News

History will judge Canada harshly if it abandons the people of Afghanistan and its international allies before the fragile country can stand on its own, Defence Minister Peter MacKay told the House of Commons Wednesday as he opened debate on a government motion to extend the military mission in Kandahar from 2009 to 2011.

“This is perhaps the most important debate facing our Parliament and our nation today,” Mr. MacKay said. “It has important broad implications for Canadians, Afghans and for the world.”

Mr. MacKay said Canada's efforts have won it the respect of the Afghan people, the international community and its allies, and to leave now would be an abandonment of all three. He warned that Afghanistan could again become a “breeding ground for terrorists” if the insurgency succeeded.

“At times, as a country, we have to take a position and assert ourselves. We have to assert ourselves by sharing our fundamental values and interests by expressing those and by defending them,” Mr. MacKay said.

“We can't assume that others are going to do the difficult work for us. If we truly believe in this difficult mission, it's not words that count,” he said.

“Now is the time, and Afghanistan needs us. Stabilizing Afghanistan is a noble and essential cause,” he said, citing several examples of progress since the overthrow of the Taliban: 6,000 kilometres of new roads, hundreds of teachers trained, two million female Afghan students, reduced infant and mortality rates, and greater democracy.

The Conservative motion, which was rewritten to bridge differences with the Opposition Liberals, would change the focus of the mission from combat to training Afghan forces and providing security for reconstruction. The Liberals say that means an end to offensive operations to attack the Taliban, though military commanders would decide what fighting is needed.

The confidence motion, which could trigger an election if it fails, sets 2011 as a firm end-date for the mission and makes Canada's continued involvement contingent on a NATO commitment of 1,000 more troops to assist Canada in Kandahar province, as well as helicopters and unmanned drones.

Mr. MacKay began his remarks by expressing “appreciation and respect” for opposition MPs who sought to reach a compromise on the mission's future, and he acknowledged specifically Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and deputy leader Michael Ignatieff.

Mr. Dion said he supports the new motion – all but ensuring its passage – although he has specific questions he wants debated, including why the government has settled on 1,000 as the required number of troop reinforcements and how long the government is prepared to wait for NATO to meet the demand.

However, the Liberal Leader applauded the government for “taking the reasonable steps it has to find the common ground between our two positions.”

“I agree with the Prime Minister that what we have now is neither a Conservative motion nor a Liberal motion – it is a Canadian motion,” Mr. Dion said.

“We are pleased to see that the government has accepted the fundamental principles that the Liberal Party has been guided by: A change to the mission, an end to the mission, a greater commitment to development and diplomacy, and greater transparency and accountability by the government.”

Bloc Québécois MP Vivian Barbot said the civilian and military loss of life in Afghanistan has been high and Canada has paid its dues as a part of the NATO effort.

“Never has there been such a loss of human life since the Korean War,” she said. “The time has come to pass the baton to someone else.”

The parliamentary debate comes just a day after a top U.S. military official cautioned that soldiers cannot separate the jobs of fighting Taliban insurgents, training Afghan soldiers and reconstructing the country.

Admiral William Fallon, head of U.S. Central Command and the officer responsible for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, would not say whether Canada's target of withdrawing from Afghanistan by 2011 was realistic. He did caution that the Taliban “pays close attention” to what happens in countries that supply troops to Afghanistan and gain confidence “if they perceive there's little commitment – or it's words and not a lot of action to back it up.”

“And that's certainly not the mindset we want to leave them with,” Adm. Fallon said on the CTV program Question Period, echoing controversial comments made by Canadian Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier last week, who warned that the Taliban might step up attacks in Afghanistan to sway the political debate in Canada.

“We want them to have the idea that we're committed to helping this country of Afghanistan to achieve its potential,” Adm. Fallon said.

“We have a large number of our forces there and we know that we need help from our good friends and allies, the Canadians being in the lead in the south, and so we're looking for commitment to be with us to help the Afghan people and to put this country in a position of stability and security.”

Adm. Fallon would not comment specifically on the political debate in Canada over the Afghan mission, but disagreed with the idea that the combat portion is separable from the rest of the mission.

“You can't say, ‘We're going to do this and not this.' You need a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to this problem,” he said. Afghanistan needs everything from good governance to roads and electricity, Adm. Fallon said, but work in those areas needs security and stability.

Late last week, General Hillier called on Parliament to show its support “overwhelmingly” to soldiers in Afghanistan, and implied that waffling on the issue could cost Canadian lives.

“I'm not going to stand here and tell you that the suicide bombings of this past week have been related to the debate back here in Canada. But I also cannot stand here and say that they are not,” he said.

Some opposition MPs suggested that the general overstepped his bounds by making demands of elected officials.

With a report from Omar El Akkad