News

Behind its firewall, Le Devoir reports that MPs will not be asked to approve Canada’s post-2011 mission. Its source? A Conservative anonymouse who tells reporter Alec Castonguay:

“A debate and a vote in the Commons is only necessary to approve military deployments abroad. The post-2011 mission will not constitute a military deployment, so there is no obligation to hold a vote in the House.”

Over at the National Post, we learn that the Karzai government will again not vote at the UN in favour of the Canadian resolution censuring Iran for its human rights record — and that Canada will again “turn a blind eye” to its vote. Canada has been tabling this resolution since the 2003 torture and murder of Canadian-Iranian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi. The Post quotes an anonymous diplomat as follows:

"Iran is a big and powerful neighbour of Afghanistan, and Canada understands the Afghan government's position that it can't be seen voting against Tehran on the world stage."

In the Washington Post, we learn that the Obama Administration is in the process of kissing and making up with Hamid Karzai. The Post serves up a fascinating account of how the relationship soured since the presidential election that’s well worth reading.

In the New York Times, we learn that Hillary Clinton is now the key U.S. link to the Karzai government. And Ms. Clinton dishes up a worthy response to Malalai Joya, described in today’s Globe and Mail as ‘the bravest woman in Afghanistan ’:

“When Mr. Karzai first took office in 2002, she noted, there were one million students in Afghanistan, virtually all boys. Today, there are seven million, 40 percent of them girls. She said Mr. Karzai deserved some credit for that, as well as for other advances during his tenure.”

Across the pond in London, the Independent reports that Prime Minister Gordon Brown and three cabinet ministers have sent an email to wavering Labour backbenchers to shore up support for the Afghanistan war.

Here are some excerpts from that email:

“The reason Britain has sent military forces to Afghanistan is clear – our national security is at stake. Afghanistan was where al-Qa’ida trained and planned terror attacks – including September 11.”

“Our strategy in Afghanistan is supported by the United Nations, 43 troop-deploying countries, and many others who contribute funding and civilian staff. We do not operate alone.”

“The training of Afghan forces is central to our mission. Success will be when the Afghan National Army and National Police are strong enough to provide for their own security.”

“Our strategy is combined with strong support for Pakistan in its efforts against terrorism and extremism on the other side of the Afghan-Pakistan border… “If the coalition withdraws from Afghanistan prematurely, it could have enormous consequences for Pakistan.

“We have increased our military forces in Afghanistan progressively from 5,500 in the autumn of 2006… to around 9,000.

“On 14 October we announced our intention to increase this further to 9,500 subject to certain conditions being met … We will not implement this increase unless we are sure the balance of risk taken on equipment is judged by the military to be acceptable – and unless there is an agreed strategy with fair burden-sharing across the international coalition and unless the new Afghan government steps up to the challenges it faces, including corruption.

“Above all, we would never commit British troops to Afghanistan unless we were convinced that our security demanded it.”

“We are committed to ensuring our forces in Afghanistan have the best possible support. Military spending on Afghanistan – from the Reserve, on top of the defence budget – is now at £390,000 per soldier fighting, compared to £180,000 in 2006.”

(Photo: AFP/Getty Images)