January 30, 2008 - No. 12
Independent Panel on Canada's
Future Role in Afghanistan
Pro-War Manley Report --
Crude Propaganda Tool of Ruling Elites
 
  
• Pro-War
Manley Report -- Crude Propaganda Tool of Ruling Elites
• Reject the
Manley Report! Organize For An Anti-War Government! - Philip
Fernandez
• Canada Must Get Out of Afghanistan Now!
- Christine Dandenault
• The Need for Utmost
Vigilance by Canadians - Pierre Chenier
• Manley Committee's Pre-Determined
Recommendations -- Announcement of Public Hearings -
Collectif Échec à la guerre
For Your Information
• Recommendations
of the Independent Panel on Canada's Future in Afghanistan
• Key Recommendations from the Manley Report
- Shane Dingman, National Post
SUPPLEMENT
Manley Report: In the Background
• Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strike a Key Option,
NATO
Told - Ian Traynor, The Guardian
• NATO Hears 'Noise before Defeat'
- M.K.Bhadrakumar, Asia Times Online
• U.S. War on Terror Moves East -
Jim
Lobe, Inter Press Service
Independent Panel on Canada's
Future Role in Afghanistan
Pro-War Manley Report --
Crude Propaganda Tool of Ruling Elites
The content of the pro-war Manley report on "Canada's
Future Role in Afghanistan" is quite predictable. The conclusions were
provided beforehand in the terms of reference written by the federal
Party in power. The role of Manley and his handpicked panel cohorts was
to find justification for pro-war preconceived
notions and broaden them somewhat to fit the present context. And that
is what they did. The consideration from the outset was to provide
ammunition to sell aggressive war to the Canadian public and neutralize
the war as something the pro-war Liberal Party could use in the next
federal election.
The report demands that any Canadian government must
fall in step with the U.S.-led war for markets, resources and spheres
of influence in Central Asia, and provide even greater human and
material resources for that war. The report also takes up the theme
pushed by U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert
Gates that NATO allies are not doing enough and should step up to the
plate with a greater war effort. Manley in a theatrical manner
threatened that the Canadian government may lose its desire to pursue
the war if other NATO countries do not soon provide an additional 1,000
troops to subdue the people of Kandahar
province and participate more vigorously in annihilating all
Afghanistan resistance to the occupation of their homeland.
As said, the content of the report is pro-war and
predictable. It represents the views of the Canadian ruling elite and
monopoly capital that see their future and salvation from economic
failure in aggressive empire-building as an annexed mercenary of U.S.
imperialism.
What is missing? Missing from the report is the other
Canada, the anti-war Canada of the working class and its allies. Not
one anti-war Canadian worker or working class representative was a
member of the panel. No organization of the working class either trade
union or political party was invited
to give its views. No resources or time were made available for
anti-war working class organizations or individual leaders of the
working class to prepare briefs or in any way have their views made
known to the panel and have their thinking reflected in the report.
Even polls admit that about half of all Canadians are
opposed to this predatory war of aggression and occupation of
Afghanistan. Many working class organizations are on public record as
opposed to the war and want Canadian troops returned home immediately.
The views of working class organizations
and their allies opposed to the war are missing from the report,
especially the stand of political organizations such as the Communist
Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) that have denounced this rapacious
war from the very beginning. The anti-war program of the working
class missing from the report demands
at its core: unity in action behind a broad organizing campaign to
mobilize and put into power an anti-war government, which opposes in
principle and practice all imperialist wars, threats of war and war
preparations; all foreign troops out of Afghanistan now and their war
material and machines brought out with
them; Canadian war reparations be paid to the peoples of Afghanistan
for the destruction, carnage, injuries and death caused by our part of
the foreign military aggression; Canada withdraw
immediately from the aggressive military alliances NATO, NORAD and U.S.
Northern Command; and the dismantling of these alliances.
Missing from the pro-war report are the views of the
Afghanistan resistance to foreign occupation and destruction of their
ancient homeland. Afghanistan resistance to foreign aggressors dates
back millennia and is wound into the fabric of the Afghanistan peoples'
souls and thought material. No consideration
is given in the report to what the resistance thinks and wants for its
nations and peoples. To ignore the views of the resistance is typical
of imperialist aggressors and colonizers. It is easier and more
convenient to dismiss resistance fighters and their supporters as
terrorists and barbarians, and characterize the occupied
local people as incapable of renewing their institutions without
outside imperialist interference, control and dictate.
Missing also is consideration of the international rule
of law and global anti-war public opinion. The U.S.-led aggression is a
war crime and in violation of international law prohibiting the use of
force to settle disputes between states. U.S.-led predatory wars are an
assault on the peoples right to be
and their national sovereignty. People of the world want to live in
peace without threat of boycotts, embargoes, invasion and ruination by
big powers and their modern military killing machines. International
law stipulates that the use of force is only allowed in self-defence.
The rule of law and criminal courts are
the avenue to deal with criminal attacks such as occurred September 11,
2001 in New York. To use an unlawful act by individuals or groups as an
excuse to launch a predatory war and violate human rights such as rule
by exception, widespread kidnapping, torture and imprisonment without
redress is illegal and a
war crime. Such serious state-organized criminal activities and
violation of international law as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan
and the threats against Iran also cast doubt on the authenticity of
U.S. reports surrounding the original 9/11 crime and its perpetrators.
The essence of the Manley report is found in what is
missing -- the missing Canadian working class, Afghanistan resistance,
international rule of law and respect for national sovereignty and
worldwide anti-war public opinion. This absence confirms the report as
a crude propaganda tool of the Canadian
ruling elite and monopoly capital serving their bloodthirsty drive for
predatory wars to seize markets, resources and spheres of influence.
Denounce the Manley Report!
Canadian Troops Out of
Afghanistan Now!
All Out for an Anti-War Government!
Reject the Manley Report!
Organize For An Anti-War
Government!
- Philip Fernandez* -
  
The report of the Independent panel on Canada's Future
Role in Afghanistan known as the Manley Report is a work of
disinformation aimed at smashing the fighting political unity of the
Canadian people, the vast majority of whom are opposed to Canada's
participation in the war in Afghanistan and are demanding
that Canadian and all foreign troops be brought home! Instead of
bending to the will of the people and their just stand, the Harper
Conservative Government and the Liberals and to a lesser or greater
degree the other parties in the House of Commons have gone this way and
that to get the Canadian people to conciliate
with the colonial empire-building project that is the brutal war and
occupation of Afghanistan, in which tens of thousands of civilians have
been killed as "collateral damage" including through the untold damage
to housing and the country's infrastructure. The Manley Report gives
the Harper government the green
light to aggressively push his Throne
Speech agenda of making Canadian monopolies competitive in the global
economy through a foreign policy based on war, occupation and plunder
of other nations and peoples.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper commissioned this
so-called independent panel -- comprised of loyal and well-tested
spokespeople for "Canadian values" with close connections to monopolies
engaged in war production -- to produce a report whose purpose is to
justify the unjustifiable war and occupation
of Afghanistan.
Not only does the Manley Report make spurious claims
such as the U.S./NATO war against Afghanistan being "sanctioned by the
UN Security Council" and therefore legitimate, or that the Afghan
resistance are "Islamist terrorists," it openly calls for escalation of
the war in Afghanistan and for "forceful
representation," i.e. foreign intervention, against Pakistan as well
"to reduce the risk posed to regional stability and security by
recent developments in that country."
This beating of the war drums against Pakistan has also
been taken up by Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae, who is the
Liberal Party candidate in the riding of Toronto Centre in the March 17
by-election. Mr. Rae, who is a dyed-in-the-wool representative of the
eurocentric "Canadian values"
that underpin the Report's recommendations, is also for foreign
intervention in Pakistan stating in March 2007: "Our troops are
fighting for democracy and pluralism in Afghanistan. Shouldn't our
policy be the same in Pakistan?" These war-mongers deserve the
condemnation of the entire Canadian people.
The Manley Report covers up the fact that it is Canada
and the other occupying forces that are terrorizing the Afghan people,
and who are supporting and "training" a government of corrupt war
criminals and cutthroats who abuse their own people. The killing of
civilians, the blowing up of houses in
the name of searching out insurgents, the humiliation of the Afghan
people is part of the 3D (defense, diplomacy and development aid)
approach to empire building that Canada is testing out in Haiti and as
well as Afghanistan in preparation
for playing a more visible international role in other wars of
aggression and interventions in "failed" and "fragile"
states in order to "ensure human security" in these nations.
It is not for nothing that the Manley Report identifies
the rich natural resources and other assets of Afghanistan and the need
to help "develop" the economic base of the Afghan people so that they
could have a higher standard of living and so on. This is all self
-serving propaganda and disinformation to get the Canadian people to
conciliate with colonialism, fascism and war and to lay the groundwork
for Canada's involvement in Afghanistan long after the decision by
Parliament to bring the troops home in February 2009 or not.
It is worth noting that a number of Canadians and
organizations that submitted briefs to the panel highlighted the
necessity for Canada to get out of Afghanistan, for the non-use of
force in Afghanistan, and peace. Interestingly enough, these views
did not get into the report because they "did
not address the four options" that were presented in the "terms of
reference" for the panel. Similarly, the Report cites a recent poll of
Afghans which revealed that over 60 per cent of them wanted an
immediate
ceasefire and a negotiated peace between the Afghan resistance and the
Karzai government, but the panel also chose to ignore the obvious
import of these views as well.
What is clear in all this is that Canadian
Establishment forces, their political parties, mass media and armed
forces are lined up in service of the United States of North American
Monopolies under which Canada and its resources are annexed to the U.S.
imperialist war machine and plans for world
domination. Within this, Canada's mission is not about reconstruction,
development and nation-building in Afghanistan. Nation-building in
Afghanistan can only be carried out by the Afghan people and they have
begun the process by fighting all the foreign occupiers. The Canadian
government does not want to
quit Afghanistan because to do so would be to jeopardize that mission
which the United States of North American Monopolies is imposing upon
Canada. This project of world domination and enslavement of nations is
carried out in the name of the highest ideals such as providing for the
security of Canadians against
terrorism, but the direct experience of the Canadian people shows that
their security lies in their collective struggle against the forces of
war and aggression at home and abroad.
Now is the time for the working class and people of
Canada to organize for an anti-war government which will enable Canada
to be a force for peace in the world and build fraternal relations with
all nations and people on the basis of friendship, equality, and
non-use of force to settle conflicts, trade
for mutual benefit and for peace. A significant contribution to the
peoples of the world would be to defeat the war government of Stephen
Harper and to block those politicians who support a foreign policy
based on war and occupation by bringing into power those who oppose war
and occupation. It can be done!
Join with the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada in
building those organizations necessary to establish an anti-war
government and to reverse the annexation of Canada into the disastrous
war plans of the U.S. imperialists.
Reject the Manley Report!
Canadian and All Foreign Troops Out of Afghanistan!
Organize for an Anti-War Government!
Canada Must Get Out of Afghanistan Now!
- Christine Dandenault* -
 The Manley Report has just been submitted. The entire
report is used to justify and endorse the Harper government's plans in
support of the U.S. government for war and aggression. The media claim
Manley's error was in saying that the presence of Canadian troops in
Afghanistan should be maintained for an
"indefinite" period rather than to propose a definite date for their
withdrawal. But apparently this poses a problem for the Harper
government. This is a diversion. There was no mistake
on Manley's part because the report was ordered by the Harper
government and it got the conclusions it wanted:
that the troops should remain in Afghanistan; that more troops are
required and the international community must do its duty; that
military investments must be increased to send more military hardware
into Afghanistan; that troop withdrawal would mean that all the
"efforts" Canada has invested in the occupation
would be lost; etc., etc. The plan reads like a recipe requiring
certain ingredients: diplomacy, reconstruction and the military. The
Liberals want diplomacy and humanitarian aid at the helm and the
Conservatives have to justify the military emphasis. It's status quo.
The Manley report has a number of aims:
1. First, it
firmly endorses the policy pursued by the Harper government: paying the
rich and ensuring that the country's resources end up in the war
industry, to divert public funds and the country's resources for war,
occupation and aggression;
2. To promote
the Strategic Aerospace and Defence Initiative (SADI) the Harper
government created in April 2007 with the aim of supporting strategic
industrial research and pro-competitive development (R&D) projects
in the aerospace, defence, space and security industries;
3. To
maintain Canada's policy of meddling in the internal
affairs of other countries within the framework that Canada must defend
any threat to its interests anywhere in the world if required, just
like the Bush government is doing;
4. To refuse to adopt a policy of
non-interference, of equal relations between countries big or small, an
enlightened foreign policy of
renewing international relations on a modern basis and of responding to
the aspirations of the peoples of Quebec and of Canada that Canada
immediately pull its troops out of Afghanistan and end its policy of
subservience to the U.S. government's war and aggression;
5. To
maintain the policy of usurpation of power
to squander the public trust (human and natural resources) to serve
private interests and cause tragedies for the peoples of the world;
6. To maintain Afghanistan under the governance of NATO
while inciting
other countries to follow the path of wars of aggression and occupation
by calling on them to do their share
in sending 1,000 additional troops;
7. To use public funds to
prepare public opinion in support of the war and maintain a wall of
silence about the millions of dollars
being spent to kill and injure the Afghan people;
8. To reaffirm that Canada must espouse
the military ambitions of U.S. empire in order to defend our "values,"
"democracy," "human rights," "to get the job done," etc.
The scenario to justify maintaining
the troops there was played out during Stephane Dion's mid-January
visit to
Afghanistan when that country's president noted that Canada should not
pull out its troops as this would open the door to international
terrorism. George W. Bush travelled to the Middle
East about the same time to create propaganda against Iran by
presenting it as an
international threat, not because of nuclear arms but because it is a
potential terrain for international terrorism. Europe was also targeted
during the same period as a potential continent for the development of
international terrorism. Justifications,
set-ups, "diplomatic" schemes to justify the presence of Canadian and
U.S. troops for meddling, occupation and war must be vigorously
opposed. Everything is being done to silence the public will and impose
a dictate of domination and aggression.
The December 27, 2007 Communist Party of Canada
(Marxist-Leninist) statement -- published
in TML on the occasion of Benazir Bhutto's assassination in
Pakistan -- pointed out: "And so it is today. The social responsibility
of people everywhere is to confront the U.S. imperialists and their
annexed mercenaries and stay their
murderous hand of war, retrogression and interference. The people
united in resistance to war and retrogression must block the
empire-building of the big powers, especially the U.S. imperialists.
This demands the immediate removal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan.
This demands the dismantling of all U.S. military
bases throughout the world and the repatriation of all U.S. troops.
This demands the dismantling of all the aggressive military alliances
such as NATO, NORAD and the U.S. Northern Command. This demands a
renewed commitment to the defence of national sovereignty by
establishing anti-war governments and
the solving of problems among nations through peaceful means and
enlightened diplomacy."
The shameful and indecent way in which the Manley
report seeks to create public opinion in support of war and occupation
is in contempt of the aspirations expressed by the population once
again
and highlights the need for democratic renewal. It shows that the
working
class and peoples of Canada must
become the decision-makers so that their rejection of imperialist war
and aggression finds expression in an anti-war government which would
immediately remove the Canadian army from Afghanistan and Canada from
NATO.
The working class and peoples of Quebec and of Canada
must reject the Manley Report and all such attempts by the Harper
government to create support for Afghanistan's occupation.
All Out to Support Actions Against the
War!
Quebec Says NO! to Canada's Participation in the U.S. War on
Afghanistan!
End the Occupation! Bring the Troops Home Now!
Canada Out of NATO!
The Need for Utmost Vigilance by Canadians
- Pierre Chenier* -
One of the worst aspects of the Manley report on
Canada's future
role in Afghanistan is that it has encouraged the most base responses
from amongst the politicians of the rich and the monopoly media.
Manley himself went on record in press interviews to
say that
Canadians must now get used to, and actually embrace, the war of
occupation in Afghanistan under the hoax that the world has now become
a dirty place to live: "The world isn't a pretty place," he said. "But
I happen to believe that the
people that came before me in the Liberal party, that believed in a
strong role for Canada on the international stage, would say: there are
times when we have to count. There are times when it matters. We're not
prepared to retreat under the U.S. missile shield and live in Fortress
North America. We're prepared
to be out there and we're prepared to pay the price, because that's
what you expect of a country like Canada."
A Globe and Mail editorial entitled,
"Government must now embrace the full, bloody truth of Afghanistan,"
states:
"I almost wept with relief reading the Manley report
early
yesterday, and actually did cry a little as, at a later news
conference, panel member Pamela Wallin spoke of the willingness and
enthusiasm of Canadian troops and how their efforts, and the mission in
Afghanistan, are undermined and diminished 'if we threaten to leave
with every roadside bomb and mortar round....
"As Mr. Manley says in a foreword: 'We like to talk
about Canada's role in the world.
"'Well, we have a meaningful one in Afghanistan.' In
other words,
this is worth fighting for, and not just in that shattered country over
there, but in this one. If it's sufficiently important that Canadian
soldiers are paying with their lives and limbs, it's important enough
for a mere government to
rise to the challenge and, if necessary, pay the infinitely less
significant political price. It may be naive to expect politicians to
find the big nuts that ordinary infantrymen have, but Mr. Manley was a
politician, and he seems to have found his."
This quote is from an editorial in the National
Post:
"Nor should we defer to those Canadians who want to cut
and run
from combat in Afghanistan, such as Stephane Dion. The Liberal leader
has made a great show of courting the pacifist vote at home and abroad
in recent days. According to Mr. Dion, 'After three years of a combat
mission, it's normal
that Canada would say, 'We want to do something else.' Such thinking is
rightly characterized in the Manley report as 'irresponsible,' and
represents a disturbingly vapid approach to a conflict whose result
could well determine not only the future of Central Asia, but also that
of NATO itself. Canada did not give
up on the First World War in 1917, nor on the Second World War in 1942.
Indeed, Mr. Dion's willingness to abandon Kandahar for no other
apparent reason than that Canadians are impatient and distressed about
the war is a strong argument for shunning his party the next time we go
to the polls."
This is disinformation of the highest order to confuse
and split
the people. The First World War was imperialist butchery for the
redivision of the world amongst the big powers of the time. It was not
decided by the "soldiers" of the world who, along with the people, were
merely cannon fodder for
those seeking to redivide the world for their own empires. It was the
heroic act of the October Revolution, at the head of the struggle of
the peoples against this imperialist war, that put an end to it.
The Second World War also began as an inter-imperialist
world war
but it was transformed by the peoples of the world into an anti-fascist
national liberation struggle to move humanity forward. The blood that
was shed was for the purpose not only of defeating fascism and nazism
but to end all wars
of conquest and occupation and ban them as crimes against humanity.
Are the invasion of Iraq and of Afghanistan, or the
planned bombing
of Iran and Pakistan -- which are presented in full public view as
something reasonable and even desirable -- or the talk and plans for
nuclear preemptive attacks by the U.S. and its allies what the people
fought for when they defeated
fascism and nazism?
This is from another editorial in the National Post:
"Simply put, NATO needs to send more soldiers.
Afghanistan is a
large country that has been at war with itself, in one form or another,
since the 1970s. It is home to a multitude of warlords hardened by
decades of continuous combat, funded by billions in heroin profits and
supported, in many cases,
by Arab, Pakistani and central Asian jihadis. The idea that
this snake-pit of a nation could be pacified by 41,000 NATO personnel
-- a smaller number than NATO sent to tiny Bosnia in the 1990s -- is
preposterous. Unless NATO deploys more soldiers, the security situation
in the country will remain
as precarious as Mr. Manley's panel reports it to be. If anything, in
fact, the panel's request that NATO countries send 1,000 more soldiers
to the Kandahar region low-balls the five-figure troop surge that will
be needed to pacify the nation overall until an Afghan army can stand
up to the insurgents on its own."
According to this logic, Afghanistan is not a sovereign
nation and
its people just like to kill each other. Therefore, the foreign bombing
and the invasion by the imperialists, who are very conscious of their
"white man's burden," is what they deserve and have brought upon
themselves. Bob Rae
did not speak any differently on his blog last year when he advocated
an invasion of Pakistan by the NATO forces including Canada, under the
hoax that Pakistan is a federation in name only, that it is under
military dictatorship anyway and that not invading the country may
create a worse military dictatorship
than the one Pakistan is already saddled with.
Open racism and chauvinism, distortion and slandering
of the
struggles of the people for a humanity that lives without imperialist
aggression and occupation -- these tell us something about the ethos of
the ruling circles who consider this report reasonable and a guide to
action.
This is a challenge to the Canadian conscience, and
this is a
challenge we accept. We must go broadly amongst the Canadian workers
and all concerned Canadians to oppose this assault on humanity.
Manley Committee's Pre-Determined Recommendations
-- Announcement of Public Hearings
- Collectif Échec à la
guerre, January 22, 2008 -
Today the Manley Commission delivered its
recommendations to the Conservative government regarding Canadian
military intervention in Afghanistan after February 2009. Its five
members sit on the boards of a number of large Canadian corporations,
notably companies involved in the military and oil sectors.
They represent the economic and political elite who have promoted a
deeper partnership, including at the military level, with the U.S.
John Manley chaired the Task Force on the Future of North America,
which in 2005 recommended the economic union of the U.S., Canada and
Mexico. Derek Burney was part of
the Action Group on North American Security and Prosperity, etc. The
five members of the "Blue Ribbon panel" -- Derek Burney, Pamela Wallin,
Paul Tellier, Jake Epp and John Manley himself -- are first and
foremost experts on the strategic partnership with the U.S.
On an issue as crucial as the war, the government
immediately refused to let the views of the Quebec and Canadian people
be heard. The "Blue Ribbon panel" held no public hearings. The meetings
it did have with certain groups took place behind closed doors,
requiring that groups not divulge the
questions or comments of Committee members. The public was able to
submit proposals ... by Internet, which to date no one has been able to
consult.
The Manley Committee recommendations are diametrically
opposed to the views of a large majority of Quebecers who want nothing
less than the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan -- views
that neither the Liberal Party of Canada nor the Bloc
Québécois defend in Ottawa. It is therefore
crucial that the population of Quebec demand that an end be put to the
atrocities of the war and the evasiveness of politicians.
On February 9, with a view to contributing to this aim,
the Collectif Échec à la guerre will hold public hearings
for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan. These hearings
will take place in Montreal, at Centre St-Pierre, under the honorary
chairmanship of Ms Antonine Maillet.
In 2008, let's finally defeat the war in Afghanistan!
For Your Information
Recommendations of the Independent Panel on Canada's
Future in
Afghanistan
On January 22, 2008, the Independent Panel on Canada's
Future in Afghanistan presented its 90-page report to Prime Minister
Stephen Harper.
Panel Membership
The five-member "independent panel" commissioned by Mr.
Harper in October 12, 2007 is far from independent of pro-war,
pro-annexation of Canada to the U.S. prejudice. It is comprised of:
1) The Honourable John Manley (Chair) -- a former
Liberal Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister under the Chretien
Liberal government. Following September 11, 2001, Manley was named
Chairman
of a new Cabinet Committee on Public Security and Anti-Terrorism and
worked closely with U.S. Homeland
Security Department and its secretary Tom Ridge, with whom he was one
of the main promoters of the "Smart Border." On May 26, 2004, Manley
was named to the Board of Directors of telecommunications firm Nortel
Networks. On January 27, 2005, he was elected to the Board of Directors
of the Canadian Imperial
Bank of Commerce. He also chaired the "Independent Task Force on the
Future of North America," a project of the U.S. Council on Foreign
Relations. In March 2005, the Task Force released a report that
advocated a North American union, an economic union between Canada,
Mexico and the United States.
2) Derek Burney, former Canadian Ambassador to the U.S.
and Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and the leader of
the Harper Government's 2006 transition team. Burney is a former
President and CEO of CAE, which amongst other
things is "a global leader in the design of
sophisticated military training systems for air, land
and sea applications, having supplied the defence forces of more than
50 nations with military training systems and services," according to
its website. During his tenure with CAE, Burney
was part of the CEO Action Group on North American Security and
Prosperity which put the Canadian
government on the path towards the Security and Prosperity Partnership
of North America (SPP).
3) The Honourable Jake Epp, a former Mulroney cabinet
minister. From 1993 until 2000, he was Senior Vice President and Vice
President at TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. TransCanada is currently
involved in the Keystone Pipeline project in Alberta, a 3,000 kilometre
pipeline to deliver raw bitumen from the tar
sands to U.S. markets (see TML Daily, May 11, 2007 - No. 74),
and
liquid natural gas terminals in New York State and Quebec. According to
Wikipedia, Manley and Epp worked together in 2003 when the government
of Dalton McGuinty appointed Epp to the Ontario Power Generation Review
headed by Manley "to
examine the future role of Ontario Power Generation (OPG) in the
province's electricity market, examine its corporate and management
structure." Epp was appointed Chairman of OPG in 2004 and continues to
hold the position.
4) The Honourable Paul Tellier, served as Deputy
Minister of Indian and Northern Development as well as Energy, Mines
and Resources in 1979 and 1982 respectively is also former clerk of the
Privy Council. In 1992 then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney appointed
Tellier CEO of the Crown corporation CN Rail,
with the aim of privatizing it. The privatization led immediately to
layoffs and an increased rate of rail accidents and injuries for
workers which
continues into the present. From 2003-2004, Tellier served as President
and CEO of Bombardier Inc., and presently serves as an executive for
Rio Tinto Alcan, an advisory board
director for GM Canada and a director of McCain Foods Limited.
5) Ms. Pamela Wallin, former journalist. According to
her official website, Wallin "serves on several corporate boards,
including CTVglobemedia, [...] Gluskin Sheff & Associates, an
investment and wealth management firm; Oilsands Quest, an energy
development company; and Jade Tower, an independent
antenna site and tower company. She is the Chancellor of the University
of Guelph. Pamela is a member of a special Advisory Board for BMO
Harris Bank." She also serves as the Senior Advisor on Canada-U.S.
relations to the President of the Americas Society and the Council of
the Americas in New York, which
according to their website "is the premier international business
organization whose members share a common commitment to economic and
social development, open markets, the rule of law, and democracy
throughout the Western Hemisphere. The Council's membership consists of
leading international companies
representing a broad spectrum of sectors, including banking and
finance, consulting services, consumer products, energy and mining,
manufacturing, media, technology, and transportation."
Based on the panel's membership one can conclude that
calling the panel "independent" is meant to cover up whose
interests it serves. It reflects the exclusion of the polity and its
concerns, especially for Canada to be a sovereign country that sets its
own foreign policy and does so in respect
of other nations' sovereignty and its international obligations to
uphold peace and justice.
Terms of Reference
It is worth noting from the onset that the "terms of
reference" limited the panel to four "options," none of which are
acceptable
to the majority of Canadians who do not want Canada embroiled in
empire-building projects of any kind -- neither military nor civilian.
These terms of reference
state that the "four options [...] have been identified for
consideration, without intending to exclude others":
Option 1: Train,
support and develop the Afghan army and
police towards a self-sustaining capacity in Kandahar Province, with a
phased withdrawal of Canadian troops starting in February 2009
consistent with progress towards this objective.
Option 2: Focus
on development and governance in
Kandahar, with sufficient military to provide effective protection for
our civilians engaged in development and governance efforts. This would
require another country (or countries) to provide a military force
sufficient to ensure the necessary security in which
such efforts can take place in Kandahar province.
Option 3: Shift
the focus of Canadian military and
civilian security, development and governance efforts to another region
in Afghanistan.
Option 4:
Withdraw all Canadian military forces from
Afghanistan after February 2009 except those required to provide
personal security for any remaining civilian employees.
The "terms of reference" also include that the
"following considerations will be taken into account in the panel's
deliberations:
"- Respect for the sacrifice
Canadians have made to date supporting Afghans in achieving a more
stable, self-reliant and democratic society and improving opportunities
for their citizens.
- The significant investment of people, resources, efforts and
infrastructure that Canada has made in Afghanistan.
- The progress to date, and the potential for deterioration, in
security and development conditions inherent in the various potential
paths forward.
- Objectives of the UN and NATO that:
a) Afghanistan be supported
by all NATO countries in the efforts to create the necessary security
conditions for development and building a better life its citizens; and
b) Afghanistan does not again become a base for international
terrorism."
Consultation -- Not in Our Name
While the report states that Canada's role in
Afghanistan is
"a decision for Canadians," in reality the panel only held one
"face-to-face" discussion in Canada: "Between
October 12 and December 14, 2007, Panel members held face-to-face
discussions in Ottawa, New
York, Brussels and Washington, in addition to their trip to
Afghanistan. They also met with individuals from elsewhere in Canada,
the United States and Europe via video-conference. While in
Afghanistan, the Panel travelled across four provinces -- Kabul, Balkh,
Bamiyan and Kandahar. They held meetings in Kabul,
Bamiyan, Mazar-e-Sharif, Kandahar Airfield, Panjwai, Zhari, and
Kandahar City. While in Kandahar province, the Panel met with the
Provincial Reconstruction Team at Camp Nathan Smith, and personnel at
two forward operating bases, a police substation, and other military
facilities."
Some 216 individuals and organizations also sent in
their views. The panel notes that only some 30 per cent addressed
themselves to the four options laid out, suggesting the views of the
other 70 per cent were thus ignored.
By saying this is a "decision for Canadians" while
serving the interests of various foreign powers and NATO is
disingenuous. It not only covers up Canadians' broad opposition to the
war, but is a desperate attempt to say that the war crimes in
Afghanistan are being carried out in our name.
Panel's Cynical Approach: Afghanistan -- "An
Opportunity"
In his Chair's Forward, John Manley states among other
things:
"Afghanistan presents an opportunity for Canada. For
the first time in many years, we have brought a level of commitment to
an international problem that gives us real weight and credibility. For
once, our 3Ds (defense, diplomacy and development assistance) all
pointed at the same problems and officials
from the three departments are beginning to work together." And
further..."We like to talk about Canada's role in the world. Well, we
have a meaningful one in Afghanistan. As our report states, it should
not be faint-hearted nor should it be open-ended. Above all, we must
not abandon it prematurely." With this outlook,
the Report begins.
Part 1 -- Introduction
The introduction from the outset presents the battle in
Afghanistan in the self-serving "us" versus "them" framework of George
W. Bush. The war in Afghanistan "is a war fought between an elected,
democratic government and a zealous insurgency of proven brutality" and
notes
that in this war Canada is one of some 39 countries with troops on the
ground. It emphasizes that this war is legitimate because the foreign
armies are there "at the request of the Afghan government, under the
express authority of the United Nations." Who put this government there
and whose interests it serves is
of course not discussed. The Introduction goes on to say that the
situation on the ground is complex but progress is being made. What
precisely constitutes the measure of progress is also not to be
defined, let alone discussed. All of it is merely to introduce the
matter at hand:
"Canadians have a decision to make. The Government has
affirmed that Parliament will decide whether Canada will extend its
military deployment in Afghanistan after 2009. Reaching that decision
requires a realistic assessment of conditions in Afghanistan, along
with a pragmatic assessment of Canada's
engagement there. Just as importantly, it demands consideration to
Canada's own interests, our values and our willingness and capacity to
make a difference to Afghanistan's future. The panel's purpose in this
Report is to explore these questions, to encourage an informed and
constructive public deliberation, and to
recommend effective actions to the Government and Parliament. Fully
informed public involvement has the best chance of producing
well-founded, sustainable policy."
Part 2 -- Assessing Conditions in Afghanistan
The Report then outlines the events following the day
after 9/11 leading up to the U.S.-led NATO deployment and the removal
of the Taliban government. It outlines the February 2002 deployment of
850 Canadian troops to Kandahar as part of Operation
Enduring Freedom.
Two points are made regarding the war in Afghanistan.
First, that the military presence in Afghanistan was and is sanctioned
by the UN Security Council and second, that the International Security
Assistance Force of which Canada is a part, is in "Afghanistan at the
request, and the approval, of Afghanistan's
elected government...The ISAF presence in Afghanistan has the consent
of the Afghan government and the support of the Afghan people."
This section then goes on to note that the Taliban
insurgency (which has no public support among the Afghan people,
according to the panel report) is increasing and that this has to do
with Pakistan being a safe haven for the insurgents and the "harmful
shortcomings in the NATO/ISAF counterinsurgency
campaign" including "an insufficiency of forces in the field" and that
some of the ISAF contingents are not pulling their weight.
In this way, the report is designed firstly to
obfuscate the distinction between a "multilateral" action sanctioned UN
Security Council -- an exclusive body at the whim of its permanent
members -- and the fact that the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan
is an indefensible abuse and violation of the
UN Charter and international law.
Secondly, the report is designed to corroborate the
U.S./Canadian frustration that NATO "allies" are not pulling their
weight but are lily-livered chicken-hearted wusses who will help so
long as their forces are not put in harm's way. The U.S. and Canada,
having failed to bully them into taking up dangerous
combat roles at the NATO meeting in Scotland on December 9, have
continued to face this dilemma while also switching their attention to
Pakistan where they are trying to create a pretext to invade.
The Report also carries on the decontextualized
description of the problems in terms of governance. In its zeal to push
the nineteenth century conception of self-government never once does it
acknowledge its racist portrayal of Afghan society as backward and
incompetent. There is "a debilitating lack
of experienced people with professional competence across the Afghan
government...Corruption is widespread, characterized by cronyism,
bribery and a variety of shakedown enterprises managed by government
officials. Parts of the Afghan National Police (ANP) remain notoriously
corrupt and ill-disciplined -- perceived
by many Afghans to be more a threat to public security than a source of
protection. The judiciary is reportedly subject to interference from
government officials...In some districts, militias in the pay of
chieftain-warlords menace local populations with protection rackets and
other crime." In the nineteenth century,
one of the advocates of empire Thomas Babington
Macaulay said:
"...It is scarcely possible to calculate the benefits
which we might derive from the diffusion of European civilization among
the vast population of the East. It would be, on the
most selfish view of the case, far better for us that the people of
India were well governed and
independent of us, than ill governed and subject to us; that they were
ruled by their own kings, but wearing our
broadcloth, and working with our cutlery, than that they were
performing their salaams to
English
collectors and English magistrates, but were too ignorant to value, or
too poor to buy, English
manufactures. To trade with civilized men is infinitely more profitable
than to govern savages. That would, indeed,
be a doting wisdom, which, in order that India might remain a
dependency, which would keep a hundred
million of men from being our customers in order that they might
continue to be our slaves."[1]
Far from acknowledging the aim of imposing western
democratic institutions onto the Afghan people, the report returns to
the sophistic method of quoting Afghans who repeat that the dreadful
alternative is "The Taliban."
"Improving governance is essential to improving
security and that many Afghans told the Panel, the weakness of the
existing elected Afghan government compounds the threat of a Taliban
return," the panel says.
Not for nothing, the panel notes the development
potential of Afghanistan:
"Afghanistan displays great development potential;
stores of unexploited natural resources, agricultural prospects,
opportunities for light industry in several sectors, and (most of all,
perhaps) a lively and resilient entrepreneurial spirit."
Part III -- Assessing Canadian Engagement: Origins,
Experience and Achievement
Here the panel totally discredits any notion of an
independent, impartial inquiry. Oh, if only Canadians were permitted to
understand, then they would support the mission. The panel notes that
"in the turmoil of events
in Afghanistan during the six years since 9/11, the nature and logic of
Canadian engagement have not been well understood by Canadians. While
public support for Canadian troops is strong, Canadians have been
uncertain about Canada's evolving mission in Afghanistan. To put things
bluntly, Government from the
start of Canada's Afghan involvement has failed to communicate with
Canadians with balance and candour about the reasons for Canadian
involvement, or about the risks, difficulties and expected results of
that involvement." To this end, the Report reiterates the "legitimacy"
of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan
as an action against Al Qaeda terrorist threats, supporting UN led
actions in "peace-enforcement" operations in failed states, fulfilling
its commitment to NATO and NATO's "success" in Afghanistan will help
"Canada's own security interests" and lastly, to intervene in "fragile
states" to "promote and protect human
security." Having declared the mission valid, it then chases this wild
goose. The panel puts forward the argument that "time and time again,
failed and fragile states -- and governments that betray
responsibilities to protect their own citizens -- jeopardize
international order and test the strength of our resolve," it says.
This section then proceeds to shore up the demand for more and better
military hardware. Canadian Forces in Afghanistan would increase their
effectiveness with new equipment specifically more helicopters for
increased airlift capacity and unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles
track insurgent movement, the report
says. It then complains about lack of coordination. Reconstruction
efforts have been hampered by an increasingly bold insurgency and lack
of coordination amongst the various partners involved which do not
bring the desired results, the panel says.
Noting that "no insurgency, and certainly not the Afghan
insurgency -- can be defeated by military force alone," the report
states that there is an "urgent need to complete practical, significant
development projects of immediate value to Afghans, while at the same
time continuing to contribute to the
capacity and legitimacy of Afghan government institutions."
Part IV -- Canada's Future in Afghanistan:
Considerations and Recommendations
In this section, the panel tries to pull the rug out
from under the present premise of the Parliamentary discourse on
Afghanistan. From a situation by which it was understood that Canada's
mission ends in 2009 unless
extended -- which many Canadians are demanding end now, not in 2009 --
the Manley report through sleight of hand declares the mission
neverending.
Keeping in mind that in May 2006, Parliament voted that
February 2009 will end Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan,
the panel states in its report that it "could find no operational logic
for choosing February 2009 as the end date for Canada's military
mission in Kandahar -- and nothing to
establish February 2009 as the date by which the mission would be
completed." The panel points out that "at its core, the aim of Canadian
policy is to leave Afghanistan to Afghans, in a country better
governed, more peaceful and more secure." The panel cannot see this
being achieved by February 2009, nor can
it settle on the 4 options presented within the "terms of reference" of
its mandate.
Instead, the panel "proposes a new and more
comprehensive Canadian strategy for Afghanistan — -- strategy that
honours the sacrifices Canadian have already made in Afghanistan,
serves Canadian interests, gives expression to Canadian values, and
corresponds realistically to Canada's capacity." Its
recommendations are geared to making it appear the entire thing is
civilian not military and UN-led, not a U.S./NATO project.
"1. Canada should assert a stronger and more disciplined
diplomatic position regarding Afghanistan and the regional players.
Specifically, Canada, in concert with key allies, should press for:
a) Early appointment of a
high level civilian
representative of the UN Secretary-General to ensure greater coherence
in the civilian and military effort in Afghanistan;
b) Early adoption by NATO of
a comprehensive
political-military plan to address security concerns and imbalances,
especially the need for more troops to bolster security and expedite
training and equipment for the Afghan National Security Forces.
c) Forceful representations
with Afghanistan's
neighbours, in particular with Pakistan, to reduce the risk posed to
regional stability and security by recent developments in that country;
and
d) Concerted efforts by the
Afghan government to
improve governance by tackling corruption and ensuring basic services
to the Afghan people, and pursuing some degree of political
reconciliation in Afghanistan.
"2. Canada should continue with its responsibility in
Kandahar beyond February 2009, in a manner fully consistent with the UN
mandate on Afghanistan, including its combat role, but with increasing
emphasis on training the Afghan National Security Forces expeditiously
to take lead responsibility for
security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole. As the Afghan National
Forces gain capacity, Canada's combat role should be significantly
reduced.
a) This commitment is
contingent on the assignment of an
additional battle group (of about 1000 soldiers) to Kandahar by NATO
and/or other allies before February 2009. [Already the U.S. is sending
an additional deployment of 3200 troops. What will these bogus panel
members tell us when the
new surge fails to convince the uncivilized Afghans not to train their
weapons on the occupiers? -- TML Ed.]
b) To better ensure the
safety and effectiveness of the
Canadian contingent, the Government should also secure medium
helicopter life capacity and high-performance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
(UAVs) for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance before
February 2009.
"3. Canada's contribution to the reconstruction and
development of Afghanistan should be revamped giving higher priority
than at present to direct, bilateral project assistance that addresses
the immediate, practical needs of the Afghan people, especially in
Kandahar province, as well as longer-term capacity
building.
"4. The Government should systematically assess the
effectiveness of Canadian contribution and the extent to which the
benchmarks and timelines of the Afghan Compact have been met. Future
commitments should be based on these benchmarks.
"5. The Government should provide the public with
franker
more frequent reporting on events in Afghanistan, offering more
assessment of Canada's role and giving greater emphasis to the
diplomatic and reconstruction efforts as well as those of the military."
Those Who Seek to Escape the Laws of History vs. Those
Who Make History
The long and the short of the report is:
- more weapons
- more troops
- more civilizing of the backwards peoples of Afghanistan
- more public relations to convince Canadians of the
righteousness of the cause
Sounds like the George W. Bush panacea for Iraq. Like
George W. Bush, the only thing the panelists lack in their zeal to
escape the laws of history is a sense of shame. Far from the British,
Americans and Canadians teaching the Afghans how to shoot rifles, the
Afghans taught the great grandparents
of the likes of the panelists what is in store for those who would seek
to cross the Khyber Pass.
While these forces try as they might to escape the
laws of history, the Canadian working class cannot be
fooled by this attempt to get it to support war crimes. It is carrying
forward
the legacy of sacrifice and struggle of workers and peoples of the
world for their liberation, and creating the new arrangements that will
ensure that peoples of all nations can live in
justice and peace.
Note
1. Thomas Babington Macaulay,
"Speech in Parliament on the Government of India Bill, 10 July 1833."
Key Recommendations from the Manley Report
- Shane Dingman, National Post, January
22, 2008 -
There are document nerds out there (mostly journalists)
who love to read a whole PDF of a report for themselves, and if you're
one of those people you can go right to the full version by clicking here now.
But there are just as many people who prefer to have it
sliced and diced into easy to read sections. To wit, our "Coles notes"
version (it's still quite long, so beware) of the report follows below.
Starting back to front, the report closes with this
bold, and yet qualified statement:
"Helping to build a more stable, better governed
Afghanistan with a growing economy is, we believe, an achievable
Canadian objective. But success is not a certainty. The war in
Afghanistan is complicated. The future there is dangerous and can
frustrate the most confident plan or prediction."
The report starts by giving context to the mission,
first by summarizing our troop levels since 2002:
"In February 2002, 850 Canadian troops deployed to
Kandahar as part of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom. That
battalion was withdrawn at the completion of its mission in July 2002.
From 2002 to 2005, various Canadian military units served in Kabul
under ISAF command; those deployments
peaked at more than 1,700 troops in 2004. In 2005, as we relate in Part
III of this Report, Canada began to redeploy forces from Kabul back to
Kandahar to complement Canada's growing civilian aid presence in the
province. This redeployment was completed in February 2006. Canadian
troops have been fighting
in Kandahar for about two years.
"The Canadian Forces in Afghanistan now number about
2,500 soldiers, most in a battalion group and support elements in
Kandahar. By comparison, all ISAF forces in Afghanistan, from 39
countries, now total about 41,700 personnel."
In other words, we're punching above our weight a
little, 5% of the personel provided by 2% of the coalition.
Then they define, in the simplest of terms, how the
mission's goals create a virtuous circle of improving conditions:
"Security, governance and development: Security
enables development; effective governance enhances security;
development creates opportunities, and multiplies the rewards, of
improved security and good governance."
Then, on security, the panel rips NATO for its
handling of the counter-insurgency campaign:
"The most damaging shortfalls include an insufficiency
of forces in the field, especially in high-risk zones in the South; a
top-heavy command structure at ISAF headquarters in Kabul; an
absence of a comprehensive strategy directing all ISAF forces in
collaboration with the Afghan
government"
But of course, there needs to be actual troops
committed by the Afghans:
"In the end, the counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan
will have to be won by Afghans. (Few counterinsurgencies in history
have been won by foreign armies) The Afghan National Army has shown
measurable improvements. It is becoming larger, with a strength now of
about 47,000 troops and a
plan to reach at least 70,000 by the end of 2010."
The notes on governance ramble a bit, roaming
over territory as diverse as the opium trade and the treatment of
detained insurgents. The
recommendation the panel
draws from analyzing the welter of demands on Afghan institutions is
that a special super-bureaucrat (this notion bears the hallmark
of panel-member
Paul Tellier, as former clerk of
the Privy Council no stranger to big, confused government
organizations) is needed to knock the whole thing into shape.
"The many UN agencies working in Afghanistan, and
governments (like Canada's) committing aid to Afghanistan, can do a far
better job of
coordinating good-governance
activities for earlier and stronger effect. The appointment of a
newly empowered special civilian representative, to coordinate and
consolidate these
international activities in
Afghanistan, can greatly enhance their effectiveness."
On development they start with some grim numbers
on Afghanistan's world ranking:
"The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in
2007 ranked Afghanistan 174th out of 178 countries on its global Human
Development Index (a
composite of education, health and economic indicators). Why the low
score? UNDP says 6.6 million Afghans do not meet minimum food
requirements. Gender
discrimination remains
pervasive; the illiteracy rate among women has been put at 87 per cent,
as against 57 per cent among men. And Afghanistan reports one of the
world's highest
rates of tuberculosis infection,
another common marker of severe poverty."
The program designed to change all that, the 2006
Afghan Compact, which the panel's report will return to later, has been
less than effective at
meeting its mandate: "Its
targets have proved more formal than real, and performance assessments
have been flimsy." Again, bureaucracy and 'effective monitoring' are
called for.
Then the report delves into the context for Canada
even being in Afghanistan, starting from the original and still
paramount reason:
"Countering the terrorist threat,
by foreclosing the regression of Afghanistan as a haven again for
terrorists ... Canada has sent soldiers, diplomats and aid workers
to Afghanistan as part
of an international response
to the threat to peace and security inherent in Al Qaeda's terrorist
attacks."
Secondly, there is Canada's historic role
promoting the UN's peacekeeping missions, though the panel admits:
"In Afghanistan there is not yet a peace to keep, no
truce to supervise or "green line" to watch. This is a
peace-enforcement operation, as provided
for under Chapter VII of the
United Nations Charter."
Thirdly, the panel asserts that NATO
membership has advanced "Canada's political and security interests for
almost 60 years
... reaching from the early
years of the Cold War to life-saving NATO interventions in the
Balkans." That's somewhat of a loyalty argument, particularly because
the panel singles out NATO
for mismanaging the enterprise
up until now.
Finally, there's the argument that we're setting a good
precedent when we support the:
"promotion and protection of human security in fragile
states. Results in Afghanistan can influence the willingness of
Canadians, and of others, to
act in future to protect the lives
and rights of people who cannot count on the protection of their own
government."
AFTER SUMMARIZING WHY WE'RE THERE, the panel
moves on to talk about what we we've been up to... starting with a
detailed
rundown of the mission profile
and including all the diplomatic and legislative moves up to now.
One interesting section explains how Canada became
lodged in Kandahar, which has been a deadly region for Canadian
troops since
deploying there.
"In 2005 Canada chose, for whatever reason, to assume
leadership of a Provincial Reconstruction Team (or PRT, The Kandahar
PRT, is one of 26
PRTs across Afghanistan) in
Kandahar City and the security obligations that went with it. Canada
took command of the Kandahar PRT in August 2005, and it has since
become a centrepiece
of Canada's
engagement in Afghanistan."
Part of that reconstruction effort include military
training...
"In Kabul, a smaller number of Canadian Forces personnel
are participating in a multinational effort known as the Combined
Security Transition
Command-Afghanistan, building a security infrastructure in Afghanistan
that includes
the ANA and the Afghan National Police."
Then there's Canada's civilian spending, which
is initially described in relatively glowing terms:
"Canada's civilian aid spending in Afghanistan, mainly
through CIDA and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade (DFAIT), now
averages more than $100-million annually. A principal stated
objective of Canadian aid has been, whenever possible, to help
build the capacity,
legitimacy and popular support of Afghan government and
non-governmental
institutions.... In clinics and schoolrooms, villages and
neighbourhoods, the Panel
witnessed
encouraging examples of development aid having strong effect."
But the primary agency responsible for this mandate is
quickly panned:
"However, the Canadian aid program in Afghanistan
has been impeded not only by the dangerous security environment in
Kandahar
but by
CIDA's own administrative constraints. More than half of CIDA
funding in Afghanistan flows through multilateral agencies, and another
35 per cent is
chanelled
through national programs administered by the central government in
Kabul. This leaves little for locally managed quick-action projects
that bring immediate
improve
ments to everyday life for Afghans, or for "signature" projects readily
identifiable as supported by Canada."
The panel makes this issue of "signature projects"
a key recommendation later on, but it also goes on to note that the
staffing levels
between
military and civilians deployed in Afghanistan are out of whack with
the importance of that reconstruction mission:
"Panel members believe that Canada's civilian programs
have not achieved the scale or depth of engagement necessary to make a
significant impact. (Currently, there are 47 Canadian government
civilians in Afghanistan,
divided between the embassy in Kabul, Kandahar Airfield and the
Provincial
Reconstruction Team in Kandahar, and about 2,500 soldiers.) It is
essential
to adjust funding and staffing imbalances between the heavy Canadian
military
commitment in Afghanistan and the comparatively lighter civilian
commitment to
reconstruction, development and governance."
The solution proposed is a more powerful and
streamlined bureaucracy, cutting out the 'special task forces'
that National Defence, DFAIT, CIDA, Correctional Service Canada, the
RCMP and CIDA have set up in their own departments and ramming them all
into "a single full-time
task force" with support from the Prime Minister and a special cabinet
committee
"Fulfilling Canada's commitment in Afghanistan
requires the political energy only a Prime Minister can impart."
This call for super-bureaucracies within Canada's
management of the conflict is echoed in a call for a UN
super-bureaucrat to co-ordinate all the ISAF, NATO, UN and Afghan
efforts in the country. Where you would find such an unelected
ultra-mandarin is not discussed.
After acknowledging the dangers of the combat role in
Afghanistan, including the high number of casualties and the failure of
"ISAF and NATO partners to contribute more troops to the
Afghan mission, and to minimize the effects of 'caveats' that limit the
utility of deployed forces"
In other words, NATO or ISAF troops that don't want to
be anywhere near combat. The panel's solution to this issue is... more
diplomacy, apparently:
"Circumstances argue for a redoubled and reorganized
Canadian diplomatic effort -- led by the Prime Minister -- to
improve prospects for security, governance and development in
Afghanistan. The objective of this diplomatic effort should be to raise
Canada's voice, commensurate with
the Canadian contribution in Afghanistan, to press for improvements in
NATO/ISAF force structure, command organization and operational
effectiveness; and to advocate the deployment of more forces to
Afghanistan by other NATO partners. This Canadian diplomacy must also
focus particularly on fast-changing
developments in Pakistan."
Finally, near the end of the report, its time to distill
these solutions into a set of recommendations... while paying lip
service to the fact that their report is ultimately just a load of
paper...
"It will be for Canadians to decide, through Parliament,
what Canada should do -- and what it can do -- in Afghanistan's future."
Then the report presents what are essentially the
opposition "cut and run" positions as straw men fit only for
demolishing:
"Option 1: would have Canada continue training
the Afghan army and police and begin withdrawing Canadian troops in
February 2009.
This is a canard, because the panel makes it clear that
training and combat missions are interlinked...
"Option 2 would have Canada focus on development
and governance, and rely on other countries to take charge of security
in Kandahar province."
Another canard, and the panel says why:
"Any precipitate Canadian military withdrawal from
Kandahar would place an immediate and irresponsible demand on Canadian
allies: Either they move troops to Kandahar to replace departing
Canadians, or ISAF and Afghans face an imminent security crisis in the
province. At the very least, such
a demand would damage Canada's standing as a trustworthy ally.
"Option 3 would have Canada move its existing
security, governance and development programs to another Afghan region."
This option seems to worry that leaving Kandahar now
would undermine all our good work up until now, if you're counting
that's three options the government and Canada has been presented with
that won't work... presented by the panel that was supposed to find
solutions. Sigh.
"Option 4 would have Canada withdraw all its
military forces from Afghanistan after February 2009, leaving only
enough to protect aid workers and diplomats. The Panel did not judge
this to be a viable option.
"Another variant of the withdrawal option would have
Canadian troops adopt what is described as a "traditional peacekeeping"
role in Kandahar -- using force only in self-defence. As we have
earlier
pointed out, however, there is not yet a peace to keep in Afghanistan."
Four canards now. But that doesn't mean it's hopeless,
after all the panel wants us to know that:
"The strongest impression formed by the Panel was that the
Canadian Forces are doing a highly commendable job in a more violent
and hazardous mission than was envisaged when they were first deployed
to Afghanistan.
"Canadian interests and values, and Canadian lives, are
now invested in Afghanistan. The sacrifices made there, by Canadians
and their families, must be respected. What we do there (or stop doing)
affects the Afghan people. It can affect Canadian security. It can
affect Canada's reputation in the world.
It can affect our influence in international affairs.
"A premature military withdrawal from Afghanistan,
whether full or partial, would imperil Canadian interests and values."
So, at last we get to the panel's suggestions about what
to do about this all, and they are quite ably detailed in these
stories, but here they are anyway:
"The commitment to Afghanistan we propose here is not
faint-hearted -- but nor is it open-ended. To achieve realizable
results in Afghanistan, at realistic costs and within a practical
period of time, the new Canadian policy approach should include the
following elements:"
But, briefly, the five recommendations the Manley report
offers are:
1: Diplomacy -- more a prescription of what
the UN
and NATO need to do to put more focus on goals in Afghanistan
2: Get more troops out of NATO, if so, continue
combat deployment past 2009 -- a 1,000-person battle group specifically
-- "to reinforce ISAF's 'clear, hold and develop' strategy in Kandahar"
3: A "signature" aid project -- CIDA must change
its policies to give Canada a more tangible presence in job creation
and aid delivery
4: Better monitoring of progress --
"International
parties to the Afghanistan Compact (mentioned earlier) to conduct a
full-scale review of the effectiveness of the security, governance and
development effort as a whole in 2011. That multinational review should
provide inform decisions on
future Canadian commitments to Afghanistan."
5: Talk to Canadians -- "The Government must
engage Canadians in a continuous, frank and constructive dialogue about
conditions in Afghanistan and the extent to which Canadian objectives
are being achieved"
Finally, the Conclusion:
The report takes pains to express the toll in lives and
treasure that the mission has cost Canada... and that they think it A)
hasn't been in vain, and B) must continue, provided some of the
international co-operation necessary for reforms comes online. This
optimistic hedge, "we can help, but only if we
are in turn helped" represents the sum conviction of the panel.
"After our three months of study, however, it is our
conviction that the Recommendations in our Report -- with their
attached conditions -- together carry a reasonable probability of
success.
In the circumstances now prevailing, that is the strongest assurance
that can be credibly given."
That link again, for the full PDF of the report if you
want to read it, is here.
Read The Marxist-Leninist
Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
