Paul Dewar

[Foreign Affairs, March 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, a Canadian citizen is stuck in our embassy in Khartoum waiting for a passport so he can come home to his family. He has suffered from imprisonment in Sudan, a country with an infamous record on torture.

The government's own documents state that if he had a plane ticket, a passport would be issued for him. Recently, 170 Canadians banded together and bought him a ticket home.

Will the government now issue a passport to Mr. Abdelrazik so he can come home to his family? According to the talking points of the parliamentary secretary, it is yes, but is it yes today?

[International Conference on Afghanistan in The Hague, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, I want to clarify for the parliamentary secretary what was stated by my colleague regarding our position. As he said, it is not the NDP position; it is something we brought to this debate. After all, that is what our jobs are. We would have people who had already done this work talk to people in the neighbourhood who understand and who would be looking to the better interests of Afghanistan and not to undermine peace and stability. As I mentioned in my speech, it is people like Mr. Brahimi who could do that. He knows that Bonn was coordinated by Mr. Brahimi. Is he saying that he does not think Mr. Brahimi is a good person to do the job? I do not think so. Does he think that this would not be under the auspices of the UN? I do not think so.

I want to clarify for him that our position is to advance this idea. It is an idea that has been advanced by others. He has heard it at committee. We do not have to subscribe to just having a Canadian envoy. We believe there are enough envoys in Kabul right now. What we do need is a Canadian idea to bring to the table, as my colleague from Newfoundland has said, to advance the prospect of peace and diplomacy and continue the Canadian tradition of diplomacy.

Our role here is to convince the government to make sure we have something to bring to the table in The Hague. What we are bringing to the table is the idea of more diplomacy under the auspices of the UN to advance the cause of peace in Afghanistan.

[International Conference on Afghanistan in The Hague, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's contribution tonight.

When we look at the case of Afghanistan, clearly the problems did not begin just in 2001. The problems were around before that. He mentioned the health concerns and the contributions of the world in the past to deal with some of those issues, like polio, where a lot of progress has been made. In fact, progress has been made in areas under Taliban control.

I want to refer to the UN reports about the success in fighting polio in the past. The 1999 report underlines various things such as the concerns for human rights, conflict, what should be done about opium and the progress of women. On the progress of fighting polio, 3.5 million children of the age of five and under have been treated, and that is good. We have made progress in these areas and we continue to do that.

I am underlining this because these attempts have been made before. The result in the end was not stability. The result was that we still had a problem in the country. When I refer to the 1999 report, all the progress that had been made was been lost because the world community did not stay engaged to ensure stability.

Therefore, notwithstanding our lauding of our projects, at the end of the day, and he intimated this at the end of his comments, it matters not that Canada can do good work right now. More important, it matters that the work remains. To do that, does the my colleague not believe that Canada should go to the next step and provide that diplomatic muscle to ensure stability?

When it goes to The Hague on Tuesday, what will Canada do to ensure that the good work done to date, the good work done in the past and the work contemplated for the future will remain so we will not find ourselves 10 years from now talking about trying to rebuild and help the people of Afghanistan yet again?

[International Conference on Afghanistan in The Hague, March 26th, 2009]

Madam Chair, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his intervention. Notwithstanding his comments about some of the things that have recently happened in Afghanistan and the importance of the men and women who are there on our behalf, he would also acknowledge that the situation has deteriorated, be it for those who are serving, and we have seen the consequences of that, or in terms of the civilian toll.

The civilian toll is up again in 2008. Security is down. Corruption is up.

He knows that our Prime Minister has acknowledged publicly on American airwaves that this is not a conflict that can be won militarily, notwithstanding his suggestion that the Conservatives have always stated that. Certainly if that were the case, I do not think that was the perception of most Canadians.

I mentioned in my own comments that thankfully the rhetoric has toned down when people put forward other ideas.

I am honestly trying to get from the parliamentary secretary his own view and the government's view. In light of the fact that we are going to The Hague to engage with other partners, is he saying that it is steady as she goes, that we do not really have anything new to offer?

If that is the case, fine. That is a straightforward position. It would be a surprising one and an unfortunate one for most Canadians, but is he saying basically that we will just stick to our knitting, things are fine, Canada has done everything well, and when we go to The Hague we will just tell everyone what a great job we are doing, so do what Canada is doing and we will get out of this conflict? Is that his position, or is there something else that we will hear from Canada in The Hague on Tuesday?

[International Conference on Afghanistan in The Hague, March 26th, 2009]

Madam Chair, in the Bonn conference, which was critical in pulling together all the disparate groups that wanted to help out with post-Taliban Afghanistan, one thing was absolutely critical, and that was the coordination of all resources. It remains a challenge. We know there are different focuses in different parts of Afghanistan. We know this has been problematic and we know it is not just with the military mission, but also development.

One thing done at Bonn, which people are looking to happen in The Hague and which is much of the reason for the debate tonight, is there would be some ideas put forward on how the region could stabilize and therefore Afghanistan stabilize. In my comments I quoted Mr. Brahimi who was the architect of Bonn, as the parliamentary secretary would know. He said that unless Pakistan decided it died not want peace in Afghanistan, there would be no peace. There needs to be a regional approach to this reconciliation.

Does the parliamentary secretary and his government see any value in promoting a process where we have persons who are able to talk to members within the neighbourhood, to look to set up a regional table and to ensure the work is done? If we do not talk to members in the neighbourhood, then there is no stability in the region. Does he not think that is an important thing to do and that Canada should be pushing that issue? Never mind if he believes in the approach I mentioned before of an eminent persons group, but just the analysis. Bonn was to bring everyone together. In The Hague we need to not only bring people together, but also coordinate efforts in the region to set a table so we can start to look for solutions for it and stability in the region.

[International Conference on Afghanistan in The Hague, March 26th, 2009]

Madam Chair, in civil society, many other groups have come forward and said that they would like to see Canada go this route. In fact, not just the group she mentioned but eminent persons and institutions like the Norman Paterson School have advocated that. In fact, at committee, my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, heard Mr. Hampson advocate this approach. We listen carefully to people who advocate this. They are specialists in the field. That is why this makes sense, not only to us but to other people.

We would hope the government has big ears and is listening tonight.

[International Conference on Afghanistan in The Hague, March 26th, 2009]

Madam Chair, I will clarify a couple of things. What I read into the record was to remind the government of what it committed to, and that is why what we are proposing fits within that frame. Also, we amended the motion that was voted against by the government, which is its right. We did not just vote against its motion; we amended its motion and it was defeated. We were keeping that component of the government's motion in our motion, just to be clear, because we believe in that.

We believe that Canada's role and that of the envoy to help with coordination of diplomacy is important. To be very clear about the clear, hold strategy, this would be exactly what needs to happen as we look toward reconciliation and negotiations. The idea that we are letting the Taliban run loose, the news flash is that is what is happening. What is not happening is the clear, hold and then being able to develop to the extent we want.

The government acknowledges it in its own reporting. This would be in tandem. This is not the position of the NDP. Neither is the eminent persons group idea. These are ideas that have come forward and we are simply advancing them. They have come forward at the foreign affairs committee. The eminent persons group has been put forward by many other groups. It was not the NDP that came up with this on its own. We advanced the idea that was brought forward by others, as is the military strategy of clear, hold, as these very difficult and important next steps to reconciliation happen. That is where we have to go.

As long as people acknowledge, quite rightly, that this is not something we can win militarily, now we have to advance ideas that are outside of what we have been advancing before. That is why we have been listening to others and advancing those ideas. Quite frankly, that is what the debate should be about.

[International Conference on Afghanistan in The Hague, March 26th, 2009]

Madam Chair, I think most Canadians are proud of our country's history and our values on the international stage. They are confused about where Canada is right now. They want to see Canada take a leadership role in what the Prime Minister has admitted is a conflict that cannot be won militarily. If it cannot be won militarily, then it obviously leaves another option that needs to be more fully exercised, and that is diplomacy.

We are the country of diplomacy. We are the country of multilateral approaches. We are the country that people used to turn to for reconciliation and peace building. We do not want to lose that. The government has an opportunity to regain that reputation, but more important, to put on the world stage a solution and some resources behind that to go to the next stage when it comes to Afghanistan.

The Americans need that support now. Canada can provide it. That is what we should be doing.

[International Conference on Afghanistan in The Hague, March 26th, 2009]

Madam Chair, there is some confusion but it is in the comments of my colleague across the way. I think what he was trying to get at is he wonders where this eminent persons group would fit within the context of the Canadian policy.

I want to read into the record the following:

That Canada should assert a stronger and more disciplined diplomatic position regarding Afghanistan and the regional players, including support for the naming of a special enjoy to the region who could both ensure greater coherence in all diplomatic initiatives in the region and also press for greater coordination amongst our partners in the UN in the pursuit of common diplomatic goals in the region.

That motion was passed by the House of Commons on March 13 last year.

I would ask the government to read its own motion and to understand that the next steps that we need to contemplate are to make sure that there is coherence from Canada on our diplomatic initiative.

I listened very carefully to the minister. At committee today was Mr. David Mulroney and we wanted to know where we are going. In 2011 the military mission will be done. That is around the corner. We have to prepare the steps for what Canada will do after.

Is the government saying that that is it? Are we going to try to train a couple of people and that is it? Canada can do better. Canada should do better. On this side of the House, the New Democratic Party believes Canada should be offering solutions to the UN. I suggest that we even have a Canadian do that, not as an envoy just to serve Canada's interests, but as a process that could serve the interests of the UN and the interests of the region.

I think this is a positive proposition, not just simply an opposition. I think that is what most people want to see.

[International Conference on Afghanistan in The Hague, March 26th, 2009]

Madam Chair, I thank the government for allowing us this time, something that the NDP had asked for, to debate this issue before the important conference in The Hague.

I want to say at the outset that my colleagues and I acknowledge the profound sacrifice of those Canadians who have lost their lives and those who have been wounded since we have been engaged in Afghanistan. We will forever be indebted to them and their families.

As our military role in Afghanistan nears its end, Canada, like NATO as a whole, stands at a crossroad. Both as individual nations and collectively as an international community, we must decide the shape of our future engagement.

I believe there is unanimity in Parliament and with all parties that our combat role in Afghanistan should end in 2011. With that certainty in mind, I believe consensus is now forming in Canada that we must remain involved in the region and, furthermore, that we should choose a more robust diplomatic role. Fortunately, common sense is finally overcoming rhetoric. Gone are the hot speeches boasting about obliterating the Taliban and quickly installing a fully formed democratic state in our own image.

On a personal note, we have come a long way since my party's recommendation for a peace process in Afghanistan was met with vitriol, characterized as naive at best and pro-Taliban at worst. In fact, a recent major study on counter insurgency operations conducted by our own Department of National Defence conceded that “Insurgency is a political problem. The mere attrition of insurgents is highly unlikely to result in their defeat”.

Even our Prime Minister admitted recently, “We are never going to defeat the insurgency”.

Many around the world are now looking for a way out of the quagmire and a resolution that stabilizes conditions in Afghanistan and the surrounding region. President Obama's appointment of Mr. Holbrook as his envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan speaks to the new administration's desire to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, even though in the interim we shall see a surge in U.S. troop presence.

Clearly, a new realism about a long term strategic approach is growing internationally. We are seeing a new will emerging among countries to turn the page and move forward with a more progressive policy on Afghanistan. We seem to be learning from our mistakes, recognizing the inherent limits of using force solely to address a situation that has its roots in complex regional politics, economics and history.

Here in Canada, we need a post-2011 plan and we need to start now. We do not have that clearly articulated, so I welcome the opportunity to debate this and share ideas.

Within the mission, the real challenge is that we lack a common strategic vision. We hear this at NATO and we hear it at the UN. Therefore, the effort to come together on an assessment and a strategy for Afghanistan is due.

That is why I am delighted with Secretary Clinton's initiative for the conference in The Hague next week. This conference is the first step for such a strategic review. I am encouraged with the fact that the conference will take place under the auspices of the United Nations, the body best suited for pursuing a diplomatic approach to Afghanistan.

We must, of course, be mindful that for any peace initiative to work, informal discussions need to take place first, as soon as possible, to prepare the ground, to identify regional partners and to discover and test new political ideas and solutions. We must engage, in other words.

However, there are many challenges to engagement. To begin with, how we identify willing participants, and then there are the regional issues, particularly the role of Pakistan. Pakistan is the key to peace in Afghanistan. As Mr. Bahini recently said, “Whether anybody likes it or not, if Pakistan says there shouldn't peace in Afghanistan, there will be no peace in Afghanistan”.

I believe Canada is well placed to take the lead in getting this new engagement under way. I would like the government to advocate for an eminent persons group that could take on the challenges to engagement. By expanding our diplomatic efforts in creative new ways, we can help play a leadership role in defining the strategy for a new diplomatic approach in the Afghan conflict.

To that end, Canada must and should promote the establishment of a group of eminent persons, something we could promote in The Hague next week. The group could be composed of international figures of the calibre of former UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, and former permanent observer of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to the United Nations, Mokhtar Lamani, who, I proudly note, is a Canadian. Such individuals possess credibility and respect in the region. They understand the challenges. They have the contacts and the experience necessary to open new avenues of dialogue with key constituents and affected parties.

In this initiative, personalities matter. For instance, Mokhtar Lamani has already worked with Lakhdar Brahimi. They travelled to Afghanistan and the region during the rule of the Taliban in 1998. His deep knowledge of the political landscape is invaluable. His opinion is often sought out in Washington on issues related to the Islamic world. Experts like Mokhtar Lamani could hit the ground running.

There is a real need for a balanced respected group that could plan the next steps in Afghanistan. Canada could be taking an active role in the establishment of such a group because it has experience on the ground.

An advisory group, although a Canadian initiative, could function independently of Canada's part of the UN led efforts for peace building in the region. Establishing such a group of eminent persons could be a major Canadian contribution to the UN led peace process. It would signal a new approach and play a key part in the political surge, as was called for by Mr. Eide, the UN Secretary-General's special representative to Afghanistan.

Canada could seize the opportunity to broaden the scope of diplomatic engagement with other external actors and neighbours, including Iran. The group could act to ensure that any peace process was inclusive of the government and people of Afghanistan, in particular, women and their civil society representatives, not just warring factions and regional power players. The group would take on an informal approach, preparing, in UN terms, non-papers on issues and subjects that the different countries and the alliance and beyond would have to wrap their minds around.

Another advantage of the approach is the group could speak to those whom our official envoys might find unpalatable or difficult to speak with. This would not be easy. We know it would be hard, but there are no easy paths forward.

The outstanding question is what military approach is required to complement the diplomatic overtures. A reoriented political offensive focused on diplomatic peace making would require a reoriented military force in the south focused entirely on a defensive strategy of protection. In effect, it would hold the ground not yet under Taliban control while the foundations for formal negotiations were being laid, and with a view to preparing the way for a new robust stabilization force under a new different command, ideally with more significant Muslim participation.

Participation for military reorientation has to happen at the same time as informal discussions for political solutions to take place. While Canadian Forces will not be able to participate in the military reorientation after 2011, we can play and hope we will play a constructive role in other areas.

Frankly, we have carried more than our share of the military burden. Canadians were sent to Afghanistan with pride. They have acted with courage, strength and determination. However, there are serious concerns in Canada about their burnout, force regeneration at home, not to mention the urgent need to control the expanding military costs in favour of our other important non-military priorities both in Canada and in Afghanistan.

Canada's post-combat role in Afghanistan has to focus on cooperating and strengthening the multinational, multilateral diplomatic approach to the conflict. Only in this way can we move toward lasting peace and stability in the region.

In closing, without a focused framework and diplomatic creativity and muscle, all of the human and financial sacrifices will have been lost. Instead, we will be faced with more conflict and instability threatening the peace and security of nations around the globe, including all of those that will be at the conference on Tuesday.

Canada could help set the table for a diplomatic process led by a group of eminent persons helping lead the way to the formulation of a UN led regional contact group, making it possible to achieve substantive progress toward political stability in the region and to lasting peace further down the road.