In the latest episode of this recurring travesty, Hillier warns Canada that the Taliban will see Canada is weak if the country continues to debate its presence in Afghanistan. So rather than actually be a fully functioning democracy - supposedly what Canada wants to see in Afghanistan - Canada should instead craft foreign policy based on how theocratic, militaristic dictators might perceive the country. And instead of having debate in Parliament - you know, that democracy thing again - Canada will allow the military to determine its policy. Like a dictatorship.
To which one can only say: Rick Hillier, shut the hell up.
As far as the democracy goes, there's really no need to have an election, when the Liberals are so happy to
Rick Salutin, writing in the Globe and Mail, summed it up well: "We're there because we're there". This is worth reading.
Here are some thoughts for the coming parliamentary debate on Afghanistan. Consider it the unManley report.
Why are we there? Tom Axworthy, summing up the Manley panel's reasons for Canada's military mission, says: "The Taliban's return would threaten regional peace and security; the UN has sanctified the mission; NATO is committed; and Canada should help failed states." Those are sentences, not reasons. Here's panel member Derek Burney: "Canada is a G8 member and, as such, is expected to engage internationally, serving global organizations to which we belong in a manner befitting our responsibility ..."
It's sheer pomposity: "sanctified," "befitting." Why are we there? We're there because we're there. That's it. We went for various reasons. Now the heavy hitters want us to stay. Because we're already there.
But won't NATO come apart if it doesn't pull this off? So what? Why shouldn't NATO go back to the North Atlantic, where it's from, and be a defence alliance, which it was? If that no longer makes sense, let it disband. Why look for work in places like Kosovo and Afghanistan? What about saving failed states? This is one of those phrases (like civil society) that entered public discourse suddenly, and has made mischief ever since. All states fail to some degree. Why is it our task to grade this one and get its marks up? If there's a specific problem, like incubating terror cells, then take some useful half-measures. Pursue and isolate the terrorists, cordon off the hot spots and don't think you can solve everything. There's an arrogance in "nation-building," another dicey phrase. Send the NATO forces home and let them nation-build there. Life is mostly half-measures.
"Without security, there can be no development": Wrong, but I know it sounds right. The problem is, security in this case means occupation by foreign troops, which doesn't work well anywhere, especially Afghanistan. First "we" invade and depose their government, which had at least provided security. Then we impose a government that "invites" us in (where we already are) and survives only with our support. Our presence inspires resistance and recruitment to the Taliban or al-Qaeda, which revive. (Al-Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist till the U.S. invasion; now it exports to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.) The more resistance, the more we the occupiers have to fight, and opposition grows. This week, bombs killed many civilians in the "Canadian" area. A district leader said it was the worst day of his life: "What was secure has now become insecure." This kind of security creates insecurity. Aid, in turn, is stymied. A recent UN report says general indicators such as human development and poverty have worsened since 2004.
What about helping women? Isn't that a good idea? Well, the situation for women was astronomically better under the Soviet-backed government in the 1980s before "our side" created the mujahedeen, who threw out the Soviets, assailed women and were, in turn, ousted by the Taliban, who we then defeated, installing warlords and clerics in their place. No lasting developmental good has come from foreign occupation; people there have learned this. They aren't irrational, they're observant.
Can anything be done? Possibly. But it would take a local political peace, brokered by regional powers such as Pakistan, India and Iran - not Lithuanians and Canadians. Then the well-meaning Canadians, including the military, could do their good works, rather than inspire rebellion.
Those dumb voters: Despite the Harper taunt that Canadians don't cut and run, and the Manley plea not to shirk our noble international blah blah, 61 per cent still think our troops should leave. Why lecture them about why they're wrong, instead of assuming they know what they want? Stéphane Dion says nobody wants an election on Afghanistan. Count me out. I'd love it.
I agree. I'd love it, too.
Shortly after the Liberals spend the week caving on every issue, a poll appears to show us the Tories are winning the battle for Canadian hearts and minds. I've seen at least one progressive blogger de-bunk this poll, linking to another showing a much slimmer Conservative lead. (But argh, I can't find the link now!) But beyond that, if the Liberals are indistinguishable from the Conservatives, why would people prefer them? Much like the Democrats in the US, rather than offering a clear vision of their own, the Liberal Party of Canada prefers competing with the Tories on their playing field. That's a game you can never win. When faced with Tory or Tory Light, why not go with the real thing? Especially when the Liberal party leader is so weak and ineffectual.
Stéphane Dion says the Liberals "have to respect the decision of the voters in 2006". Has Mr. Dion forgotten that a clear majority of voters voted against this Conservative government?
No comments:
Post a Comment