Mr. Speaker, the minister throws out the word “Progressive” as if it were a slur. Yes, she was a Progressive Conservative.
In the Saturday, October 4, 2014, edition of La Presse, Agnès Gruda wrote an article about this war, which is looking grim. It reads:
Australia has done so, as have France, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. A dozen countries have already agreed to participate in the American air strikes [not UN air strikes, American air strikes] against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) armed group. And Canada will join them next week.
The debate on this military engagement brings back bad memories of the war against Saddam Hussein, in which Canada had the good sense not to participate...
However, the Iraq of 2014 is different from the Iraq of 2003. This time, we are not facing an imaginary threat. Since it took Iraq's second-largest city, Mosul, four months ago, ISIS has had ample time to show what its men are capable of.
A report published by the UN on Thursday describes the abuses that have been committed against Iraqi civilians in the past four months. Summary executions, gang rape, abductions and public hangings: the men of ISIS are slaughtering civilians without remorse.
On the ground, jihadists are threatening to expand their territory. Yesterday, the battle continued for the Syrian town of Kobani on the Turkish border.
So yes, there are excellent reasons to want to stop these bloodthirsty fanatics, including by means of an international military offensive, if necessary.
But not just any military offensive. Unfortunately, the United States' military operation is rather haphazard...
“The strikes so far have had a negative impact politically,” notes Robert Blecher, an International Crisis Group analyst who believes that the coalition is repeating past mistakes.
One of the main risks associated with this offensive is that it could end up alienating the very people the coalition is claiming to save from the Islamists.
Robert Blecher gave the example of Syrian villages that were bombed one day by the American army and the next by the Bashar al-Assad regime.
“On the ground, it is very difficult to understand where, exactly, the missiles are coming from. And it is very difficult to explain to the dominant rebel groups why Assad is not being bombed.”
Rebel groups that are waiting for western aid are left with the impression that they are being fed to the sharks, whereas civilians feel as though they are the target of fire meant for the Sunni. According to Robert Blecher, “This is creating an extremely difficult situation politically.”
And exactly who are the targets? Two weeks ago, the Americans bombed a brigade affiliated with another group of jihadist rebels, the al-Nusra Front.
However, this group is fighting on two fronts: it is fighting against Bashar al-Assad AND against ISIS, its arch-enemy. By raining down fire on the al-Nusra Front, the United States lent a helping hand to the “bad guys” they are trying to destroy. That is rather ironic.
Let us come back to Iraq. There too, the line between the good guys and the bad guys is not always clear. According to the UN report, the Iraqi army and various Shia militias are not all sweetness and light.
Here too, then, the air strikes might have unintended consequences, including radicalizing those we claim to be protecting, in all the confusion.
“No one knows exactly what the coalition's strategy is”, sums up the German weekly Der Spiegel in a lengthy analysis.
This current offensive raises more questions than it answers. Is this fight against ISIS only, or all Islamists, including the members of the al-Nusra Front?
That raises another question: how do we avoid helping Bashar al-Assad, thereby alienating the Syrian rebels we might not want to alienate?
More broadly, is there a post-war political strategy, both for Iraq and for Syria? Finally, is enough care being taken to ensure that there is local support for this offensive, without which is it doomed to fail?
When ISIS appeared in Iraq in the mid-2000s, the response did not come from the sky...but from the local Sunni tribes, which managed to contain it.
It has been able to expand as much as it has this year because those same tribes no longer trust Baghdad's Shia power. To deal with the very real threat that ISIS represents, we need to offer a “political solution to Iraqi and Syrian Sunnis”, suggests Robert Blecher. He claims this solution exists, even in Syria, where there are still Sunni rebels that are entirely acceptable to the international community.
The problem is that the current war against ISIS might convert these potential allies of the West into enemies...
With all these religious faiths, tribes and civil wars, the situations in Iraq and Syria are extremely complex. Simply put, yes, ISIS can be fought with weapons, but this war is looking pretty grim. Nothing in the [Prime Minister]'s speech suggests that he plans to use his power of influence to realign things.
That was an opinion piece in French by Agnès Gruda in La Presse.
Peggy Mason, Canada's former UN ambassador for disarmament and special adviser to former Progressive Conservative minister of external affairs Joe Clark, was quoted yesterday in the Ottawa Citizen, as follows:
“[Prime Minister]'s Iraq plan may make matters worse, says former ambassador”.
[The Prime Minister] will put Canada’s proposed combat military mission in Iraq to a vote on Monday. Recent polls have suggested that Canadians slightly favour the bombing mission to confront the threat posed by the extremist organization, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). It comes as no surprise that Canadians want to help and “do something.”
But [the Prime Minister]'s plan to send Canadian warplanes to join the U.S.-led coalition’s bombing of Iraq may just make matters worse.
[The Prime Minister] and his allies are underestimating their opponents as a bunch of religious extremists bent on spreading wanton mayhem and terror. Islamic State may be brutally ruthless, but they know exactly what they are doing.
Their core is made up of seasoned, motivated fighters and an extremely experienced leadership that go back to the “dirty war” waged by the American and British Special Forces in Iraq between 2006 and 2009.
ISIL is playing a strategical game of chess with its every move, while the West is playing military tic-tac-toe.
ISIL is not just a military organization, it is a political movement with a well-thought-out ideology, however abhorrent it may be to the West. It governs the huge areas it controls in Iraq and Syria. Ruthless in eliminating any potential opponents, it also provides electricity, food and other vital services for ordinary people in the areas it controls.
That is why American air strikes against ISIL recently targeted not only oil and gas facilities but also grain elevators--a highly problematic course of action in both legal and humanitarian terms, particularly if the conflict is to be a long one.
To date Western military action has been disastrously counterproductive.
[The Prime Minister] says “we” are not responsible for the chaos in Libya. Yet it is absolutely clear that the NATO-led military victory in Libya was a pyrrhic one which paved the way for the civil war that followed.
We have to remember how we got to this point. Time and again in the past, we have chosen war over negotiations.
Look at the lessons of Libya. Had we not exceeded the UN mandate in Libya (which excluded regime change), we could have negotiated a power-sharing deal...that would have promoted incremental democratic reform and not left a power vacuum to be filled by extremists, including ISIL.
Exactly the same lesson can be learned from Syria. Had the West not insisted on Assad's immediate departure and refused to allow Iran a seat at the table, Kofi Annan's power-sharing arrangement within a transitional government would have paved the way for incremental democratic reforms in Syria and, once again, would have left much less room for extremists like ISIL to operate.
A UN mandate privileging inclusive governance and democratic reforms in concert with robust military support has been central to recent progress in Somalia and Mali. A UN mandate is also possible for effective intervention in Iraq and Syria if all necessary players, including Russia and Iran, are brought fully into the negotiations, and Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are at the core of the political strategy, not just token participants.
A comprehensive, broadly supported and UN-mandated approach is long overdue in the heretofore disastrously counterproductive war on terror. Let this enlightened approach be the basis for Canadian action in Iraq and Syria.
As I said, that is from Peggy Mason, Canada's former UN ambassador for disarmament and adviser to then Progressive Conservative external affairs minister Joe Clark.
Twelve years ago, the Government of Canada launched a reconstruction mission in Afghanistan, a country ravaged by the war that began in 1979 with the invasion by the former Soviet Union.
The objective was to bring stability and security to the new government in Kabul. Over the years, the Liberal government radically transformed the mission. What began as a reconstruction mission quickly transformed into a combat mission. This did not change when the Conservatives came to power. On the contrary, the mission and the combat role were extended.
A few dozen specialist members in a mission that had a very short timeframe became 40,000 Canadian soldiers in the longest combat mission in the history of our country. We spent at least $30 billion, 160 soldiers were killed, thousands were injured, and let us not forget—because we tend to forget them—the thousands of men and women who returned suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome. The Canadian Forces strayed far from the original reconstruction mission, which had turned primarily into a combat mission.
What is interesting—and you know it because you were there, Mr. Speaker—is that despite all the vicious attacks against him by the Conservatives, Jack Layton had the courage to do what had to be done and to say what had to be said.
Jack Layton asked tough questions to the Conservative minister of defence at the time. It was the member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills who was the minister. Here are key questions that the former minister might remember Jack asking him:
What are the goals and objectives of this mission and how do they meet Canada's foreign policy objectives? What is the realistic mandate of the mission and how is it being enforced?
What are the criteria that [we will be using] to measure progress? What is the definition of success...?
Does it sound familiar? Of course it does. Those are the same questions that the NDP are asking today about the deployment in Iraq. In fact, the very same questions were asked about the mission in Afghanistan to the Liberal government just a few months before they were asked to the Conservative member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills, with good reasons. These questions are legitimate, and Canadians deserve answers.
The NDP also forced a debate and a vote in the House of Commons. At the time, the Prime Minister managed to extend the mission in Afghanistan with the support of the Liberals. The NDP opposed extending the mission, and I am still very proud of that today.
Even if we have not always agreed, there is a proud tradition in Canada and in the House of working together respectfully on issues of war and peace. In 1991, for example, NDP leader Audrey McLaughlin was sworn in to the Privy Council so that she could receive classified information on the first Gulf War. The same courtesy was extended to Bill Blaikie, and the Prime Minister himself, at the beginning of the Liberal engagement in Afghanistan. Later, that was extended to Jack Layton as well. It is only fair to say that the Prime Minister continued this tradition at first. The Prime Minister briefed Jack Layton on our mission in Libya, and he briefed me on our mission to Mali, yet now, as the Prime Minister takes Canada to war in Iraq, there is silence. Worse yet, Conservatives have gone out of their way to stifle informed debate.
The Prime Minister, with the support of the Liberals, launched us into the war in Iraq with what he claimed was a 30-day non-combat mission. He promised Canada's involvement would be “re-evaluated at the end of this first deployment”. On September 15, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence said there were already 69 Canadian soldiers on the ground. On September 26, the Prime Minister himself claimed there were “several dozen” Canadian Forces personnel in Iraq.
However, according to Radio-Canada, these claims were false. The first 26 from Canadian Forces did not arrive in Iraq until 23 days into the 30-day mission. The Prime Minister did not deny that when I asked him the question specifically in the House last week. How can we evaluate a mission when troops have been on the ground for only a week? It sounds disingenuous. The promise that Canadian involvement in Iraq would be re-evaluated after a month, frankly, was just that; it was disingenuous, if not a sham: a 30-day mission to get Canada into this war without a debate or a vote in Parliament, setting the stage for this escalation.
The lack of clear and honest information from the government only continues. The Minister of Foreign Affairs refuses to state where Canadian aircraft will be based. He said it is an operational detail that he is not prepared to discuss.
However, other countries have been told where their forces are stationed. For that matter, Canada has always revealed where its aircraft have been based in past conflicts. Why the refusal to provide this information now?
In one breath the Minister of Foreign Affairs insisted that Canadian Forces will be under the command of the Chief of the Defence Staff of our country, but he said in the next interview that it will be “working under the leadership of the United States”. What is that supposed to mean?
Just as the Prime Minister has refused to provide clear information about the mission, he has been unable to clearly explain the mission's goals. We are a long way from the boast of the minister at the beginning of his remarks today.
On September 30, when asked how he would define victory in Iraq, the Prime Minister said that ISIS was planning attacks “against large populations in the region” and “against this country”, Canada. He said Canada would “work with our allies on a counterterrorism operation to get us to the point where this organization does not have the capacity to launch those kinds of attacks.”
However, in his speech to the House last Friday, the Prime Minister was already walking back on that description of his goals. Then he said we needed only to “degrade the capabilities of ISIL”, specifically their ability to conduct large-scale military movements and operate in the open.
This weekend, the Minister of Foreign Affairs lowered expectations even further, saying that if they could “contain this problem, stop it growing”, that alone would be a “significant accomplishment”.
Inaccurate information and shifting definitions of success have been the hallmarks of the American war in Iraq since the invasion began.
Remember the United States has been in this conflict for over 10 years. It has been fighting ISIS, under one name or another, for over 10 years. While ISIS has renamed itself several times since 2004—al Qaeda in Iraq, the Mujahideen Shura Council, the Islamic State of Iraq, and al-Sham, Syria—it is literally the same insurgent group that U.S. forces have been battling for over a decade. Why does the Prime Minister think he can use military force to accomplish what others have been trying unsuccessfully to do since 2003?
The Prime Minister has twice insisted in this House that the mission will not become a “quagmire”. It is his word, and he keeps using it over and over again, saying that it will not be a “quagmire”. Wìth the Prime Minister throwing around the word quagmire multiple times when this mission has barely begun, let me be honest, we do not think it bodes very well.
This weekend on The West Block with Tom Clark, the Minister of Foreign Affairs was already contemplating returning to the House of Commons for another extension after the next six months, planning for the next escalation before this one has even begun, before it has even been voted on in Parliament.
Robert Fowler, Canada's longest-serving ambassador to the UN and adviser to three Prime Ministers on foreign policy, said, “Our coalition's mission will inevitably creep.... [we] will bomb evermore. ...predators will hunt more widely and more indiscriminately.... [we] will kill and maim many, many more innocent civilians than the caliphate could behead in its wildest dreams.”
In fact, the Prime Minister has already acknowledged that he is prepared to extend the bombing to Syria. What is more, the Prime Minister has even set the bizarre and distasteful standard that he will launch air strikes against ISIS targets in Syria if asked to do so by the regime of brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad. The list of Assad's own atrocities is almost unspeakable, and we find it reprehensible that the Prime Minister would give him any credibility at all, much less a voice in determining what our brave women and men in uniform do to defend our country.
Let us look at a list of those atrocities from official sites. Assad's attacks are ongoing. The United Nations has noted that there were 29 massacres by forces loyal to Assad in 2014 alone.
There has been the use of chemical weapons. The attack in the Ghouta area of Damascus is the most significant confirmed use of chemical weapons against civilians since 1988 and the worse use of weapons of mass destruction in the 21st century. The United States estimates that just under 1,500 civilians were killed.
There has been the indiscriminate use of barrel bombs. Syrian government forces have dropped barrel bombs on civilian areas, including hospitals and schools, with devastating results. Some believe that barrel bomb attacks have contained the chemical agent chlorine in eight incidents in April 2014.
There has been the targeting of civilians by snipers, including children and pregnant women. There has been the targeting of doctors, nurses, paramedics, hospitals, ambulances and pharmacies for attacks.
There has been the systematic torture and deaths of detainees. As many as 11,000 people in jails have been killed between March 2011 and August 2013. Assad's forces systematically arrest wounded patients in state hospitals to interrogate them, often using torture, about their supposed participation in opposition demonstrations or armed activities.
There have been summary executions and extrajudicial killings, including the massacre at Houla, where over 100 civilians were killed, half of them children, and entire families were shot dead in their homes.
There has been sexual violence against women, men and children in detention to degrade and humiliate detainees. Women and children have been sexually assaulted during home raids and ground operations.
Starvation has been used as a weapon of war with at least 128 civilians starved to death in a besieged refugee camp near Damascus in 2014. Of the camp's 18,000 to 20,000 civilians, 60% suffered from malnourishment as of the spring of this year.
In his speech in the House on Friday, the Prime Minister of Canada said that if the person responsible for those atrocities makes the request, he, the Prime Minister of Canada, will answer positively. We find that shameful.
This is among the many reasons that so many of our allies have expressed concern with so many elements of this mission. This mission has no mandate from the UN and no mandate from NATO. The Prime Minister and the foreign minister have listed some of our traditional allies that are participating, such as Great Britain, Germany, Italy and Denmark. However, Britain and Denmark refuse to engage in bombing in Syria, even if Bashar al-Assad asks them. Italy and Germany have rejected any involvement in the combat mission altogether.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has tried to cover for the serious questions being raised about this mission. This weekend he claimed:
...the Security Council has been seized with this issue and has passed a resolution unanimously with respect to the operation in Iraq.
That statement is outright and unquestionably false.
To quote just one source, and it is worth reading the resolution because it is quite long, The New York Times, on September 27, simply stated that the UN Security Council resolution on Iraq and Syria “does not authorize military action by any country”.
That is everyone's analysis because that is what is in the UN Security Council resolution. We cannot make it say something that it does not say.
There is overwhelming agreement here at home and abroad about the need to confront the horrors perpetrated by ISIS. However, there is no agreement that western military force is the answer.
Nearly three weeks ago the Israeli newspaper Haaretz was already reporting that ISIS had recruited more than 6,000 new fighters since the United States began its air strikes in August. At least 1,300 of these fighters come from abroad.
Alexander Panetta of the Canadian Press reports:
...the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports that five civilians were killed in airstrikes on oil refineries; two workers were killed in a Manbej grain mill; and six male civilians were killed in the southern countryside at al-Hasakah. The group says it’s aware of at least 73 people joining ISIL in the Aleppo area, in the wake of the first U.S.-led airstrikes.
Peggy Mason, the former UN ambassador for disarmament whom I quoted earlier at length, had this to say:
[The Prime Minister] and his allies are underestimating their opponents as a bunch of religious extremists bent on spreading wanton mayhem and terror....
ISIL is playing a strategical game of chess with its every move, while the West is playing military tic-tac-toe....
To date Western military action has been disastrously counterproductive.
Robert Fowler, our longest serving ambassador to the UN, as I said, who has indeed advised three prime ministers, had this to say:
[ISIS] know the propaganda value of poking sticks into American eyes, or knives into Western throats.... They know full well that ill-informed and poorly executed Western forays into “Muslim lands” have been disastrous for us—and they are anxious to lure us into further folly. They are confident that by so doing they will dramatically increase their recruiting base, their authority, and the scope and impact of their movement; and they simply do not give a damn about the numbers they will lose in the process. Truly, in their eyes, such losses are a blessing....
We have, in other words, responded in precisely the way they counted on us to do.
The German weekly Der Spiegel said, “No one knows exactly what the coalition's strategy is.”
This is what Robert Blecher, an international relations analyst, had to say:
The strikes so far have had a negative impact politically...On the ground, it is very difficult to understand where, exactly, the missiles are coming from. And it is very difficult to explain to the dominant rebel groups why Assad is not being bombed...This is creating an extremely difficult situation politically...
However, military force is not our only option. New Democrats have called on the government to dramatically increase humanitarian aid in Iraq, which at last count stands at just $28 million. I will say, though, that I was very happy to hear an announcement, which we have been calling for, for a specific sum. The sum of $5 million was mentioned for victims of sexual violence. That is a good thing that the government announced today. We wanted to say clearly and on the record that we congratulate the government for that part of its announcement today.
In one of the government's few actions to co-operate with other parties here in the House, the Minister of Foreign Affairs brought his counterparts in the opposition to Iraq. It was humanitarian aid, not air strikes, that leaders on the ground requested.
We can also help forces in the region to build the capacity to confront ISIS itself. Canada is already aiding in the shipment of weapons to Kurdish Iraqi forces. We agree with that. That is the gist of the United Nations Security Council resolution—give the Iraqis the ability to defend themselves.
It should be a priority for Canada to determine exactly which groups can be trusted with such aid. Ultimately, the solution to this tragic conflict will come from those in the region and the international community as a whole, not simply the west. There, Canada's phenomenal diplomats can play a key role.
Allow me once again to quote Peggy Mason, former UN ambassador for disarmament. She said:
We have to remember how we got to this point. Time and again in the past, we have chosen war over negotiations....
A UN mandate privileging inclusive governance and democratic reforms in concert with robust military support has been central to recent progress in Somalia and Mali. A UN mandate is also possible for effective intervention in Iraq and Syria if all necessary players, including Russia and Iran, are brought fully into the negotiations, and Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are at the core of the political strategy, not just token participants.
A comprehensive, broadly supported and UN-mandated approach is long overdue in the heretofore disastrously counterproductive war on terror. Let this enlightened approach be the basis for Canadian action in Iraq and Syria.
Robert Blecher also said that to deal with this threat, we need to offer a “political solution to Iraqi and Syrian Sunnis”.
ISIS has thrived in Iraq and Syria precisely because those countries lack stable, well-functioning governments capable of maintaining peace and security within their own borders.
Canada's first contribution should be to use every diplomatic, humanitarian and financial resource at our disposal to respond to the overwhelming human tragedy unfolding on the ground and to strengthen political institutions in both those countries. With the well-deserved credibility Canada earned by rejecting the initial ill-advised invasion of Iraq, we are in a position to take on that task.
The tragedy in Iraq and Syria will not end with another western-led invasion in that region. It will end by helping the people of Iraq and Syria to build the political institutions and security capabilities they need to oppose these threats themselves.
It is for these reasons that I move:
That Government Business No. 13 be amended:
(a) by replacing clause (iii) with the following:
(iii) accept that, unless confronted with strong and direct force from capable and enabled local forces, the threat ISIL poses to international peace and security, including to Canadian communities, will continue to grow,”; and
(b) by replacing all of the words after the word “accordingly” with the following:
“(a) call on the Government to contribute to the fight against ISIL, including military support for the transportation of weapons for a period of up to three months;
(b) call on the Government to boost humanitarian aid in areas where there would be immediate, life-saving impact, including contributing to building winterized camps for refugees; and investing in water, sanitation and hygiene, health and education for people displaced by the fighting;
(c) call on the Government to provide assistance to investigation and prosecution of war crimes;
(d) call on the Government to not deploy the Canadian Forces in combat operations;
(e) call on the Government to seek House approval for any extension of the mission, or any involvement of Canadian Forces in Syria;
(f) call on the Government to report back on the costs of the mission on a monthly basis to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs; and,
(g) continue to offer its resolute and wholehearted support to the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who stand on guard for all of us.”.