Maxime Bernier Addresses The UN
Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier addressed the United Nations today, and in a ten minute speech said that a ‘high level special envoy to Afghanistan’ is a crucial to help stabilize and reconstitute the nation, claiming further than no one nation could do it alone.
I would first like to point out that no one nation is currently doing it alone. There are, at present, 26 different nations that are a part of ISAF.
In his speech, Bernier said…
“Democracy and political stability cannot develop in a climate of terror.”
Nor can it be achieved through foreign occupation and manipulation, as history has proven out time and again - not to mention the fact that the current military infrastructure of the country itself is replete with former Northern Alliance commanders.
Being that the United Nations just released figures that indicate that 2007 has been the most violent year in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001, it would seem that the problem of stability has only worsened and diversified. The country has been occupied for six years, and little has significantly changed with regards to instability. In fact, the Taliban has only grown in size and strength since the 2001 invasion. Afghanistan also remains one of the world’s poorest nations, with many of its inhabitants reliant on poppy production, a living that, despite international condemnation, is one of the very few available to many of them – and even then, the majority still subside on next to nothing a day.
Since the invasion in 2001, and subsequent occupation, empty victories have been championed by Western powers, such as the national elections that placed Hamid Karzai in power. Since then, his government has been wholly ineffectual and, in truth, only still exists because of the presence of foreign forces. Given that reality, how can it truthfully be said that democracy exists in Afghanistan? Television screens were blanketed when the elections took place, a sure sign that things were improving. But, as in Iraq, they have done nothing to seriously suggest that anything but foreign imposition has led to the implementation of democratic ideals. In truth, the parallels between its imposition and that of Communism in the late 70’s are similarly eerie with regards to their impact on the Afghan population as a whole.
Bernier went on to state…
“…Canada demonstrates its values of freedom, democracy, human rights and rule of law in all of its international duties, and especially in the Afghan mission.”
Except when it comes to transferring detainees to known torturers, or, for that matter, murdering Somali captives.
As for the rule of law, it has been argued by some of the world’s foremost international legal experts that the invasion itself constituted an internationally illegal act, so take that as you will.
Bernier continues…
“The challenges are great — we all know that — but the principles we defend are even greater.”
Were our principles of considerable import with regards to Afghanistan, we would have invaded it in the late 90’s to stop the atrocities occurring there. But we did not, nor did we think it any of our business at the time. Nor did the United States for that matter. Not until 9/11 did it become something of immense import, which lends credence to the fact that we are little more than a US proxy, just as the British and others are. After the invasion of Iraq, and the redeployment of US assets to that theatre, our military ‘importance’ increased, and yet many Canadians refuse to seriously connect the dots, choosing instead to buy into a very limited view of our participation.
Speaking further about Canadian principles, Bernier also said…
“Promoting them is not enough. They need to be protected, particularly when under attack.”
If that’s the case, then the Canadian Armed Forces should be deployed in more countries than I currently have time to name. And that’s a point that shouldn’t be lost on anyone. If that’s the case, an invasion of Waziristan is in order, not to mention the dissolution of the Pakistani ISI. If that’s the case then similar action should be taken against any nation, ally or not, that allows the existence of radical militant groups within their borders or allows terrorist cells to export fighters to foreign locales, such as is the case regarding Saudi fighters joining Salafi Jihadi groups in Iraq.
Efforts to confront and destroy al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and along its borders, have been turned into a wholly different effort, one in which antiquated propaganda has been employed to suggest that a world war is currently being waged. Given that what is transpiring in Afghanistan is an asymmetric war against a guerrilla force, it hardly constitutes anything remotely resembling a battle to protect our nation or our way of life – just as Vietnam was not a war waged to defend the United States or preserve the American way of life. Were that the case, given that the US lost that war, one would think that Vietnamese Communists would be occupying the Capital building at the moment.
If the destruction of the Taliban is of such paramount importance, then why has Hamid Karzai’s government invited them to take part in the political process? Obviously, given that it has extended the invitation, amnesty must also be on the table. Given our perspective, we must thusly ask ourselves – why are ‘terrorists’ being offered anything at all?
Of course, there is a chance that Karzai’s government knows full well that the Taliban will refuse to participate until foreign forces leave the country, which is a round about way of ensuring they remain, not to mention that the Taliban also have stipulations regarding the implementation of Sharia law – also counter to the principles of a secularist democracy. It’s an offer, given their ideology, that the Taliban can’t accept, or at least not at present. And while the possibility that some latitude could exist with regards to the latter of the two stipulations, it is highly improbable that they would ever agree to participate in any process while foreign forces were still in the country and held sway over elements of the current government.
What began as an invasion of retribution has now become a quagmire that, in truth, dwarfs that of Iraq. Even though the war in Iraq has produced more civilian deaths, it differs from Afghanistan in that those now facing NATO forces there have decades of experience fighting conventional forces in a terrain that they have mastered the art of exploiting to their advantage.
Ultimately, what would a special UN envoy accomplish? What is needed right now are hard choices to be made with regards to reconciliation and a long, hard look at the historical, cultural, and religious aspects of Afghan society. Until this matter is approach in such a way, what we have witnessed over the last six years will continue, perhaps even worsen. On top of that there is also the disillusionment of the Afghan people to take into account as well. As time drags on, and significant changes do not materialize, the people’s faith will, as is always the case, begin to wane. And when that happens, enemy number one always becomes those that have intruded, not the other way around.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 2nd, 2007 at 3:57 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Welcome back Hal Jordan…Green Lantern 1%er?
Anyone?
No?
Well as I carefully take 3 careful steps back from my self-proclaimed nerd-dom -
“Ultimately, what would a special UN envoy accomplish? What is needed right now are hard choices to be made with regards to reconciliation and a long, hard look at the historical, cultural, and religious aspects of Afghan society.”
It may be worth considering a UN envoy in the absence of an occupying invading force would compliment the efforts of reconciliation. Well, at least more so than a two-tiered US/NATO command structure. Though the later would have to be removed 1st for the former to initiate with any semblance of trust from the locals and insurgents.
The UN counts civilian casualties from both sides at 600 thus far. With the Taliban putting forth their own campaigns of anti-NATO sentiment in opportunities that arise - such as with the possible killing of two religious leaders earlier in the week - opinion towards winning hearts and minds is doing anything but.
Senlis discovering failures and possible misappropriation of funds towards reconstruction.
So..
“Until this matter is approach in such a way, what we have witnessed over the last six years will continue, perhaps even worsen”
I would nearly guarantee it!
“As time drags on, and significant changes do not materialize, the people’s faith will, as is always the case, begin to wane.”
I’d say again - as with the possibly botched raid and the subsequent “Death to Canadians and Death to Foreigners” chants from protesters - it’s waned and then some.
And I read this on your blog yesterday…how topical (breaking Tony’s cardinal rule of quoting my own stuff in your thread)
“Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Should Canadian troops, if in Afghanistan, capture a member of the Taliban leadership or a member of al-Qaeda, is it the policy or intent of the Government of Canada that such an individual, or group of individuals, would be brought back to Canada for trial, or is it the policy that such captives would be turned over to the Americans?
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, we would ensure that all international conventions to which we are a signatory are respected. To my knowledge, we have signed all conventions with respect to the capture and treatment of prisoners. We would adhere absolutely to the international conventions that we have signed in this regard.”
So are you back to weighing in on the subject regularly? - cuz you’re better at it….you can do it w/o pictures even!
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:29 pm
A really insightful article Matthew, I hope more Canadians start to look beyond the rhetoric coming out of our government to prolong a war that we have no real hope of winning.
The Taliban has strong local support in the Pushtun dominated south and the Karzai government represents nothing more than its own limited self-interests. I’m sure there’s been some top media firms employed to put a positive spin on “democracy and freedom” in Afghanistan, but the fact is Canadian troops are being used in a factional fight with neither side being able to claim the moral high ground.
Also turning over locals captured by our forces puts our soldiers lives in jeopardy as the area we’re operating is a tribal society where honor and revenge are a vital part of life. Every son, father, uncle, cousin, etc… we send to probable torture by the Karzai government only adds to the resentment that already exists for us just being there.
As you say Afghanistan is the last place in the world a foreign army wants to be fighting an insurgentcy. Even the Soviet Army at the height of its power couldn’t destroy the Afghanis will to resist, the limited NATO effort and incompetent Afghani army aren’t going to win a military campaign there.
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:00 pm
When will Canadians begin to connect the dots indeed.
Very well said Matt.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:04 pm
I appreciate the comments of all of you. I do find it odd, however, after spending over 15 months in Kandahar on two different tours that when I return, every Canadian is somehow allowed an opinion on Afghanistan regardless of their knowledge base, and yet only experts are allowed to comment on income trusts, dollar parity, or high-risk mortagages. I’ll never disagree with your rights to give an opinion - hell, I’ll even fight for it. But I’m getting a little tired with posts like this, or the guy in the pool today who bothered me while I was trying to do lengths to explain to me (and incorrectly, I might add) the significance of the Durand Line and why that led to British defeat in Afghanistan. The Greeks invented democracy for those with informed opinions. I’m usually very impressed with the tone and the sophistication of the discussion on this page, but it has so far proven woefully uninformed regarding Afghanistan. .
The fact is, we as a nation have made a commitment to a small corner of the 4th poorest country in the world. Kandahar Province has a population less than most major Canadian cities, and unlike the British and Russians before us, the people overwhelmingly want us there, and they will suffer more if we leave. The insurgency does not have the support of the large bulk of the population. It is an insurgency aided and abetted by outside agencies and nations.
Is there realpolitik involved in choosing this country at this time? Damn right there is - only the completely naive would propose otherwise. I hope we do deploy to Africa someday; a small force of Canadian soldiers could do a lot of good there. But we’re not there, we’re in Afghanistan, and our current mission is a righteous one by any Just War definition. Believe me, most Canadian soldiers want no part in causing civilian deaths. I remember pulling my car off to the side of the road and bawling my eyes out while listening to “While We Were Hunting Rabbits,” because for whatever reason I associated it with two children who I had known who had been killed by a BLU-97 scatterable munition near the end of my tour in 2002. But I do know that we have exercised extreme caution; Canadian soldiers have not been responsible for any “Blackwater” type incidents, despite the fact they face a 3-4 times higher chance of death of mutilation than do American soldiers and contractors in Iraq.
The Taliban did a lot of good in Afghanistan before their untimely ouster; they eradicated the trade in pederasty which plagues southern Afghanistan, and they clamped down on a drug trade which has exploded since their expulsion from power. However, the Afghanistan of pre-9/11 was not a good place; just before the bombing started, the Taliban had expelled most IOs, and according to the WFP, the country was on the verge of massive starvation. I would urge all of you to read Sarah Chayes’ “The Punishment of Virtue”. It gives the best account of western involvement in Kandahar Province; she’s also a lefty NPR reporter who is extremely hard on NATO and ISAF. She’s often right in her critique, but she knows the place would be complete hell without us.
Thanks so much, and I appreciate the passion and compassion that most of you bring to the discussion.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:37 am
We do have a small contingents in Africa already Sunking. Much like Afghanistan it’s the employment there of that is lacking.
With all due respect, and I mean that, what is your point? Are you saying that based on “promise” or your ability to speak for the opinion of a country that the prolonged reinforcement of current policy is the only option that should be considered?
Everything is fine. Accept it? I’ve got two tours - trust me?
I have a question for you - from one solider to another - have the efforts of ISAF or the US produced results that suggest there has been a moving forward towards the desired endstate?
The process of the training of ANA is slow and staggered at best - if moving in the right direction at all.
The Senlis group’s findings suggest that reconstruction has not been moving as far along as originally planned. It was shortly after those findings that we began to hear the similar fear-mongering warnings from Karzai and the MND that if we leave the terrorists will follow to Canada.
The Taliban has recently shown an ability to seize the initiative in pitched battles via conventional means - prompting parliament to discuss the need for an increase of rotary wing/air moblie (which did wonders for the Soviets).
While they don’t represent the majority of the country and a lot of the support is from outside nations I don’t think you can speak on behalf of the entire nation about the desire to have a foreign occupation or not.
You speak as though two tours gives you some inside knowledge that others on the site don’t have but I would argue that every tour is different. I am mildly surprised that you can’t look at one tour from 2002 and another at a later time and not say to yourself - “where have we come from and where are we are on the trace in relation to our objective.”
Lots of non-experts discuss income trusts, and dollar parity -The fact that this site doesn’t focus on those subjects doesn’t make it not so…. maybe you’re just not hanging in those circles.
Lastly, I respect your experience and your opinion, but if you’re going to launch your opinion in such a condescending way - in that you grow so tired of posts like these - then why bother at all reading them at all. What you’d fight for an opinion as long as that opinion is yours. Talk about back handed there, soldier.
Nobody here has questioned the determination, professionalism, or intent to do right in Afghanistan of the soldiers of the CF. Nobody is championing the Taliban control in absence of Canada. It is the how that is being criticized - and the lack of relative success with means currently in place.
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:57 am
Thank you for your post, SunKing. For whatever reason, Canadians seem to be taking up positions held by Americans regarding Iraq; liberals want us out yesterday and conservatives want us to stay. The only problem is that they are very different nations facing very different circumstances.
I have a friend who has served in Afghanistan and he said the same thing regarding the want and need for us there by those in Afghanistan. Hell, Canadian troops have their reputation for very good reasons - with one of those reasons being the stellar training we employ. But I digress.
I don’t think that we ought to have entered Afghanistan initially, but there is no legislation that can be passed which’ll change that. We are there now and a sudden pullout would be selfish on our part considering the damage it would inevitably do. Frankly, I would be happy with a plan that involved us pulling out of Afghanistan over a period of six months to a year. Let soldiers finish their tours and come up with a plan to further restore power to the Afghani people.
And Patrick, I believe your assumption of tone is doing more harm than good. By projecting, you’ve actually come across as the hostile one - not SunKing (in my opinion).
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:12 am
Patrick,
Thanks so much for your response. First, condescion was not the intent of my tone; weariness and frustration, yes. But if that’s how you took it, my apologies. Quickly, as I’ve got to get going.
First, your damn right I’ve felt momemts of frustration at the lack of progress in Kandahar, as I returned nearly four years after my first tour, when we were flush with optimism. However, that lack of progress is not because of ISAF and OEF; it is because of a resurgent insurgency. Many things have improved. Trade is up, there is a burgeoning middle class, and Kandaharis are becoming more educated and knowledgeable, largely through the availability of media like cellphones and the internet.
Second, don’t depend on the Senlis Council for any views of Afghanistan. The reason they get very little coverage in most mainstream media back here in Canada is that there is reasonably well-supported suspicion that they are funded and directed by European pharmaceutical companies; it’s an opinion I have to second, after I went through their opium control strategy backwards and forwards. Well intentioned at first glance, but ludicrous at further investigation. Considering we can’t control/develop a legitmate police force in southern Afghanistan, how would we ever control state-run poppy production?
Third, I would recommend the following sources for a more rounded view of Western intervention in Afghanistan: “The Taliban,” by Ahmed Rashid, the aforementioned “Punishment of Virtue” by Sarah Chayes, and “Enduring the Freedom,” by Canadian scholar Sean Maloney.
Fourth, Afghanistan is not Iraq. The latter has unfortunately sullied the legitmacy of the former; it has also meant there are not enough Western soldiers available to properly do the first.
Thanks, and take care.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Of course[quote comment="27939"]I appreciate the comments of all of you.
I do find it odd, however, after spending over 15 months in Kandahar on two different tours that when I return, every Canadian is somehow allowed an opinion on Afghanistan regardless of their knowledge base, and yet only experts are allowed to comment on income trusts, dollar parity, or high-risk mortagages. I’ll never disagree with your rights to give an opinion - hell, I’ll even fight for it. But I’m getting a little tired with posts like this, or the guy in the pool today who bothered me while I was trying to do lengths to explain to me (and incorrectly, I might add) the significance of the Durand Line and why that led to British defeat in Afghanistan. The Greeks invented democracy for those with informed opinions.[/quote]
It’s hard for average Canadians to get an honest take on the Afghanistan mission, partly due to a CF and Canadian government information campaign that was directed at both the Taliban and the Canadian people to advocate our use of force. It says something about the approach the Harper government is taking when the citizenship of this country is being included in with the force we’re supposed to be fighting against.
As for claiming that the Taliban is supported by outside forces there’s an element of truth to that, the Pakistan ISI has deep ties with it. The Taliban also has strong internal support from the significant proportion of traditonalist Muslims that don’t want to have our way of life imposed on them. The Karzai government has it’s own foreign entanglements that compromize it’s ability to responsibly govern the country. Just because those connection are more in line with what we find acceptable here in the west doesn’t mean they are appropriate for Afghanistan.
Members of the Karzai government have records of serious war crimes, something they have been attempting to be officially pardoned of. The Afghani government has a long record of humans rights abuses something Canada has become indirectly involved with by turning prisoners over to it. Karzai himself has a questionable history with links to the CIA and western oil companies, as with Iraq, the Afghanistan mission is seen by many as more corporate imperialism.
Clearly there are deep questions to be asked about the Afghanistan mission and those who claim we’re somehow on the side of right are misrepresenting a very complex and ugly conflict that isn’t going to be resolved by the use of force.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Sunking I emailed you. If you got it write me back. Would like to get some of your thoughts off line before proceeding here..
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Patrick,
Ack on receipt of your e-mail. I’ll be away for a bit, and when I get back, we’ll chat. I also acknowledge that you and I both have stuff we can’t discuss here. I appreciate and respect your comments, and I remain largely impressed by the articulate nature of the large bulk of posts here, and I tend to agree that our government has not been as vocal or clear in explaining the current mission. The Canadian voter is a smart creature, and platitudes, or attacking the patriotism of critics, does nothing for what I believe remains a legitimate, ethical, and vital (both for the Afghans, and now us as Canadians) mission. Obviously, I’m constrained on what I can and can’t say, especially on an issue like detainees, but I personally have always tried to abide by what Col Stogran always told me - never do anything in uniform you’d be ashamed to tell your mother about. Simple, but useful.
All the best, and I’ll talk to you in two weeks.
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:43 pm
[quote comment="28078"]. The Canadian voter is a smart creature, and platitudes, or attacking the patriotism of critics, does nothing for what I believe remains a legitimate, ethical, and vital (both for the Afghans, and now us as Canadians) mission.[/quote]
The nice thing about Canada is we voters don’t need the permission or even approval of the military to state our opinions about government policy, unlike other many other places in the world. Most Canadians actually prefer military personel not get involved in decisions that are the legitimate responsibility of elected officials, something General Hillier should keep in mind.
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:37 pm
What about Dallaire? Mckenzie?
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:40 pm
They weren’t trying to direct Canadian policy the way Hillier has and were involved in peacekeeper missions that were intended to stop violence, not feed into it the way we are in Afghanistan.
Like I said there’s been high level deception of the Canadian people both by our government and Forces, something that has no real place in an open society. It shouldn’t have taken facts obtained through the access to information laws to find out our government really didn’t know the fate of prisoners turned over to the Afghani government and a Canadian Forces information campaign directed at both the Taliban and Canadian people also runs against democratic traditions.
Don’t get me wrong, I support our forces, my grandfather was a vet of both world wars, but I’m deeply opposed to it being used for political purposes the way it has been under Harper in my opinion.
October 4th, 2007 at 4:26 am
Check your sources on Mckenzie my friend. You’ll rephrase that opinion of peace keeper and Mckenzie. He was there to stop genocide but he was more than willing to concede or open up the caches to move things along.
Ref your 2nd para - I agree. Though wrt to the info campaign on Canadians I think the adverse affects are more through negligence than intent. I do believe that ranger Rick thinks he is doing right and made some poor assumptions.
And I wouldn’t ever think you don’t support the CF, I’ve never read that impression from you. I think you’re pretty being responsible in yor diagnostic and critical assessments.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Mckenzie had a pretty tough mission, UNFOR never had the strength to carry out it’s mission in Bosnia. The Dutch abandoned thousands of Muslims to certain death in Srebrenica and it was always a cat and mouse game between the UN and Serb forces. At least Canada sent soldiers, although we did a poor job supporting them in the field.
I think Hillier has also been doing a poor job, he’s gotten too close to the conservatives and I think he lacks the objectivity for the job. Afghanistan is our toughest mission since Korea and we need a forces commander that’s thinking of the welfare of the troops first and formost and not the political needs of one party.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
I think Hillier is too close too - but CDS’ in Canada have traditionally been behind the scenes bureucrats. Maybe we put ourselves into that expectation.
McKenzie had a very tough mission - and back then the idea of Muslims killing themselves to make a point was unheard of.
UNPROFOR didn’t have the proper ROE’s for the mission - but I think if you dig you’ll find Lou took those matters into his own hands.
If the two were reversed I don’t think you’d find a huge difference in approach between Lou and Rick - just Lou would sell it better.
He’s very charismatic - I have coffee with him once a month.
October 4th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Canadian commanders seem to find their own distinct way to do things going all the way back to 1812. Currie pretty much invented modern infantry tactics in WW I.
Maybe i’m not giving Hillier enough credit, but then again it really pains me when we’re losing so many good people in Afghanistan and all I really care about is getting the troops back home.