Terry and his deluded MP
by Jim, 17 September 2008
Last night CBC Radio, on the nationally broadcast news program As It Happens, featured a debate between Terry Glavin and his member of parliament, Denise Savoie (NDP). The topic was Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, and the NDP’s desire to leave the Afghans to the mercies of the Taliban. Audio here.
Wednesday 17 September 2008 at 4:51
Mercifully, for Denise Savoie, they edited the debate for length, and cut the comparison she drew between Irish republicans and the Taliban, arguing for a sort of Good Friday Accord to end the “civil war” in Afghanistan.
I let it go. But I’ve heard that one before, and whenever I hear those voices carrying on about how the Afgan struggle is a lost cause, I am reminded of the sort of bourgeois cynicism that once greeted calls for solidarity with the Irish freedom struggle back in the 19-teens and 20s, how the Irish were too warlike and tribal and priest-ridden and primitive and they’d never be able to make a go of independence.
I’ve been bitter about it ever since etc. etc.
Wednesday 17 September 2008 at 13:39
You’ve confused me now Terry with all these Irish analogies!
But to get back to the fairly central point, it is the Government of Afghanistan that is calling for dialogue and reconciliation. Here is one of Karzai’s advisors, from the document I referred you to:
“While most key actors in Afghanistan would welcome reconciliation, much scepticism exists. Some critical questions need to be answered and clarified before moving full speed toward reconciliation. Specific questions remain about who should negotiate with whom and under what conditions negotiations should occur. First steps should be geared toward addressing this scepticism and answering these outstanding questions.
To this end, an advisory team composed of experienced, senior-level international and Afghan diplomats and experts should be established with UNAMA support to help the government and the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General develop a precise program document, which would include details on reorganization, outreach, reintegration implementation, monitoring, and management support. Such a team would undoubtedly be invaluable in devising a strategy geared toward building regional consensus, putting an end to the Taliban sanctuaries, promoting reconciliation, and developing trust at the national level. It would require not only the support of the Afghan government and the United Nations but also the full support of NATO, major donor countries, and the United States. . . .
In order to move forward in Afghanistan, a comprehensive and coordinated political reconciliation process must be started. At the same time, significant progress must be made on the security front and on the international (regional) front. Without security, stability, and cooperation from Afghanistan’s neighbors, reconciliation will not occur. . .
The time has come for the United Nations and the international community to enter into serious discussions with Pakistan about cooperative measures to end Taliban sanctuaries and the cross-border insurgency. The UN Security Council should start immediate discussions on improving the implementation of its resolutions and decide on additional measures against those who continue to support the Taliban, harbor its leadership, or provide it with logistical, training, and planning support. The leadership of both Afghanistan and Pakistan should be helped and pressured to put their differences aside and cooperate seriously and sincerely with mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty and to work toward improving security for both countries. . .
India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan should engage in a direct dialogue with the United States as mediator in an attempt to end the use of Afghanistan soil as a proxy Indo-Pakistani battleground. Although such a dialogue has never been tried before, building confidence and providing security guarantees would reduce tensions and help stabilize Afghanistan.”
So, who are you actually showing solidarity with if you are opposing this strategy?
Wednesday 17 September 2008 at 15:12
At the same time
Nasty case of pink eye you’ve got there.
Wednesday 17 September 2008 at 15:59
Terry: I have just listened to that debate and you are right, your MP is completely deluded. What she is arguing is not anything like the position that the Afghan govt, USIP, most western diplomats, etc. are saying.
What the Afghan govt is calling for is a surge in troops to give it the political space for a deal with mid-level commanders (pretty much what was done in Iraq). I have got huge reservations about that strategy - mainly because it would allow people with an extremely reactionary social views into the govt - but that is where we are.
The alternative on offer seems to be war with Pakistan (which also has its supporters within Afghanistan).
Wednesday 17 September 2008 at 17:08
The full stop should fall outside the brackets (at the end of the first sentence).
Wednesday 17 September 2008 at 17:13
Fuck off Benji!
Wednesday 17 September 2008 at 18:15
Conor: I’m afraid there is nothing much in that document, in its turgid bureaucratese, that I could be bothered working up an opinion about, either way, except to say: Right. Good luck with that.
As I’ve said elsewhere: Yes, peace negotiations with the Taliban would be nice, and it’s always been my position that it would be great if we could see something like that happen some day, but I remain with Lauryn on the issue, and I’m also with Sima Samar, the head of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, and I’ve said so in print:
http://tinyurl.com/335xq6
It’s all very engaging and intellectually stimulating, pondering these elaborate scenarios and possibilities. They are especially useful and relevant if one’s priority is the withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan, but if one’s priority is the ongoing, slow and steady liberation and emancipation of the Afghan people, then, not so much.
Wednesday 17 September 2008 at 19:04
Well it is a policy document written by a policy advisor and that is their style. Sorry if you prefer slogans.
But the issue can be put much more simply; the Afghan government, backed by the main opposition, has offered the insurgents (ie not just the Taliban) talks and positions in the government in exchange for peace. I don’t like the idea very much, but it is pointless to pretend that it is not happening or to refuse to discuss it.
The alternative is what you describe as “the ongoing, slow and steady liberation and emancipation of the Afghan people” but, on the ground, that looks like a fucking joke.
To give you an example from last week, the Yanks asked the British to shift an electro-turbine to the Tajiki dam which they hope will eventually supply electicty to southern Afghanistan. The project is a white elephant and DfID know it, which is why they have been stalling on it for so long. Then some British officer discovers a mountain trek along which the turbine can be hauled and so the politicians order the project to go ahead. It takes a huge and massively expensive military operation to get it there which kills 300 Afghans (including civilians) and involves the Brits offering to pay off the local Taliban. The politicians and western media hail it as a triumph but all of they have done is give the Taliban another source of income and target to attack that will tie up dozens of soldiers guarding it.
I have got hundreds of stories like that and it is what drives our frustration.
The Yanks are wasting billions on private sector contractors (who are often employing militias as security guards), but are refusing to fund any central expenditure by the Afghan government, which gives it virtually no capacity to pay salaries. An Afghan judge gets $30 a month and the government says it cannot afford more.
The good things that are happening in the country are away from the conflict zones - and you were right to make that point in the interview - but it is also pointless to deny that the insurgency is spreading and getting more violent. Each time I have been there my movements have been more restricted.
And meantime cross border raids are dragging Pakistan further into the war. Do you think Bush’s authorisation of last week’s operation was a good or a bad idea?
I thought that you were good in that interview because the central point is that the west does need to maintain - and increase - its military commitment to Afghanistan, but are you seriously saying that there should not be any discussion of the different policy options?
You are actually playing into the “stoppers” hands with some of your current arguments (or lack thereof)
Wednesday 17 September 2008 at 19:47
Conjunctivitis. Problem with conjunctions. You seem to miss the “ifs” and “ands” in these documents.
Work with me here.
Wednesday 17 September 2008 at 20:32
Foley:
I hear there is something you can take for that — laxatives are available across the counter — no need for doctors visit.
Wednesday 17 September 2008 at 21:04
One thing you don’t need in Afghanistan is laxatives!
Remember to pack the immodium Terry.
Wednesday 17 September 2008 at 21:06
“Sorry if you prefer slogans. . .You are actually playing into the “stoppers” hands with some of your current arguments (or lack thereof).”
You see, Conor, this is the sort of thing that causes people to want to tell you to just fuck off.
You say: “I don’t like the idea very much, but it is pointless to pretend that it is not happening or to refuse to discuss it.” I don’t like the idea very much, either, and I’m not pretending it’s not happening. It’s not a matter of refusing to discuss it with you.
It’s just that we’ve debated you at length about all this already, and you haven’t convinced us of anything, and goading me into debating you further by insulting me like that isn’t going to work, either.
It’s just all so bloody predictable. You are familiar with term term “an beal bocht,” I’m sure. That’s your main problem here. You’re an auld miseryguts, and nothing I contribute to a debate with you will change that. Your characterization of the enormously successful operation to refit the Kajaki Dam as a “white elephant” that will just give the Taliban another target to attack illustrates this amply.
Win the fucking sweeps and you’d be complaining about the taxes.
Jesus, man. Take a fucking pill.
Wednesday 17 September 2008 at 21:16
Not goading you Terry just genuinely interested in your position and my opinion about Kajaki comes straight from some of the people who were involved in the operation. I will leave it if you think we’ve covered all the ground.
I was actually a bit disapointed that Lauryn did not move onto the more interesting issues about what we should actually do given the changing situation.
Wednesday 17 September 2008 at 21:34
“I was actually a bit disapointed that Lauryn did not move onto the more interesting issues about what we should actually do given the changing situation.”
I thought she addressed that more than adequately. Too bad for you she didn’t get drawn away from addressing your central argument, and in my view, demolishing it.
Wednesday 17 September 2008 at 21:46
Hmmm. Well let’s just agree to differ than.
Have a good time on your trip - and I’m serious about the immodium.