NATO Decides to Formally Sanction Combat Troops for Southern
Afghanistan
On December 8, 2005 NATO foreign
ministers formally endorsed a plan to expand the organization’s military
presence in Afghanistan under the NATO-led International Security Assistance
Force (ISAF). The plan is to immediately increase ISAF troop strength from the
current 9,000 to 15,000. Britain, Canada
and the Netherlands are earmarked to lead the expansion in the south of
Afghanistan. Previously, Canadian and European troops were mostly deployed in
the north and west of Afghanistan while American troops were concentrated in
the south. The objective is to free U.S. forces to concentrate their
counter-insurgency operations along Afghanistan's southern and eastern frontier
with Pakistan.
The NATO plans give the ISAF a
stronger self-defence mandate. This is a euphemism
for a stronger combat role. Canadian Colonel S.J. Bowes described the plan for
Canada to take responsibility for Kandahar as an
expansion of the offensive nature of the operation. He stated: "It's clear
that this is not a peacekeeping mission." In February 2002, Canada sent troops
to participate in the occupation of Afghanistan as part of the U.S.-led
"Operation Enduring Freedom". In August 2003, some of these 900
Canadian troops were transferred to the command of the ISAF. In February, another 2,000 Canadian soldiers
will leave for Afghanistan's southern region. This month, Canada is sending 100
commandos from its Joint Task Force Two to southern Afghanistan in advance of
this major deployment.
In order to justify Canada's
participation in the U.S. and NATO military action in Afghanistan, Prime
Minister Paul Martin has stated that Canada must share in the "global
burden of confronting terrorism" in one of its "prime breeding
grounds". In a speech on April 29, 2004 Paul Martin presented his
rationale for sending Canadian armed forces overseas as follows: "Once
protected by oceans, today's front line stretches from the streets of Kabul, to
cities in the United States, from the rail lines in Madrid, to cities across
Canada. Our adversary could be operating in the mountains of Afghanistan, in
the cities of Europe, or within our own borders. There is no home front. The
conflict is not 'over there'. Our approach to security must reflect this
reality." In other words, terrorism has no borders.
While it is true that terrorism is
an international phenomenon, this is not a justification for violating the
sovereignty of other countries, up to and including committing aggression
against them. The U.S. "war against terrorism" is a cover for its
pursuit of world domination. Its military action against Afghanistan and the
overthrow of the Taliban government were acts of aggression and a violation of
international law. This imperialist logic could be taken further. There is not
a single high ideal of mankind such as the pursuit of democracy and human
rights, nor a single societal ill such
as disease, poverty and drug trafficking, that are not international in
character. In this sense, there are no borders between countries. However,
these are not justifications for aggression. It is one thing for countries and
peoples to help each other on the basis of mutual respect for each other's
sovereignty, respect for the rights of all peoples, and non-interference in
each other's affairs. It is another thing to “help” for the purpose of
dominating, exploiting and oppressing other peoples and countries.
The NATO-led ISAF is officially a "peacekeeping" force. A peacekeeper can only have one standard, that of creating the conditions for peace. He cannot at the same time be an interventionist and aggressor or defender of militarism and fascism. What the Canadian Forces are doing in Afghanistan is not peacekeeping. Furthermore, how can Canada, which is a member of NORAD and NATO, really be a peacekeeper when its interests have been placed on the side of the United States through these alliances. For a country to play its role as a peacekeeper it must have a foreign policy of positive neutrality, condemning all acts of aggression, intervention and unjust wars, and supporting all movements which open the path for social progress and lasting peace in the world.