Home » Blogs » ravijo's blog

A Second Letter To Jack, Mrs. McDonough, And Mrs. Black

This letter I sent following the vote

Dear Jack, Mrs. McDonough, and Mrs. Black,

I appreciate that you must have been inundated with emails regarding Afghanistan and the vote in parliament, but I wanted to express my concerns now that the vote has gone in favour of the two year extension. I have serious concerns that I feel deserve specific demands in parliament and require the support of the NDP.

Afghanistan is clearly divided as both a peacekeeping operation and a military occupation, with Canadian forces thrown into a grey area between the two. While our operations have been defended now as 'peacekeeping', our initial involvement was under the US's military invasion. Additionally, with the US continuing their military occupation, we are unfortunately subsidizing and legitimizing their role in Afghanistan. We must clearly distinguish (with actions, not words) our role from that of an invading force, if we can ever expect begin our role as peacekeepers.

With that, I believe you are right to question the 'objectives' of this operation, and other things such as exit strategies. However, I think New Democrats must take a bolder and stronger stance this matter. Increasingly, Canadian energy companies are securing lucrative contracts to oil in Afghanistan, which of course compromises the integrity of our peacekeeping role. We must propose specific steps and actions to ensure our military is focussed on a peacekeeping role and not supporting the US's military role nor the interests of oil barons and profiteers. These steps can include:

- establishing secure fair trade networks for the Afghanistan's local economy, to establish their own priorities over their oil, and ensure alternatives to the ever increasing opium production.
- move Canadian troops away from potential oil pipelines and into areas of specific concern for local economies.
- apply foreign aid specifically to organizations which will establish guidelines for electoral funding in Afghanistan, with the focus on limiting corruption, and oil/drug-lord candidates. Similarly encourage the involvement of international observers in the electoral process.

These are specific strategies that Canada can take in Afghanistan to ensure our role is not simply of defending the interests of oil company shareholders. There are several steps we must take to reverse the trend of the Canadian military being used less as a peacekeeping entity, and more as an imperialist army. These are tremendously important for our country, because Canadians need to know our forces are being used for good, not defence of profit margins or resources. The following all serve to ensure that Canadians, not NATO, not corporations, and not the US government choose to deploy troops. They include:

- establishing an independent military ethics commission to continually assess the rational of government with respect to deployment of troops. This will help to curb the use of Canadian forces to defend economic interests of corporations and our country in general.
- reform funding to our forces with far less focus on expensive armoury, and with more focus on basic equipment, and things directly related to peacekeeping.
- re-establish the funding formula of Lester B. Pearson, where upwards of 80% of funding went directly to peacekeeping operations.
- establish a review of the role of NATO in the funding of our military.

We must make these changes for the sake of all Canadians, the families and communities of our soldiers, and of course for the sanctity of international law. Let integrity guide our peacekeeping operations, not profit margins.

Sincerely,

+Ravi Joshi

»

Mrs. McDonough's

Submitted by ravijo on June 13, 2006 - 16:02.

Mrs. McDonough's response:

Dear Ravi Joshi,

Thank you for informing me of your concerns regarding Canada's role in Afghanistan after February 2007.

The NDP voted against the vague motion to extend Canada’s involvement until 2009 because we believe the mission does not employ an equal balance of diplomacy, development and defense--the principles of Canadian foreign affairs. It does not reflect the peace-making values that Canadians want to see our forces undertake on the world stage. This motion that is being forced on our country ties aid and development to war-making, and we cannot support that.

It is quite clear that Harper's Conservatives aren't interested in due diligence. They're interested in dragging us further into a US-style combat role and away from our traditional peace keeping role. Much like the Liberals before them, the Conservatives have failed to give Canadians clear details on their strategy for a continued mission in Afghanistan. Repeatedly, the NDP has asked that the Conservatives explain what the chain of command and control will be for this mission, what the definition of success will be for our troops and what our exit strategy will be when the time comes to remove our troops from Afghanistan.

Many Canadians have written me wanting answers and it is our duty as representatives of our constituents, to get answers before committing to any new missions overseas. As any soldier knows, time spent on reconnaissance is never wasted.

New Democrats recognize that Canada does have a role in assisting Afghans in rebuilding their country. Afghanistan is the largest recipient of Canadian overseas development aid and we fully support the continuation of that funding - outside of this mission.

I have attached my recent speech in the House from May 17th, 2006 during the debate on Afghanistan. Also, please find below Dawn Black NDP Defence Critic’s recent follow-up question to Minister of Foreign Affairs Peter MacKay.

Again, I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Alexa McDonough, MP Halifax
NDP Foreign Affairs and International Development Critic

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time this evening with the hard-working member for Ottawa Centre.

This time last week I was in Afghanistan in my dual capacity as the foreign affairs critic and the international cooperation critic for the New Democratic Party. I want to say that I was very grateful for that opportunity. I wish I had more time this evening to share some of those experiences but I know that as a result of the collapsed timetable and, I regret to say, a certain amount of political posturing by the government, we find ourselves in this debate this evening with restricted rules and no ability to amend the motion that is before us.

It creates howling from government benches but those are simply the facts which Canadians know.

This is an important opportunity this evening to talk about Canada's future role in Afghanistan. Let me say clearly that nothing in my short time in Afghanistan persuaded me that we ought not to have a role. In fact, I feel more strongly than ever that it is exceedingly important for us to engage constructively in a process of comprehensive peace-building. However, that is not what we are doing in Kandahar and that is one of the principal concerns that my party has in voting against the motion this evening.

My first thoughts on this occasion turn to the tragic loss of Captain Nichola Goddard in carrying out her service in Afghanistan. She paid the ultimate price. She sacrificed her life. I want to express my condolences to her family. I know her family includes the troops with whom she was serving, because we all know how close they become as members of a team working in harm's way on behalf of their nation.

My thoughts also turn to the families and the loved ones of those who are there now serving. In that regard, I want to quote briefly from a very thoughtful letter I received yesterday on the eve of this debate from the mother of a young man who is now serving in Kandahar. In part, this is what she says:

"Every time I hear about an attack or an accident I do not rest until I receive word from my son. I'm sure every parent of a soldier serving in these high-risk areas feels the same. There are twenty or thirty checks of the computer a day, and prayers, and checks of...news.... I would be more in support of continuing to have our troops overseas in such circumstances, and serving as peacekeepers if I felt truly informed."

Unfortunately, we go away from this debate tonight with far fewer answers than we need as parliamentarians and Canadians need to be able to say that we are adequately informed.

She continues to say:

"If I felt our soldiers weren't overextended, working murderous hours, and possibly becoming less effective and responsive as they succumb to exhaustion and the pressure of the situation [I would feel better]."

"Perhaps some of what I share will help...in tomorrow's debate over the extension of time [proposed] in Afghanistan. Again, I wonder why it's painted the way it is in the paper today - that if we choose not to extend the time, that means we don't support our military."

We must keep in mind that this is the mother of a young man serving today in Kandahar. She goes on to say:

"The assumption is that it will filter to the troops who will feel we don't support them."

"This idea that we aren't supporting Canadian troops is an illogical argument, one put forth to silence [legitimate questions] and to gain what the military leadership and the government wish...but is it in the best interest of Canadians."

She finishes by saying:

"I support the military but I do not support the wasteful and senseless loss of Canadian lives. No amount of control over an Afghanistan village is worth the loss of my son's life or his health... to me as his mother. I support the military, support [genuine] peacekeeping, but not with callous disregard for the lives of our youths."

I am sure that those sentiments express the feelings of a great many parents and other loved ones of young people and people of all ages serving in Kandahar today.

Notwithstanding the incredible commitment, the competence and the courage of the young men and women serving today in Kandahar, I am deeply disturbed by both the nature and the tone of this debate tonight. I do not know which it is, but either wilfully or out of ignorance, a great deal of misinformation and deception has been created here in this debate tonight by government members, and from time to time I regret to say, from members of the official opposition as well.

There have been many claims about how much our current mission has contributed to improved security and improvement in the lives of the people of Afghanistan. It is very important that we think about this as we contemplate our future commitments. As I have said, we need to make future commitments. We need to understand that the gains and the improvements that have been made in Kabul have not been made under an Operation Enduring Freedom mission, not under the U.S. search and kill aggressive combat effort that is in full flight in Kandahar. That is a very important thing for us to realize.

I am deeply disturbed that there has been no acknowledgement that there is indeed a difference and that it makes any difference whether we are there under a NATO led mission or whether we are there under Operation Enduring Freedom. I just about fell over when the defence minister stated that he considers the NATO and Operation Enduring Freedom missions as being the same.

For the record, here is the NATO agreed upon statement on the difference between the two missions. The ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force and Operation Enduring Freedom relationship is described as follows:

"ISAF and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), the ongoing US-led military operation in Afghanistan, will continue to have separate mandates and separate missions. ISAF will conduct to focus on its stabilization and security mission whilst OEF will continue to carry out its counter-terrorism mission. Clear command arrangements will coordinate, and where necessary deconflict efforts within the two missions as agreed under the auspices of the operational plan."

How could the defence minister possibly say it did not really matter whether we talk about one or the other? Actually, the Leader of the Opposition made more or less the same comment. He indicated that it did not really worry him that we were not operating under a NATO led mission.

Let me go further. There has been an attempt tonight on the part of the government to completely ignore, not acknowledge the fact that there is a raging debate going on within NATO around that counter-insurgency mission that is taking place in Kandahar. It is clear and it is acknowledged by everyone from Donald Rumsfeld to a recent report by the Council on Foreign Relations that there are serious problems with that counter-insurgency mission. In fact, President Karzai himself went to the U.S. and said it was time to put an end to it.

Let me end by saying that there is a reason people say that truth is very often the first victim of war. We have heard far too little in the way of concrete facts on the basis of which Canadians could feel reassured that the government knows what it is proposing we get into. It is clear that the responsible thing for us to do is vote against this motion because it is based on a flawed mission and is not revealing enough information.

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the Senate committee, the Minister of Foreign Affairs showed once again that the government does not have any of the answers when it comes to Afghanistan.

He said that Canada could be in Afghanistan beyond the withdrawal date that we agreed to in the House, but he could not give an end date.

He had no answers on the cost of the mission or what the exit strategy is. He could not even tell the committee if Canada is at war.

What is it? Canadians want to know and we in the House want to know, is Canada at war, yes or no? Canadians need to know.

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what we do know is that Canada is part of a global effort to eradicate terrorism.

We are making a significant effort in Afghanistan, along with our international partners, to free and liberate the people of Afghanistan from the oppression that was in place under the Taliban.

We do know for certain that the hon. member and members of the NDP do not support Canada's effort in Afghanistan, nor the troops that are there making us proud every day.

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not need any patronizing lectures from that minister, who cannot even answer a simple question.

Canadians deserve to know the answers to these questions, most of which--

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam has the floor. There seems to be an unusual amount of noise. I cannot hear the hon. member. She has the floor and the minister has to be able to hear her question in order to give an answer. I can see he is getting ready already.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

Ms. Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to know the answers to these important questions, most of which were asked by the government itself while in opposition.

Will the minister concede that in fact the government has no clue how long we are going to be there, no idea how much it is going to cost and no strategy for how we are going to get out? Canadians deserve these answers. When will the government come--

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I was having difficulty hearing the member as well. Maybe she could raise her voice in her next question.

What we know, obviously, is that Canada, as I said, is part of a very important effort to try to eradicate--

The Speaker: If there was a little more order, none of us would have to raise our voices. The idea is to relax, hear the questions and hear the answers. I would urge hon. members to show a little more restraint. We are wasting time.

The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs has the floor to give his answer.

Hon. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, Canada is involved in a very important effort in Afghanistan. The troops being there gives us the ability to help build democracy, to help build the capacity of the Afghan people to eventually, themselves, enjoy the same types of freedom that we enjoy in Canada.

This is the type of effort that Canada is involved in. This is what members opposite and members of the NDP should be supporting, not backing down, not suggesting we cut and run, as they did in the vote last week.

»