 
 
 
|
Careless Rhetoric is Not What Quebec Needs
Canada is a magnificent country. It has allowed us to be ourselves, and to become something greater besides. To a considerable degree we owe the success we have achieved as individuals, as communities to the greatness of Canada, to the resilience and foresight in its arrangements. The Charter and respect for the rule of law have strengthened our society and the rights of its citizens. Canada and all provinces have made striking progress using their own authority and through an effective, cooperative federalism.
If we start from negative premises we inevitably come to negative conclusions. Institutions can always be improved, but we have to be careful not to embrace the rhetoric of those who suggest there is a fatal flaw in the Canadian idea. Other countries look to Canada as a story of remarkable success. We should be justly proud of what we have accomplished. It’s also important to remember that it is precisely our federal structure that has allowed Quebec to succeed in so many ways – the home of successful institutions and companies, a vibrant culture, a leader in public policy and innovation. Canada has worked for Quebec, and Quebec is a leader within Canada.
The federal idea is really about two things: the strong desire of communities (states, provinces), to be themselves, to retain an important degree of sovereignty and authority, and their desire to create something bigger and better, a country with its own sovereignty and a capacity to integrate the disparate members of the federation into a stronger whole.
Canada is not a unitary state. Nor is it some kind of confederal arrangement whose members happen to bump into each other on occasion. Canada is an outstanding country, a vibrant and by any measure successful federation with a strong collective identity, and a high level of regional autonomy. Our balanced arrangements have served us extremely well.
Canada's constitution was, in 1867, an act of the British Parliament. It took over a hundred years before it became truly ours with an entrenched Charter of Rights and its own amending formula. I voted for patriation and the Charter in 1982. I felt that it was important for Canada to come of age, to bring our constitution home, and that the Charter would in no way deprive any province, including Quebec, of any powers it needed. I also knew that the Parti Quebecois would never agree to patriation on terms that could really work.
The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that, with the substantial consensus among provincial and federal governments – the Quebec government and National Assembly being an exception - the act of patriation was constitutional and thus the law of the land.
Nonetheless, twice since 1982 major national efforts have been made to make further changes to the constitution in order to have the province of Quebec become a signatory to it. Neither of these efforts was successful.
I voted in favour of the Meech Lake Accord in the Ontario legislature, and attended the last-ditch negotiating session in Ottawa in June 1990 at the invitation of Premier Peterson. I participated extensively in the discussions around Charlottetown, all the negotiating sessions, and countless private and public gatherings. Together with many others, I campaigned for it. It passed in my home province with a slight majority, was approved in three others and rejected in six.
Some mythologies have developed over this issue: that a conspiracy betrayed Quebec in 1981, that Quebec has somehow remained “outside” the constitution since that time, that on the other hand Meech and Charlottetown were unmitigated disasters, and should never have been attempted.
There is no point in recrimination. We would be wiser to learn lessons and try to apply them successfully in the years ahead.
I have spent much of my life working on constitutional issues in Canada and around the world. Debates about constitutional words and concepts have a way of taking over, and becoming all-consuming. We should take a step back for a moment.
The Meech and Charlottetown experiences took nearly ten years. In the end the people of Canada weren’t buying. Why would we do that again? My experience in Canada and abroad has convinced me that we need to bring people together, not let arguments about symbols or powers drive them apart. Philosophies and ideologies divide. Common interests bring us together.
This leads me to the resolution dealing with “nation” that emerged from the recent meeting of the Conseile Generale of the Quebec wing of the Party. The resolution asserts a recognition of Quebec as a nation with no definition, and requests a new Liberal government to study and take action to “officialize” the recognition of the Quebec nation within Canada. That the former PQ Premier Bernard Landry has welcomed this ambiguous language in the resolution should give all Liberals and Canadians real pause.
I speak as one who has long supported Quebec’s collective identity and distinctiveness within Canada. Ironically these efforts were opposed by the Parti Quebecois during both Meech and Charlottetown. I was also supportive of the resolution introduced by the Liberal government in 1996 and passed by the Parliament of Canada recognizing Quebec as a “distinct society”. That measure as well was opposed by the Bloc Quebecois.
I do not have a problem that many Quebecois feel themselves part of a “nation” in the sense of a community of interest affected by a shared history, language, culture and geography. No Canadian should feel threatened by that, any more than we are about people describing themselves as part of the Welsh nation, the Scottish nation, the Métis nation, the Cree nation, or any similar assertions of identity. But we need to be clear that, with such respect, we are not implying constitutional change or new constitutional powers. The country that draws us together is Canada.
That is why the language of the recent task force chaired by former Justice Minister Martin Cauchon is to be commended: “the Liberal Party should always consider and respect the fact that Quebec has a special character in the Canadian Federation”. There are many different words and expressions to convey the same thought. We should not become fixated on any one of them.
The PQ and the Bloc have demonstrated that they will oppose symbols of inclusiveness, insisting instead on a series of never-ending demands, and thus dividing Quebec over good faith efforts to unite Canadians. When people start floating constitutional notions, the interests, grievances and wishes of other governments and parties, such as aboriginal communities, also come into play, whether the issues are symbolic or substantive. Once embarked on this route, it has to be understood, all Canadians would need to have a say and the last word on major constitutional change, by referendum. As we have also seen, public opinion on these matters can turn on a dime. Thus, hasty improvisation, no matter how well intentioned, is simply a recipe for disappointment.
The focus has to shift from the overblown rhetoric of bold “new constitutions” and wholesale changes of everything that moves to a steady, achievable affirmation of what can be done to make the federation work better. Let me quote again from the words of the Cauchon report, “by proceeding in a pragmatic, step-by-step way and showing political goodwill, we can send a strong signal to all citizens of Quebec”—and I would add, “to all citizens of Canada”—“that they can grow, prosper and realize their aspirations within the Canadian federation.”
Leadership is about building confidence through success in addressing the practical needs of Canadians. Above all, we need to address the real imperatives of our era. These include acting on climate change, building a prosperous economy, providing jobs for Canadians, maintaining an independent and thoughtful foreign policy, ensuring a competitive tax regime, reducing child poverty, supporting learning. These are the pressing, practical issues that will require concerted co-operation. This is where we need to put our energies, developing solutions that work, and showing our children, ourselves and other countries that we know how to get it done. It is a wiser path than a constitutional adventure.
Source : The National Post
November 7, 2006
By Bob Rae
Why I left the Left behind
Excerpt from Bob Rae’s new book Canada in the Balance, as published in Macleans, October 30, 2006 edition
I spent twenty years of my life as a member of the New Democratic Party, and was elected eight times to federal and provincial Parliament as an NDP member. Why did I leave the NDP to join the Liberals?
Simply put, after lengthy personal experience, I concluded that the federal NDP and its Ontario counterpart are wedded to a culture of opposition and protest. They have great difficulty embracing the lessons of the postwar world about the relationship between markets, society, and government. Determined to be in Canada what one of their leaders described as the “last, best, left,” the New Democrats are confining themselves to an ever-smaller universe. They are ignoring obvious lessons of history, solid research, and the example of other left-leaning parties elsewhere, such as “new Labour” in Britain. In my 1998 book, The Three Questions, the argument I expressed was that the pursuit of wealth creation was not opposed to social justice, as much thinking on the left seemed to imply. Rather, good public policy required a commitment to a balance between the self-interest of the market and the broader claims of the public good. Citing Edmund Burke’s aphorism that “there is nothing more dangerous than governing in the name of a theory,” the underlying theme of the book was the need to avoid ideological enthusiasm. It seemed to me then, as it does now, that both the right and the left have been unable to avoid the lure of ideology.
At its core, the NDP, both in Ontario and federally, has been more committed to protest than to seeing the country achieve a balanced, progressive, effective government. It cannot escape a knee-jerk reaction to business entrepreneurship and wealth creation. Most social democratic parties in power have had to address issues of marginal tax rates for businesses and individuals from an intensely practical viewpoint. Governments from Manitoba to Sweden have accepted that this is a precondition for prosperity. But the federal NDP’s recent opposition to any tax changes for large and even small business is a sure sign that “private sector is bad, public sector is good” is a flawed mantra it simply can’t avoid.
In the last federal election, the NDP’s final pitch to any Liberal was to “please lend us your vote” for one election. The party of Pearson and Trudeau, the argument went, wasn’t being represented by the current leadership: time in the penalty box would do the trick.
With a refreshed and refocused leadership, the Liberal Party is surely entitled to say to those same voters: “We are the party of Laurier, Pearson, and Trudeau. We are the party of prosperity, fairness, and pluralism. The NDP has not earned the right to retain your vote. We would like your vote back.”
The roots of the Liberal Party of Canada lie in the power of two ideas: First, responsible government required the end of an unaccountable Family Compact and its replacement by reform-minded governments committed to expanding democracy and the public good. Second, since, in Laurier’s words, “Canada is a very difficult country to govern,” the greatest care has to be paid to the sensitivities of French and English, the balance between regions, the never-ending issue of national unity, and the need to put our relationship with Aboriginal peoples on a new footing.
The Liberal Party’s strength is its capacity for governing and statecraft, its determination to seek balance, and its underlying commitment to prosperity and the sharing of opportunity.
Jean Chrétien’s election in 1993 and the crushing defeat of the Progressive Conservatives provided the party with a fresh chance to prove its strength and relevance to Canada’s needs. The greatest achievement of those years was undoubtedly the elimination of the deficit and the return of real fiscal strength to the country.
To these must be added the decision to sign the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change , the commitment to higher education, innovation and research, and Canada’s renewed focus on international development and peacemaking. Changes to Canada’s election financing laws will also be seen as a critical legacy.
Paul Martin’s accession to office in 2003 was quickly followed by an election in the spring of 2004. While only given a minority mandate, there were marked achievements of the Martin years, most notably the negotiation of the agreement known as the Kelowna Accord, a budget described by Greenpeace as “the greenest in Canadian history,” and an historic agreement on child care negotiated by Liberal MP Ken Dryden that marked both federal leadership and provincial flexibility.
I have learned from hard experience the costs of the ideology that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives want to impose on Canada, and that Canadians in a majority voted against in the last election. I am running as a Liberal for the leadership of the Liberal Party because I have learned that Canada needs a party that is committed to change, that is open to all Canadians, and that understands that politics is about people, not theories and ideologies.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier talked of his “sunny ways,” and reminded Canadians that faith and love are more important than doubt and hate. I like the Liberal Party because it is optimistic, because it builds on hope, not fear, because it believes in opportunity for everyone, because it is inclusive. My dad always used to say about certain people, “He’s a big person, he’s a builder.” For me, the glass is always half full. I love this country and all its people, and for me the Liberal Party best expresses those feelings.
There are some basic lessons I’ve drawn from my experiences as an active politician, premier, and mediator and problem-solver over the last thirty years. The first lesson I learned is what I call the Ella Fitzgerald lesson: “I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor, and rich is better.” Prosperity and the encouragement of prosperity are critical. Not simply desirable, they are vital to improving the lot of our citizens today and those who will join us here in the future. I governed during the worst recession since the 1930s. The prosperity of the late 1980s came to a dramatic halt. Immediately, we learned of the difficulties that that entailed. Many business people have told me that in good times mistakes can be quickly overcome. In tough times, that is just not the case.
Since my time as premier of Ontario, Canada has developed a collective allergy to deficits, and that is a good thing. In some ways that has become as much a part of our political identity as quality health care. We must continue to keep our fiscal house in order.
We need competitive tax and regulatory policies, but they must be balanced by a renewed focus on learning, on innovation, and investments in infrastructure that encourage private and public investment. This was a key focus of the Chrétien-Martin years. They are not, apparently, on the Harper priority list. Harper’s idea of economic policy is to take a point off the GST. His right hand doesn’t know what his far right hand is doing. It just isn’t enough for a complex economy like Canada’s.
It’s a tough, competitive world out there. Preparing Canadians for the challenge ahead is at the top of my list. It needs to be a focus of our politics again. But as important as prosperity is, it is not enough. It must be matched with purpose.
Wealth creation must be a partner to shared opportunity. Children living in poverty are a challenge to our conscience and to our future. Child poverty challenges our sense of what makes sense—we know full well that generations left behind will be more likely to fall ill, to go to jail, to need constant support. Canadians deserve better.
I’ve learned that trying to turn heads is more important than counting heads. Taking what my father called the pulse of democracy should not deter people from understanding that things change—and that things must change. Henry Ford said, “If I’d asked people what they wanted, I’d have given them a faster horse.” We need to listen—but we also need to lead.
Ending child poverty is where we can lead. It can be, should be, a goal of our government. First reducing it, then eliminating it. To do that you have to begin at the beginning. With health care, with early learning and child development, with high-quality and affordable child care, with the social safety net that defines us as Canadians.
We need a health-care strategy that ensures our public system is accessible, safe, of high quality, and includes a focus on wellness and prevention, especially in the early years. The federal government must come to the health-care table as a player and a partner to help ensure these ends.
When a quarter of our high-school students drop out, and a further 25 per cent graduate school without going on, we have a problem. When students’ perception of the costs of higher education is greater than their sense of the value that comes from post-secondary skills, we have a problem. As Canadians, we have to strive for better.
During the last federal election campaign I was struck, like many Canadians, by the absence of discussion from the major political parties of Canada’s place in the world. It is no secret, no astounding revelation, that our well-being depends on what is happening around us. Our economic health is dependent on our trade with partners across the globe as well as just across the border. Our citizens come from every region of the world.
As Canadians, we would do well to remember the respect we have gained internationally—our reputation for stability and fairness and as a country that works. But that is not enough. It must be matched by a commitment to meet our international obligations, and then do more to lead.
A foreign policy borne of an ideology and excessive rhetoric is bound to fail—we have heard the reverberations of such failure echo ‘round the world. Jean Chrétien was right about Canada and Iraq—not because he was following public opinion, but because he thought the invasion ill-advised and contrary to international law. It was a judgment call that was fundamentally sound, reflected our values, and offered our independent voice. Like all the major problems that face our world, Canada cannot solve the environmental degradation and global warming alone. But we should be more of a leader. Signing the Kyoto Protocol was only the first step—accepting targets is one thing, achieving them is another. It would be nice to say that retreat from Kyoto is unthinkable. But, in fact, we know with the current government it is not. Mr. Harper has put us on notice: the Kyoto Protocol is of no importance to him. I disagree. Our environment—our children’s future—is not negotiable.
The Conservatives are attempting to take us down paths that do not reflect our strengths or speak to our most pressing challenges. On foreign policy, Canada’s voice has gone missing under the Conservatives. Most Canadians support Kyoto, child care, and rights for minorities. They want to see us investing in education, health care, and research and innovation. Canadians want and deserve an alternative that is hopeful, generous, dedicated to building prosperity and sharing opportunity. I want to help shape that alternative and get our country back on track.
The sooner, the better.
I have learned a great deal about federalism. I worked on and supported the Meech and Charlottetown Accords, but in recent years the experience of working with nations struggling to create their own federalism has also deepened my appreciation for what we have achieved in Canada. The Liberal Party of Canada has a fine tradition in building federalism that needs to be remembered and revered. From Laurier to Martin, Liberals have understood the twin need to be sensitive to the concerns of Quebec and French Canadians without compromising the ability to relate directly to all the citizens of Canada. Reconciliation and a deepened relationship with Aboriginal peoples is a further challenge to which our federal system can and must respond.
I have had extraordinary opportunities to serve over the years. Every project has introduced me to more Canadians, taught me more about what is meaningful to us, shown me more about who we are as a people.
From Burnt Church to softwood lumber, from terrorism to education, I have been forced to think of practical, workable solutions to seemingly intractable problems. I cannot claim to have always succeeded. I bear, as Teddy Roosevelt once said, the scars of having fought in the arena. But the arena is where one learns how to fight for what one believes in—and how to win.
Harper dropping ball on economy - by Bob Rae and Maurizio Bevilacqua,
published in August 15, 2006, Toronto Star
Yesterday we announced that we would be coming together in the contest for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. We are doing so in part because we are concerned that the economy has taken a backseat to other issues in this leadership race, and the Harper government has no economic vision whatsoever.
As leadership candidates we have talked consistently and specifically about what is needed to build a 21st century economy and ensure a high standard of living. We have both been very critical of the myopic, populist economic policy of the Harper government. And we share very similar views on what a Liberal government needs to do to drive Canada’s economy to a higher level of prosperity and sustainability.
We cannot take continued growth and prosperity for granted. It is precisely when you are doing well that key choices need to be taken to keep us on track.
Productivity growth is key to living standards, so it must become a central focus of the federal government. Unfortunately, it is not on the Harper government’s radar screen.
There are a number of policy choices that we believe are important to productivity. Chief among them is investments in human capital. Nations that are going to prosper in the future will be those that continue to invest in not just physical capital but human capital as well.
A focus on human capital must begin with our children, because we know that the early years of a child’s development can literally set the course of their economic future. That is why we need a real national child- care policy that increases the supply of high-quality, regulated child- care spaces right across the country.
We also know that in today’s economy post-secondary education is the major determinant of a person’s job prospects and income levels. That is why we need a greater federal commitment-- indeed a national strategy-- on post-secondary education. Any Canadian with the desire and ability to attend university or college should be able to do so regardless of their income level. The federal government needs to reform the Canada Student Loans program, and enhance scholarships and grants, to improve educational accessibility.
We know that research and development is a major determinant of innovation, which is central to productivity growth. The federal government must therefore increase its funding to the granting councils that provide university researchers with the resources they need to carry out their work. Ottawa also needs to encourage universities to put a greater premium on the commercialization of research.
Child-care, education and research are central items of our campaign, they are not on Harper’s priority list.
High quality infrastructure is also a key determinant of productivity, competitiveness and the efficiency of an economy. Unfortunately, Canada’s infrastructure is in serious disrepair. The federal government needs to be putting a lot more emphasis and investment into improving strategic infrastructure in an environmentally sustainable way.
We need to deal with the reality that our society is aging. This necessitates an aggressive immigration policy geared toward getting more skilled immigrants to Canada to fill inevitable labour shortages. We also need to make our immigrant processing system more efficient. And Ottawa needs to take greater responsibility to improve the recognition of foreign credentials—the status quo is driving immigrants away from Canada and imposing undue costs and inefficiencies on our economy. Aboriginal Canadians are among the youngest and fastest growing segments of our population, so they too are important to dealing with the challenges of an aging society. We need to do a lot more to improve the education levels of young Aboriginals and integrate them into Canada’s workforce.
Canada has enormous trade and investment opportunities in the emerging economic giants of India and China. Yet we haven’t done nearly enough as a country to penetrate these markets and become truly global in our economic outlook. Governments have been too piecemeal and tactical in their approach. It is time for Canada to put in place a China and India strategy, drawing on the knowledge and expertise of our large Chinese and Indo-Canadian communities.
Various things need to be done in Canada to improve the efficiency of our economy.
We have both argued for years that Canada needs to break down remaining barriers to internal trade. Some trade is freer between Canada and the U.S. than within Canada itself. This defies common sense and imposes huge costs on the economy.
Canada should have one national securities regulator. The current system imposes unnecessary burdens on business and limits their access to capital and hence their growth potential.
We need to streamline government regulations-- a smart regulation agenda is a necessity. Excessive government regulation is something the business community, small and large, has argued for years is a major impediment to their growth and competitiveness. We agree and the time for action is now.
Finally, we need reforms to our tax system.
Canada’s income security system has created poverty traps for many Canadians. That is why we need to look seriously at establishing an earned income tax credit to help get low-income Canadians out of poverty and over the welfare wall.
We both believe Canadians need a tax break. But it needs to be the right kind of tax cut, one that gives Canadians choices about how to spend the benefit, one that stimulates investment and savings, not merely consumption. We favour personal income tax cuts. The Harper GST cut is poor economics and does not meet these criteria.
We need to work hard to simplify our complex tax system, to make it more business-friendly.
Corporate taxes also matter- they have an effect on both foreign and domestic business investment in Canada. In today’s global economy capital is highly mobile, a fact of life we must recognize. The federal government needs to keep a vigilant eye on corporate taxes to ensure they are globally competitive with key jurisdictions so that investment in Canada is encouraged.
The economic agenda we have outlined must be carried out in the context of a balanced budget, with a continued effort to reduce the national debt. This is the cornerstone of our economic policy. We also favour greater fiscal accountability and transparency in Ottawa.
We are both strong believers in not just a growing and productive economy, but a sustainable one. These two goals are not mutually exclusive-- they can in fact be self-sustaining and re-enforcing. There does not have to be a trade-off between a strong, prosperous, productive economy, and environmental sustainability, as the Harper government seems to believe. A sustainable economy means Canada should be honouring its Kyoto commitments and investing much more in environmental technologies. We have the capability to become world-leaders in this field with the right foresight and investment.
Our broad objective is to have the economy moved to the centre of both the Liberal leadership and the national debate. That’s where it needs to be to ensure economic prosperity and sustainability in the face of the Harper government’s timid five point plan agenda. Fundamentally, that is why we have come together.
TheStar.com - Rae: PM's foreign policy flawed
In the coming months, the Liberal Party faces a choice between competing visions for our future. Our task is to present a compelling alternative to Stephen Harper’s hard conservatism.
I want to focus in this article mainly on the foreign side of the equation, and particularly the Afghan question. All Canadians support our troops and salute the integrity with which they approach their missions, and together we grieve when they suffer the ultimate sacrifice. But to raise questions about missions in no way indicates a lack of support for our troops or their efforts.
I support an independent foreign policy that respects the distinctive role Canada has played as a peacekeeper, honest broker, and a trusted, respected contributor to development. I support Canada carrying its share of tough burdens, where action is backed by multilateral alliances, and due regard is given to supporting peace and reconstruction in the aftermath of conflict.
Stephen Harper is making the wrong choices on foreign policy.
Mr. Harper, who would have taken us into the Iraq war, is flirting with a risky adventurism that is contrary to our values, and our traditions of independence in foreign policy. He shows a lack of understanding of how Canada best contributes, as well as a lack of respect for Canadians’ right to an informed debate about military commitments. I also make no bones about distinguishing my views from others in this contest to lead the Liberal Party.
Security for Canadians is not simply about spending billions on military hardware, and doing whatever our neighbour to the South asks on the counter-insurgency front. My experience with Air India and the oversight of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) has convinced me that properly supporting CSIS and the RCMP is absolutely essential to the discovery and prevention of terrorist activities in Canada.
So is investing in and promoting the values of common citizenship in our schools and communities. Recent experience tells us we need to deepen our dialogue around multiculturalism, diversity, and common citizenship. We can’t content ourselves with merely repeating old formulas when isolated pockets of our own citizens somehow feel justified in plotting terror against their fellow Canadians. Our security depends on addressing these issues with clarity, purpose, tolerance and respect.
For sixty years Canada has regarded the United Nations as the key international organization and forum for managing global conflicts. Yet it has become fashionable in conservative circles to be dismissive of the UN. One of my Liberal opponents has even said that making the UN effective is dependent on having the Americans “seize it by the scruff of the neck [to make] it bark.”
The UN is far from perfect, and is sorely in need of renewal – but let’s remember that 190 countries belong to this organization. No wonder it faces challenges. While not the only multilateral forum, the UN remains the most essential body for managing the major international issues of our time.
We have learned from Iraq that a pre-emptive invasion without a UN mandate, or adherence to international law, will be perceived to lack legitimacy. It risks fomenting rather than calming insurgency. Prime Minister Chrétien’s decision to work through the UN to put pressure on Iraq was the right one. He also made the right decision to keep Canada out of that war when the case for invasion was so clearly wanting.
This brings me to the situation in Afghanistan. As I wrote in 2004, the international community was right to overthrow the Taliban- under a UN mandate- because that regime was exporting terrorism.
It was right for Canada to have been part of that successful multilateral effort. But we need to keep in mind that Canada’s ongoing mission in Afghanistan has changed several times to reflect evolving realities.
In 2002 we sent a battle group to Kandahar; in 2003 we sent 2,000 troops to Kabul as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force; in 2004 we reduced this to a 700-person reconnaissance team; in 2005 we sent a Provincial Reconstruction Team to Kandahar. Finally, early this year, Canada deployed a combat Task Force to Kandahar and took command of the multi-national brigade headquarters.
Mr. Martin’s government approved the combat component for one year- until early 2007- to help ensure stability on the ground in Kandahar for reconstruction.
But in “jamming” the Canadian Parliament, Mr. Harper has effectively tied up most of Canada’s available military resources until 2009 and locked us into a mission geared mainly toward counter-insurgency. There are serious risks with this.
Let’s be clear: Canada is in a war, and the questions around this fact have not been given an adequate airing. The rushed six-hour Parliamentary debate did not show proper consideration for the complexities of the proposed mission nor for the troops being asked to undertake it. On issues of such importance, Canadians have a right to expect better from a Prime Minister.
Afghan President Karzai himself has recently been critical of how the counter-insurgency efforts are being conducted, and urged a reassessment of the balance between combat against the Taliban and investments in reconstruction. He has said that improving local government, and strengthening the Afghan police and army is the surer way to tackle the problems of terrorism and insurgency.
President Karzai stated last week, “I have systematically, consistently and on a daily basis warned the international community of what was developing in Afghanistan... and of a change in approach by the international community in this regard."
In such a prolonged combat role, Canadian troops risk becoming seen as an unwelcome army of occupation by ordinary Afghanis, rather than as their allies.
The responsibility to protect innocent civilians should not be invoked to justify any and all military interventions. Unfortunately, some have appropriated it to rationalize the Iraq war, as well as Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan. It does not fit either case. The coalition that invaded Iraq in 2003 did so ostensibly on the pretext of searching for weapons of mass destruction. And the international community intervened in Afghanistan because that country was the source of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
We need less rhetoric and more realism about Afghanistan. An unpoliced border with northern Pakistan, an economy still deeply dependent on poppy production and the heroin trade, powerful warlords with extensive foreign networks: the notion of a quick military victory and a sudden transition to liberal democracy seems problematic. We need to be realistic about what we can achieve, and how long it will take.
There are other options for Canada in Afghanistan between traditional peacekeeping and a largely counter-insurgency role, even if the Prime Minister does not want to discuss them. Our focus should be on reconstruction, aimed at enabling the Afghan people to provide security within their own borders, and helping them build a legitimate economy.
In foreign deployments, we must maintain a balanced approach, and not lose our way as a people committed to diplomacy, aid, reconstruction, and deliberate, responsible decisions when it comes to military action. We should indeed remember who we are.
Canada’s long-standing commitment to multilateralism, peacekeeping and reconstruction is not quaint, romantic or a sacred cow. Our foreign policy traditions, far from being out-moded, offer an effective framework and a sound set of values for helping stabilize and rebuild in situations of global conflict.
 
 |
|
