Where are We Now?
“[S]oldiers will seek to resolve every complex situation through military means. Add to this their martial spirit and professional pride that preclude them from ever admitting defeat or questioning their own ability to achieve ultimate victory and we’ve set the stage for a long, drawn-out, bloody campaign.” This is what Scott Taylor, writing in The Chronicle Herald
on 30 April 2007, says [story “Military ‘Victories’ Don’t always Add Up” posted at http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/832497.html
]. This is a very important observation, and Taylor also notes the way military personnel are supposed to behave with and around detainees in Afghanistan is changing, rapidly. This is Canada’s problem in Afghanistan. When handling prisoners, basic human rights must be respected. Even if Canadian soldiers do not abuse detainees, and all accounts stress Canadian treatment is humane and above reproach, our military must take time to ensure those being brought to justice are treated with respect even after they are handed over to local authorities. To act in any other way might put Canadian troops or members of the military in the position of having to face accusations of war crimes, would it not?
It is over the issue of treatment of detainees that Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor is continuing to take heat, from reporters and members of the opposition parties. And all this is because of what has happened to any notion of a realpolitik-defined foreign policy. In the world that Canada inhabits, any practice of geopolitics and realpolitik must include not only the notion, but practices around, human rights. But how well do human rights and realpolitik mix? For the Tories, this is what they must worry about. The opposition parties have the luxury of attacking O’Connor and PM Stephen Harper by pointing out how the government is failing to uphold human rights.
At this point, what has slipped under much of the media radar is the fact the main opposition party, the Liberals, may not be in fundamental disagreement with the Conservatives over the big geopolitical, realpolitik questions posed by and in Afghanistan. Michael Ignatieff, Deputy Liberal leader, has been among the most vocal calling for O’Connor to be dismissed. According to Ignatieff, O’Connor has completely bungled the issue of how prisoners in Afghanistan are being treated. But, and perhaps more importantly, the Defence Minister seems to be in the position of having lost the confidence of the PM: “He should be fired because he no longer has the confidence of the prime minister...We've got troops in the field and the prime minister is leaving this man to twist slowly in the wind. At a time when we've got soldiers in combat, you have to have civilian leadership that's working together, and they're clearly not. They muzzled him [O’Connor] in the House...” Ignatieff said [Cited in “Ignatieff: O’Connor ‘Should be Fired’ Over Detainees,’ CTV News, 27 April 2007. Story posted at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070427/ignatieff_afghanistan_070427/20070427?hub=Canada
So why does Ignatieff really think O’Connor needs to go? Would Liberal policy in Afghanistan really look very much different from what the Tories currently offer?
Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to email@example.com
"Disarray"! "Disarray"? Or, with an Opposition Like This, Who Needs a Caucus?
Maybe you were never a Stephen Harper fan. But, it used to be said that he was competent. This could not be said of his Liberal predecessor. Maybe you didn’t like what Harper said or did, but at least you were compelled, maybe grudgingly, to say that his leadership was effective.
At any rate, competence is what the image consultants wanted the public to believe Harper had. He was, they said, just as effective as he was controversial. In reality, what allowed him to project that image was control. And that’s not necessarily control over issues or political affairs, merely control over his caucus. What needed to be asked long ago, but wasn’t, was whether or not effectiveness and control are or ever were interchangeable.
The question may now be moot. According to some accounts, Harper’s ability to even manage his caucus may be waning, a development plunging his entire government into "disarray." And really what created this new reality is Afghanistan, and the Tories’ ability, or inability, to control what happens there: "Canada's government descended into disarray over an Afghan abuse scandal on Thursday after ministers openly contradicted each other over allegations that Taliban suspects captured by Canadian soldiers had been tortured by local police" [Cited in David Ljunggren’s ‘Canada’s Government in Disarray Over Afghan Abuse Scandal,’ Reuters, 26 April 2007. Story posted at http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26440802.htm
]. All this is nothing short of "rapidly becoming the biggest crisis to hit the minority Conservative government since it took power" just over a year ago [cited in Ljunggren...].
At the center of this "scandal" is the rule of law. Prisoners in Afghanistan have alleged they have been beaten and tortured. However, no one suggests that any Canadians were ever involved in this inappropriate behaviour. Rather, problems start once Canada turns over prisoners to Afghan government authorities. Is it the case, some now ask, that Canada undermines rule of law by turning a blind eye to torture once it passes along prisoners, or is there some monitoring mechanism, thereby ensuring that suspects will not be mistreated?
How significant or meaningful are allegations of torture for Tory officials? It was on Tuesday the 24th that Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, speaking at a conference on international counter-terrorism, remarked that humane treatment of prisoners is "a radical thought for a lot of people in that part of the world." Day also said: "We’re saying to them that these people we’re bringing you to put in jail, yes, these people have no compunction about machine-gunning, mowing down little children. They have no compunction about decapitating or hanging elderly women. They have no compunction about the vicious forms of torture you can imagine on innocent people. Now we’ve captured them ... and we’re asking you to treat them humanely." Meanwhile, at least one report says that Wajid Khan, PM Stephen Harper’s advisor on Middle East Affairs, believes "torture is just part of the grinding conditions faced daily in Afghanistan’s ‘tribal culture’" [Day and Khan cited in CP, 25 April 2007. Story posted at http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=54f54ce8-bd74-4516-9ead-ad7ad26ed31d&k=85625
The "scandal" erupted on 23 April 2007. Allegations of torture made headlines that day, prompting government officials to explain they had absolutely no knowledge of any facts, and suggested the reports were linked to conjecture and malicious rumours. Days later, on 25 April, Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor observed a deal on prisoner treatment had been concluded with Afghan authorities. Yet within a day, perhaps hours, of the O’Connor statement came news, confirmed by the Tories themselves, including the office of the Foreign Minister, that no one knew of any accords. And later still came news that monitors or observers always had contact with detainees.
Opposition parties seemed enraged by both the allegations of torture and the seemingly confused Tory responses to the charges. Liberal leader Stephane Dion offered up the suggestion that prisoners be brought to Canada, a remark addressed by Stockwell Day who countered with the notion that the Taliban ought to remain in Afghanistan. And then there came calls for O’Connor to resign. Some seem hopeful this will yet take place, given the Defence Minister has opted to maintain a very low profile these past recent days.
But is all or any of this really a scandal that threatens the Tory government? On 27 April 2007 came reports that the Afghan Ambassador to Canada, Omar Samad, confirms no Canadians have monitored prisoners turned over to local authorities. The Ambassador added Canadian monitors soon will have that right, but meantime urged that the "political circus" triggered by accusations of prisoner maltreatment come to an end. "It doesn't mean those were detention centres of people who were arrested by Canadian forces...So if this has created confusion, I think that we all need to take a step back and define what we're talking about and to bring some clarity to this instead of turning it into a political circus...From the Afghan point of view, it's clear there was no followup or monitoring of detainees caught by Canadian forces turned over to Afghans, especially to the NDS [National Directorate of Security] that took place prior to this current time," said Samad [cited in Juliet O’Neill’s CanWest News Service piece titled ‘Afghan Ambassador Says Canada Has Not Monitored Prisoners,’ published in The National Post
, 27 April 2007. Story posted at http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e7e081d3-52ba-458e-976e-54dffa6a1f05&k=41661
And how much of a "scandal" there really is, and how much "disarray" the Tories will really find themselves in will almost certainly depend on opposition parties’ willingness to keep reacting. Over the past months opposition leaders, perhaps most especially New Democrat Jack Layton, have said their intent is to try to make parliament work rather than trigger an early election. Once again, Layton stresses that Canadians are in no mood to head back to the polls, and at the same time neglects to point out his own party fortunes may suffer if voting were to take place in the near future. Perhaps what took place over the past several days had more to do with a slow news week than any "scandal" or Tory "disarray." If O’Connor keeps a low profile for a while longer and Harper continues to remain evasive on what is taking place in Afghanistan, the image of an effective and competent government may resurface in no time.
Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to firstname.lastname@example.org