One is that vetting of government officials is very important. We need to inspire more confidence in the government, and one of the ways to do that is to have a system of meritocracy and vetting to ensure that the people who are in positions are those in whom the people will have some level of confidence.

Reconstruction and income generation is going to be absolutely critical, as we've already noted.

I agree with my friend Adeena that the anti-narcotics campaign is absolutely critical. The aerial spraying that is being suggested would be a disaster and would only exacerbate the conflict. You would end up having many more recruits for the Taliban. It would really add a whole additional layer of terrible complexity.

Finally, on coordination, I completely agree with you that we need more coordination of the donor community and more effective strategy development in that regard.

Then, with regard to vice and virtue and where it stands, I have the same information: that they're keeping a low presence and that the President did this as a means of appeasement to the religious community. They argue that in every Islamic country you have some sort of vice and virtue, largely looking at gulf countries, and they noted that it was needed in Afghanistan. They have developed it, but it's a department, not a ministry. It's a department within the ministry of religious affairs, and right now I think it's simply a real indication of the sway that the religious and the ultra-conservative communities have in Afghanistan.

That's going to be a reality that we will have to deal with for quite some time to come, but it requires the monitoring that the international community has been doing, in support with civil society.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Good. Thank you very much.

Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Rina Amiri]

I'm sorry. Can I just add one more point? It was really an important point.

The final point concerns the military. Unless you stop the source of the Taliban, you're not going to get peace in Afghanistan. This means engaging Pakistan. If we do not engage Pakistan, we can send as many soldiers to Afghanistan as is possible in Canada, but it's not going to stop the war in Afghanistan. You have to go to the source.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you, all of you, for your fascinating presentations. They have been really interesting to listen to, and I've taken copious notes. I have to narrow my questions down to the limited time I have.

I'd like to start with Ms. Amiri, if I could. I hear you loud and clear when you say that unless we improve the security of Afghan society as a whole, it's going to be difficult to improve the situation for women, as they cannot be isolated from the Afghan society. That's the message I got when I was in Afghanistan earlier this month.

But then you raised the interesting topic about negotiation. If you've been following the debate in Canada, you know that some have suggested that we simply negotiate, and you have differentiated between the moderate and the extreme or hardline members of the Taliban.

My first question to you would be, if you cannot negotiate with the hardline Taliban, if they're simply ideologically motivated, not politically motivated, how then do you deal with them? Or is it simply a matter of, as you say, putting more soldiers on the ground? That's my first question.

My second question has to do with micro-finance. As you know, and as a number of you have acknowledged, the minister for CIDA has emphasized programs for women and children, and you've both talked about the $1.75 million for maternal health and literacy. The minister also put forward $5 million for the vaccination of seven million children. That's certainly an indication of where this government is going.

But what you may not know is that Canada is the largest donor to the micro-finance program, even ahead of Norway, the U.K., the U.S., and the World Bank in our contributions, at $40 million. You mentioned that this was a positive measure that needs to be supported.

Could you elaborate on how it empowers women in particular? We have external examples, but I'd like to hear it first-hand from what you've experienced.

My last question is to Ms. Niazi. It has to do with your comment about supporting professionalism among the Afghan National Police and in the Afghan National Army. During my brief visit to Afghanistan, I had a chance to visit the Afghan National Army base and to talk with some of the soldiers. I was incredibly impressed with their motivation and discipline and their desire to serve the country.

I am wondering whether you have any suggestions on how we could increase the professionalization of the army and the police.

Those are all my questions.

[Rina Amiri]

In regard to negotiations with the hardline Taliban, what has to be done is what has been done, what is part of negotiation strategies in any civil war. You have to compel the hardliners to understand that the objectives they seek cannot be gained, that their war cannot be won. The way you do that comes both politically and militarily.

Right now, as I noted before, the reason the Taliban have such confidence is that they have some machinery behind them. They have resources, they have money, and they have training that is coming from the Pakistani border area. As long as they have those things, the Taliban are not interested in negotiating because they perceive themselves to be in a winning position.

The Taliban see the wavering of the international community in terms of troop presence in Afghanistan. They see a reluctance in the international community to engage Pakistan on the issue of the Taliban. They see themselves to be on the winning side. In fact, they're rather optimistic that they're going to have Kabul by this summer. Negotiating in a situation where there is such a level of confidence in terms of their strategic position is not going to get you anywhere, in my view.

The other point I'd make is that in terms of negotiation and having discussions, there's not a problem with that with any group. Bargaining is the issue. Bargaining and giving away the south of Afghanistan is what I have heard in some discussions that I have found very disturbing. I think that's a failed strategy.

In terms of micro-credit, I think this is something Canada should absolutely be applauded for, because often it takes very little money to change lives. What I've noted in the refugee camps, where my colleague Ms. Niazi worked, is that you saw the dynamics change in terms of women's positions when they had income. When they brought food to the table, their power in the house changed. This was where a lot of the women emerged as leaders. They're the civil society leaders in Afghanistan today, because once you gain earning power in any country, you end up getting more power. Oftentimes it takes very little money.

In addition, one of the reasons why the micro-credit program would be so effective is that it enables the women themselves to figure out how they can earn income while respecting the cultural constraints they have to live with. If they can't leave the house but they can sew fabrics at home and that's the way they're going to bring money in, then they can do that. But you leave it up to them to figure out how that's going to be done, while at the same time giving them earning power to change their power position in the house.

[Adeena Niazi]

Before responding to your question, there's just one point that I have to add, because I forgot to earlier.

When we are talking about security in Afghanistan, the Taliban are the biggest and most major threat to Afghanistan, but we cannot ignore the other warlords. We never talk about them. Mr. Karzai, in one of his speeches last year I think, mentioned that there are bigger dangers to Afghan society, sometimes even bigger than the Taliban. If we ignore them, there won't be peace. Of course, I reinforce and repeat myself again that the sources of Taliban that are outside of the borders have to be targeted.

In terms of the police and army, the national army, which is in the process of establishing itself and recruiting more members, is very much welcomed by the Afghan people. It's a good army. In terms of police forces, some of the policemen are former militia who have been recruited in the police. Sometimes these forces cause insecurity for the public and for the people.

I was in Afghanistan last year. One of my colleagues, an Afghan woman, was a very strong woman. She has worked there throughout. She doesn't cover herself. She doesn't wear a chowdry, but when she was going home, she had a chowdry in her bag. She said she was wearing the chowdry when she went there because her house is opposite the police office. I said that's secure, that's good. She said no, she was scared of the policemen, because if they saw her face, anything could happen. She secured herself from the police.

Some of the people have stopped looking to the police for their security and safety. They're scared of the police because of the individuals they have recruited. I think it should be ensured that the individuals are not members of former militias, whatever group they were in. And they also need adequate, ongoing training and financial assistance committed to them.

[Ariane Brunet]

If I may add, an embedded police trainer in all provinces is really something essential, not only in big cities, but in all provinces. So if you embedded police trainers, it would help greatly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

Mr. Hiebert, are you okay?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Good.

Okay, the problem with being generous on the first round is that it shortens up the second round. So in order to get four spots in--one more from each party.... I guess we don't need four; we need only three. Ms. Black is way down on the list, and I'd just like a couple of minutes at the end, if I could, to ask a question.

Ms. Bennett, go ahead.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Thanks very much.

In the washroom consultation I learned the difference between the formal process around the jirga and the shura process in the local villages. How do we do a better job in terms of process?

Almost half of our development money for Canada is going to Afghanistan now. How do we make sure that money is being well spent? How do we track the dollars to make sure we're getting results for the money that's being spent? It seems to be a lot of money. The money we give to UNICEF or the money we give in these big cheques, compared to money being spent by the military in their cash-for-work program, and compared to the kinds of things that we know in micro-credit could be changing the lives of women--are we giving the money to the right people? Are we tracking it enough?

In terms of balance, it seems that we have lots of boots on the ground in soldiers, but the staffing for CIDA and Foreign Affairs is extraordinarily thin and doesn't seem to have the capacity to actually track what happens when you give the money. As they said, does this group of women really get the money to make this, or did somebody just go to the bazaar and buy it? I think that was what Sarah Chayes had said to us. Without that kind of accountability and tracking, we may not be doing what you would want. Do you feel that our dollars are making as much of a difference on the ground as they could be? Is there anything in terms of process that we should be doing differently?

[A voice]

If I may, because I was the one who spoke to you in the washroom—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I don't know if we can do this. Just hang on.

In order for you to speak, we have to be able to record who you are, where you're from, and all that. If it's all right, maybe somebody else can deliver your message.

Go ahead, Ms. Brunet.

[Ariane Brunet]

In the meantime, I could answer.

One of the things that's striking in terms of accountability--because I've been on that end of things--is the importance of ensuring that there are more people on the ground, but also, you're asking a lot. Some of those women NGOs haven't done this type of work before. So when CIDA comes up and says to give them accountability on a results-based management basis, and nobody's willing to train those people as to what results-based management might mean, you have a huge problem. I have to transform the reports I receive at Rights and Democracy so I can give them back to Parliament in words that you can understand and in accountability terms.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

I think we're pretty impressed that there are people who haven't even ever had experience with chairing a meeting, or taking minutes, or an agenda, or all of those. Surely, at all levels we need the kind of mentoring we're doing for the police and the auxiliary police, which I thought was spectacular, and that takes bodies.

[Ariane Brunet]

I'll be extremely happy if that is one thing we get out of this meeting today, because no, there is no training for NGOs on the ground as to what accountability systems are about or what results-based management is, and those things are dearly needed. So you can't be expecting results the way we in Canada are accustomed to seeing them from Afghans who don't have the base.

Also, if there was coordination...because you may ask, from a Canadian point of view, for accountability under system A, B, and C, while the Dutch ask for C, D, and Z and the Germans ask for V, W, and Z, etc. So at this point there's confusion. It's extremely difficult, and they end up working more for our taxpayers than for the needs on the ground. That needs to be taken into account, and I am very grateful that you asked the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Just make a short comment, please. Go ahead.

[Adeena Niazi]

I can't start without thanking Dr. Bennett, because she has been a long friend of Afghan women, and she stood beside us while we were struggling under the Taliban. Thank you for that.

Thank you for your question. In terms of how to use the money efficiently and effectively, some of the money that goes to constructing roads and big projects, a big chunk—I'm not talking really about Canada, I'm talking about the international community—goes back to the country in terms of contracting with the companies. Also, in terms of some projects that go through UN bodies in Afghanistan, the cost for administration is too high. Also, for most of the projects that are in Afghanistan, they are decided from the top to the bottom. It terms of being more efficient and meeting the needs of the grassroots women, it has to come from the bottom to the top.

I have not been funded. Our organization is not funded by any government body. We raise our own funding, but I know that with a little money there could be a big change if the real needs of the women or the people on the ground were really evaluated in consultation with grassroots organizations.

Women's groups, as Ariane said, need more training and they need more support. If tomorrow something happens in Afghanistan and the UN bodies leave Afghanistan, there will be a big gap. There is a big gap between the high-level UN bodies and the grassroots women's organizations. That's why, sometimes, the money is not going to the most needed projects.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

We have to move along in order to get all the spots in here.

We'll have Ms. Gallant and then Mr. Bachand.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to address my question to Ms. Niazi.

I want to specifically address the comment you made about our military presence in its current form and there needing to be a balance between the $7 billion you stated was being spent militarily versus the $100 million per year for development. Is that correct? Is that the balance you were referring to?

You stated that people are being displaced from their homes due to damage arising from combat operations, that more civilian protection is needed, and that we must stop the warlords and the Taliban from inflicting hardship on the people.

As you know, Canadian soldiers are training Afghan volunteers to become a cohesive force while teaching them about human rights and the Afghan constitution. At the same time, the Canadian Forces, together with the RCMP, are teaching Afghanis, who line up for days in hopes of being recruited to be Afghan National Police people. They too are being schooled in human rights and are being given the skills to investigate, and they're being taught how to read and write as well. They don't even have that. They can't make reports, because right now they don't have the skills to read or write.

The Canadian military personnel are treating Afghanis. And presently, in areas controlled by Taliban warlords and the drug lords, the schools to educate children cannot be constructed, nor can any development, for that matter, proceed. So the Canadian Forces mount operations to drive the oppressors away. Prior to these operations, they distribute pamphlets and let the civilians know that there is going to be an operation so they can move out while the soldiers clear the area of the aggressors. The Taliban have guns, and they shoot at our men and women. The aggressors launch their offensives from structures and can only be stopped if the structures are eliminated.

Our soldiers are digging wells to provide water, which was mentioned here today as part of women's right. They are building schools, training police, assisting the Afghan National Army to be self-reliant, and constructing medical centres, including those dedicated to prenatal and obstetrics. The Afghan people themselves are being hired and paid to provide the labour in the construction projects and to be workers on the Kandahar airfield, thereby assisting in the economic situation of the Afghan people. Labourers, farmers, and shopkeepers are using the bubble of security created by the Canadian forward-operating bases to rebuild their lives.

Could you tell the Standing Committee on National Defence, from the military perspective, what you would be doing differently?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

The question was addressed to Ms. Niazi.

[Adeena Niazi]

Thank you for stating that. Actually in my presentation I did mention that we are grateful for Canada's role. Canada is playing a major role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. But I tried to say there is not a real balance between the construction and the combat. Also I mentioned that we need more troops in other parts of the country. As my friends mentioned, and I also repeatedly mentioned, only targeting a specific place where the Taliban repeatedly keep coming and attacking will not bring real and sustainable security to the country. We have to consider the country as a whole.

I also mentioned that Canada's approach should be the whole government's approach. Rule of law in all parts of Afghanistan has to be re-established; it has to work on that judiciary system. I also mentioned again and again that for the economy, the economy for women, we need more programs specifically for women; we need women's power, because if women are in power, if women are having discussions and working, it will reduce poverty, and if poverty is reduced, crime and insecurity will be reduced as well.

In terms of the military, I mentioned military or more troops committed to Afghanistan, to all parts of Afghanistan, to deal with the other major issues. Again I am repeating myself, but we shouldn't turn a blind eye to warlords, who are a big threat to Afghan people. This is something mentioned by all my colleagues and myself also: Afghans are wondering, why fight the Taliban and not go to the source of the Taliban? They are not going to the root of the Taliban, which is out of Afghanistan's border. It's obvious they are coming from Pakistan. They are receiving training. Why is the international community not fighting with them from there? This is also a major issue with Afghans.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bouchard, to wrap up, five minutes.