Conciliatory isn't a word normally associated with Stephen Harper, but this week the word fits. The Prime Minister has amended his motion to extend the Canadian mission in Afghanistan to 2011 by making key concessions, chief among them a firm deadline for withdrawal. In turn, the federal Liberals have apparently adjusted their own position to accept those changes, throwing their weight behind a motion that the House of Commons will almost certainly endorse next month. This is an important moment for Canada on the international stage and for its vital mission in Afghanitan.
"It is not a position that is Conservative, nor Liberal," Mr. Harper affirmed yesterday. "It is a position that is Canadian." Liberal foreign-affairs critic Bob Rae responded that while the party wants some clarification, "it would be churlish for us to suggest the government hasn't come a very long way ...." Such welcome co-operation would banish the possibility that the upcoming vote on continued deployment past 2009 could trigger a spring election. A defeat on the government's motion could have turned a vital security mission into a messy political fight, undermining troops in the field. A bipartisan motion would allow Mr. Harper to deliver an unequivocal ultimatum to a North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in early April: that Canada will withdraw from Afghanistan next year unless other nations supply at least 1,000 more troops and more equipment.
Mr. Harper's compromises are significant. Although the Tories had correctly sought to avoid the mention of a firm deadline for withdrawal, the amended motion stipulates that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar province in July of 2011, with all troops out of the country by December. That is only several months longer than the deadline Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion set earlier this month and, after all, there is nothing to prevent a future government from asking Parliament for a further extension.
The motion also adopts Liberal wording about the focus of Canadian efforts, emphasizing that the mission is about training and providing security for reconstruction. But because the Afghan army cannot conduct combat operations on its own, Canada's battle group would inevitably be in the field supporting those soldiers. Mercifully, the motion does not limit the choices of Canadian commanders under attack. In effect, the majority of MPs in this minority Parliament appear to have ended months of bickering over a vital undertaking, setting pragmatic parameters while avoiding the temptation to micromanage military decisions.
Such affirmation is crucial. If Parliament failed to endorse the nation's continued efforts to combat the Taliban, Canada would lose influence with its NATO allies, and the war effort would be severely compromised. And if Parliament failed to set out firm conditions for that support, other NATO members such as France would continue to leave the heavy lifting to Canada. Mr. Harper and Mr. Dion have moved from their earlier intransigence and seem set to present a united front to the world. Both parties should be congratulated for their maturity.
