We Canadians like to think of ourselves as a helpful bunch when it comes to world affairs. We’re the global citizens, the humanitarians, the peace makers. Our country is a valuable ally and a reliable friend to nations the world over. And yet, this aggrandized self-image is severely compromised by our inadequate contributions to humanitarian operations conducted under the auspices of both the United Nations and NATO. The heated negotiations over our mission in Afghanistan between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal leader Stéphane Dion is a prime example of Canada’s lack of commitment to important humanitarian military operations.
Dion wants to end the mission in 2009, while Harper wants to extend it beyond that date, maintaining substantial troop numbers in the region until at least 2011. If Dion is committed to the high-minded ideals this country holds dear, then he will drop these demands altogether. For the sake of Canada’s reputation, and more importantly, for the sake of the Afghan people, Canada must continue until it has met the only acceptable benchmark for withdrawal: stability, security, and peace in a democratic Afghanistan.
Harper’s position is based on the Manley Report, a collection of findings authored by an independent, non-partisan government panel. John Manley, author of the report and a former Liberal cabinet minister, has made it clear that the present mission is indeed a humanitarian one. As he told the Ottawa Citizen, “Whenever we asked Afghans what they thought Canada or other NATO forces should do, there was never any hesitation: ‘We want you to stay; we need you to stay.’ Without the presence of the international security forces, they said, chaos would surely ensue.”
Canada is in Afghanistan by invitation of that country’s democratically elected leaders, a government that, for all its shortcomings, is far more legitimate than the brutal Taliban regime preceding it. Our troops are fighting a war alongside a multilateral NATO coalition against the remnants of a chauvinist, sexist, and misogynistic group of fundamentalists. As Manley asked, “If we are not willing to lend our military resources when asked to do so by the United Nations, for a mission co-ordinated by NATO, in a country whose democratically elected government wants us and whose citizens desperately need us, then we wonder where and when Canada would do so.”
It is evident from the Manley report that the mission is far from over. While NATO and Canada have made progress, Afghanistan still suffers. In fact, Manley has advised the Canadian government to send more troops, due to the fact that major combat operations have lacked the adequate strength to secure areas that have been cleared of Taliban militants.
With so much at stake, Dion is wrong to call for an artificial timeline for withdrawal. He is either astoundingly naive to think all that we seek to achieve can be attained by 2009, or given the war’s unpopularity, cynically unprincipled enough to not care about the mission or the Afghan people .
The fact that Canada’s leaders have such reservations when success is far from assured is worrying. It makes one question the commitment of Canada to our oft-espoused peace-keeping principles, at a time when Afghans need our help the most.
