Commentary
Canada Should Get Out of Afghanistan!
On March 1, Canadian Brigadier-General David
Fraser assumed command of NATO troops in southern Afghanistan. The command in Kandahar includes 2,200 Canadian troops. This marks a
deeper involvement by Canada in the continuing U.S.-led aggression and
occupation of Afghanistan. The change in command has also been accompanied by a
campaign by the government, mass media, major political parties and defence staff to convince the Canadian working class and
people that this is a just cause. For example, Fraser, on assuming his new
command, stated that Canadian troops are
there "at the behest of the Afghan population", that the mission is
about "helping Afghans" and that the "goal is to enable and
facilitate the rebuilding of their country". However, none of these
assertions are true.
Internationally, a big effort has been made to
give legitimacy to the "regime change" brought about by the U.S. and
Britain and to sanitize their violation of the national sovereignty of
Afghanistan. For example, from January 31 to February 1, 2006 the United
Nations co-chaired, along with the British government and the newly-elected
Afghan government, "The London Conference on Afghanistan". The result was the adoption of an
international agreement called "The Afghanistan Compact". This
"Compact", to which Canada is a signatory, places Afghanistan under
foreign military and political control. It stipulates that "Through
end-2010... the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF),
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and their respective Provincial Reconstruction
Teams (PRTs) will promote security and stability in
all regions of Afghanistan..." It also stipulates the establishment of a
Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board involving the Afghan government, the
United Nations and other countries to ensure "the implementation of the
political commitments that comprise this Compact".
Canadian troops were sent to Afghanistan at
the behest of the United States and Britain, not at the behest of the people of
Afghanistan. They were sent in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks
on the United States and under the pretext that the Taliban government was refusing
to hand over Osama bin Laden to U.S. authorities. In other words, Canada's
participation in this aggression had nothing to do with helping the people of
Afghanistan. Right from the beginning, under the Liberal government of Jean Chretien, Canada was assigned a combat, not a peacekeeping
role. In February 2002, only a few months after the U.S.-British attack in
October 2001, the Canadian armed forces dispatched the 3 PPCLI Battle Group
under then Lieutenant-Colonel Pat Stogran to Kandahar, Afghanistan for a tour of six months. An official
Canadian Forces "backgrounder" said: "During this period, the
soldiers of the 3 PPCLI Battle Group performed tasks ranging from airfield
security to combat."
Steven Harper has stated that his government
"strongly supported the previous government and its commitments" and
will continue to do so. He gave various arguments to defend his stand. First,
he said that Canada's military mission in Afghanistan is "important for global security".
This is simply untrue. It is undeniable that the U.S. "war against
terrorism" which was initiated by the attack on Afghanistan has
significantly destabilized the world. Second, he said that Canada must fulfill
its "obligations to the international community". This is merely a
euphemism for fulfilling obligations to the United States, which has prevailed
upon its allies to provide money and troops to defend and extend its world
empire. Third, Harper said that his government has a "responsibility to support"
Canadian troops - "our men and women" - in Afghanistan rather than
undermine their spirits by raising doubts about their mission. This is a way of
avoiding the issue. The Canadian government certainly does have a
responsibility for the Canadian armed forces. One of these responsibilities is
to ensure that Canadian men and women are not sent to commit aggression against
other peoples and are not sent to die as cannon fodder in U.S.-led wars of
conquest.
All of the opposition parties in the House of
Commons are supporting Canada's military mission in Afghanistan - the Liberals
and Bloc Quebecois give unquestioning support, while the NDP give
"critical" support. They all share two things in common. Not a single
one of these parties is demanding the withdrawal of Canadian troops from
Afghanistan and all of them are concerned that the vast majority of the
Canadian people are opposed to Canada's participation in the war in
Afghanistan. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc are raising questions over the length of
the mission and criticizing the lack of debate in the House of Commons. In
addition, the NDP is pretending that Canada's current role in Afghanistan has
changed from its original purpose.
During the last federal election NDP leader
Jack Layton tried to suggest that the nature of the "mission" in
Afghanistan had undergone a change since 2002.
He stated that "We appear to be drifting from our original mission
there – which was to provide security in the capital region – and into a combat
role side-by-side with American troops." While the number of Canadian
troops in Afghanistan has increased since 2001, Canada's role in Afghanistan
has never been one of peacekeeping. It is even ridiculous to suggest that there
could be a peacekeeping role in that situation given the fact that the U.S.
broke the peace by invading a sovereign country. Canadian Chief of Defence
Staff, General Hillier, in an interview on March 3, 2006, totally dismissed the
notion that Canada has ever been
involved in peacekeeping in Afghanistan. He said that " What is occurring
now is a crystallization of the kind of operations that have taken place for the
last 15 years, since the Cold War. If anyone thinks that what we were doing in
the Balkans in the early to mid 1990s was peacekeeping, they simply do not
understand whatsoever what you had to do on the ground."
The NDP has been joined by the Liberal Party
and Bloc Quebecois in demanding that Canada's military role in Afghanistan be
debated in the House of Commons. The NDP
wants a debate about the terms and goals of the mission. Jack Layton has said
that the NDP does not want a "protracted" mission, but he is not demanding that Canada
immediately gets out of Afghanistan. In other words, a short mission is alright
for the NDP. On March 6 he stated that: "It's vitally important that we
have, in the House of Commons, a full debate on our mission, its terms, our
goals, because that really has yet to happen. We certainly don't want to become
involved in a protracted war." Liberal defence
critic, Ujjal Dosanjh, in
an interview with the Globe and Mail on March 3, 2006, stated that the
Liberals only want a debate in order to convince the Canadian people to support
the war. The article said:
"Mr. Dosanjh,
who was health minister in the previous government, then re-asserted the
Liberals strong support for the mission and the troops. 'We support the mission
absolutely and in unqualified fashion,' he said. The purpose of a parliamentary
debate, he stressed, should not be to argue about whether Canadian soldiers
should be in Afghanistan, but rather to persuade Canadians that they should be
there. 'In an environment where one is not certain as to what percentage of
Canadians support the mission...it would be useful to have their
representatives from across the country actually engage in a sober debate about
a very serious issue.' He added: 'If you had a vote in parliament, I have no
doubt in my mind that there would be absolutely overwhelming support.' Indeed,
it is extremely unlikely that the government would lose such a vote, since the
Liberals and the Bloc strongly support the Afghan mission, and the NDP, though
more critical than the other parties, are not strongly opposed."
Furthermore, the NDP's
election platform did not take a stand against Canada's role in Afghanistan. It
merely said that an NDP government would
"Commit Canadian troops to overseas operations only under the auspices of
international peace and security organizations." The problem with this
stand is that Canadian troops are committed to Afghanistan under the
auspices of international peace and security organizations, such as the United
Nations and NATO, which only shows that these organizations are part of the
problem too. The issue is not multilateralism versus unilateralism in
determining right from wrong. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq by the
United States and Britain, and their threats against various other countries,
are wrong even if these actions have the backing of other countries, and even
if these actions have the backing of the United Nations Security Council, NATO
and other international organizations.
The Canadian working class and people should condemn the Canadian government for participating in the aggression against and occupation of Afghanistan and demand that Canadian troops be immediately withdrawn. We should also demand that Canada get out of NATO and NORAD. The Canadian working class and people should condemn "The Afghanistan Compact" too. Even though the "compact" is a multilateral agreement put in place under the auspices of the United Nations it does not make the past or present activities of the United States and Britain, or those of the Canadian government, any less a violation of international law and the sovereignty of Afghanistan.