The Globe and Mail's Michael Valpy has described UBC's Michael Byers as the "angry academic voice of Canadian foreign policy." 'This is Stephen Harper's war'
Prof. Byers is one of the country's leading scholars on international law, Mr. Valpy wrote, and "he argues that Canada's presence in Afghanistan has become the football of electoral politics, with less and less concern being paid to analyzing the military and political reasons why Canadian soldiers are there and being killed."
Recently, Prof. Byers took issue with John Manley's panel on Canada's future role in Afghanistan, arguing that Mr. Manley had his mind made up rather than taking a fresh, objective look at the issue. And Prof. Byers believes that "it's time to move from a combat-oriented approach to one that focuses on negotiation, peacemaking and nation-building. ... It's time to move NATO troops out, and UN peacekeepers in."
Prof. Byers was online to answer your questions about the Manley report conclusions, the Harper government's response and the latest arguments over how Canadian troops are handling Afghanistan prisoners. They appear at the bottom of this page.
Related Articles
Internet Links
- Read the Manley panel's final report (PDF)
- Michael Byers: Professor, Canadian Research Chair in International Law and Politics
Prof. Byers holds a Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia, where he also serves as Academic Director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues. Prior to July 2004, he was a tenured Professor of Law and Director of Canadian Studies at Duke University. From 1996-1999, he was a Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University. His work focuses on the interaction of international law and international politics, especially with regard to international organizations, the use of military force, the law of the sea, human rights and Canada-United States relations. He is the author of Intent for a Nation: What is Canada For? and War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict.
Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.
Estanislao (Stan) Oziewicz, Foreign Editor, globeandmail.com: Prof. Byers, thank you so much for joining us today on these very important and controversial issues. There are many comments and questions (including ones sharply questioning your own positions) so let's get to them right away.
Robert Dresser, from Parksville, British Columbia: Is Afghanistan just an unresolved civil war on hiatus until the foreigners leave? It was pretty obviously a civil war until the United States and NATO got involved, siding with the 'Northern Alliance' to oust the Taliban. All we seem to have done is to drive the Taliban into a sanctuary in which they regrouped and recovered to return as an anti-Western insurgency. Meanwhile the Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara warlords are reportedly reconstituting and rearming their militias also. It strikes me that this civil was isn't over, just on hold. Do you agree?
Prof. Byers: Dear Robert, I'm not an expert in the history, culture or ethnic make-up of Afghanistan. But neither were the Canadian politicians and generals who sent our troops to Kandahar. In their book "The Unexpected War," Janice Stein and Eugene Lang quote Ken Calder, the then assistant deputy minister of policy in the Department of National Defence, as saying "We don't know anything about this country." That said, we do know that the Afghan tribes have always come together to expel foreign invaders, including the British and Soviet empires. When you add in the fact that Afghanistan is now the source of more than 90 per cent of the world's heroin, you get a nasty mix of tribal units, drug gangs, corrupt police and, of course, elements of the Taliban. To be blunt, I don't think we're holding anything together there now; in fact, we're probably making things worse.
D. Patrick: Professor Byers, naturally, it is desirable for some form of domestic peace process to proceed that can draw the Taliban into negotiation and into government, allowing Canadian and ISAF forces to withdraw from a combat role. President Hamid Karzai has also, repeatedly, left the door open to this. What evidence is there that the Taliban are prepared for such a process, that they will depart from a maximalist strategy based on military victory and the ambition to return to government, and are they capable of endorsing the pluralism that the current government represents? What actions would be needed to advance such a peace-building strategy in terms of diplomatic, defence and development interventions? More directly, is this not complimentary to the Manley report, which aims to sustain the 'space' in which security and development can take place until such time as a peace building process gets underway?
