Oh how times have changed. Bill Graham goes on and on about Canada's 'historic neutrality' when what he actually means is our 'fabled neutrality.' Here's a blast from the Liberal Past. The quotes are taken primarily from the debates over Canada's mission to Kandahar in November 2005 and from earlier debates on Afghanistan when Mr Bill was Minister of Defence.
On precisely why we are in Afghanistan, Mr Bill argues that it was a 'failed' or 'failing state' that could easily have become a 'narco-state'. Canadian interests demanded Canada help topple the Taliban, occupy the country and impose democracy on an unwilling people.
Mr Bill's position on Afghanistan and Kandahar raises serious questions about his call for Canadian neutrality over the crisis in Lebanon. The Afghanistan of the Taliban era and current Lebanon share many characteristics as 'failed' or 'failing' states...one of the most important is that neither actually had full political control of their respective states (Northern Alliance and Hezbollah (not to mention Syria until only recently) prevented full political control.) Another includes each state's complicity and/or inability to prevent significant, international drug operations on their own soil (both Afghanistan and Lebanon's Bekaa Valley share a common problem with the opium trade). Moreover, Keith Martin, Graham's parliamentary secretary while Graham was Defence Minister and who had the ability to speak for the minister, told Parliament specifically that Middle East instability was one reason why Canada went to Afghanistan, that is, Afghanistan's geo-political importance vis a vis Israel. He argued directly that Canada could not allow Afghanistan to become a "staging ground for terrorists", yet that's precisely what Lebanon has become.
So why are the Liberals advocating neutrality now when we were most certainly not neutral on Afghanistan?Note in the quotes below how Mr Bill says 'security and relieve suffering", that is security is integral to the process....later on he says 'peace and security' again...suggesting that the government saw the two goals as one and the same...later, during the Nov 15 debate, Mr Bill said that in Kandahar, as elsewhere, "our main concern is security, because without it there would be neither development nor assistance...Security must be our first priority." On the question of Canadian troops being involved in a counter-insurgency role, Graham told Parliament that our troops, unlike French and Spanish troops, would be 'double hatted' - meaning we would be involved in both counter-insurgency and reconstruction. He argues also that Canadian troops will have "more robust rules of engagement" than in our historic peacekeeping missions. Martin also argued that security in Afghanistan must be defined in a 'broader context' to include both defensive and offensive tactics, as well as peacekeeping and peacemaking. Thus from the beginning the Canadian troops were intended to take part in a broad scope of missions which included offensive (read counter-insurgency), defensive and reconstruction roles. There has not been any mission creep. The fact that Canadians have been involved in more combat than reconstruction speaks to the changing political and tactical situation and not the Canadian political landscape.
pc
--------------------------------------------------
Bill Graham, Thursday, October 21, 2004 - Speech to Parliament on new Defense White Paper (exerpts).On our relations with the US defense establishment..."Now, more than ever, our security and protection must be viewed in a continental context. We are stronger because we work alongside our American partners. That is why the defence policy review will examine new and innovative ways of working with the United States to defend North America from emerging threats. Internationally, the review will build on the government's multidimensional approach to foreign intervention and will examine how the Canadian forces can continue to participate in a wide variety of international operations."
---------------------------------------------------------------
On peace and security
"...The government is committed to ensuring that the Canadian Forces are prepared in all respects, that they have the training and equipment they need to perform their respective roles, both through the defence of Canada, of North America with our American allies, and in their missions abroad when called upon to do so by the government. Indeed, the past few years have seen significantly increased pressures on our forces to respond to events in many quarters of the world. Each response has carried with it its own unique set of challenges, from Afghanistan to Bosnia, from Ethiopia and Eritrea to Haiti. In rising to these challenges our forces have established an enviable record of bringing the best of Canadian values to help establish security and relieve suffering in some of the world's most troubled places.
--------------------------------
Why we are in Afghanistan and Kandahar
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Despite (signs) of hope and progress, Afghanistan could probably still be accurately described as a fragile state. Extremist insurgents continue to roam some parts of the country in an effort to regain their previous authority, terrorize the population and destabilize the government. Its economy is overwhelmingly dependent on the international narcotics trade and the country is therefore highly vulnerable to organized crime.
Afghanistan then, colleagues, is at a critical juncture today. Progress has been substantial, but the ongoing commitment of the international community is required if it is to become a peaceful, stable and prosperous country. Without a solid, long term, multifaceted international commitment, it could revert to a failed state or even become an narco-state. That is not in Canada's interest or indeed, in the interest of any state.That is why we have decided, with our NATO allies, to increase Canada's military commitment to Afghanistan over the next several months. In fact, by early next year, our military presence and role in Afghanistan will be greater and more varied than it has been to date, notwithstanding significant contributions over the past three years....
....I want to leave my colleagues with the statement that this mission to Afghanistan is consistent with Canada's new international defence policies. In fact, it is the most significant, tangible expression of these policies in action. It is, as other members have pointed out, a complex, challenging and dangerous environment and mission as the part we are going to in Afghanistan is the most unstable and dangerous in the country. Indeed, that is why we have been asked to go there with our other partners, and that is why we are going there.
---------------------------------------------------------
On the type of mission and role of Canadian Troops
...It is clear that it is not a peacekeeping mission of the Cyprus type or some of the traditional types with which members of the House would be familiar. However General Dallaire, now Senator Dallaire, and others who comment on these matters would say that everybody has agreed, particularly as a result of Rwanda, that we must have a capacity today in peacekeeping to recognize that there are situations where we must have much more robust rules of engagement than in a traditional situation and where we have to bring stability to the area if ultimately there will be peace and stability so the society can develop.
-------------------------------------
Keith Martin, former Parlimentary Secretary to Bill Graham
November 15, 2005
"...Why Afghanistan? Many comments were made earlier as to why we are half a world away. The reality is that the country is situated strategically in such an important area. It is surrounded in part by nuclear capable countries, other areas of great uncertainty, particularly the CIS states that are close by, and it is close to the Middle East which is an area of great instability.
Our forces are in Afghanistan because to allow Afghanistan to go back to being a failed state would not only be a regional disaster but an international disaster. We must not forget that the Taliban was in power and that it was an area where the Taliban was supportive of al-Qaeda, the group responsible for terrorist activities around the world. We cannot allow Afghanistan to become a staging point for terrorist activities in the region or, indeed, here in Canada.
We are in Afghanistan with troops from other countries because failed and failing states, as we know, can and do breed terrorist activities. That is what will happen in Afghanistan and that is what did happen. We as part of the international community are determined not to go back down that road..."
....(The Oppostion Member) mentioned that the purpose of the military is to deter and destroy. That is certainly part of its role but the type of asymmetric threats we face today go beyond the need simply to do that. As the former minister for international development mentioned in the House a little while ago, for a country to stabilize itself, security must be defined in a much broader context. Yes, our armed forces engage in combat and they do an excellent job. Yes, they engage in peacekeeping or peacemaking, which is war by another name. They also enable places to have security. They enable food to get to the hungry. They enable medications to get to the sick. They enable people to carry on with their lives in an area of insecurity. Our forces enable that to happen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment