Some Facts For The NDP About Afghanistan

I try to stay informed. I read various newspapers, watch the news on TV, listen to talk radio and read blogs of all sorts. I try to get the feel of the land, so to speak, from all sorts of sources no matter what the political leanings. I like to keep an open mind to new ideas and points of view and place it all in context.

This is why the current left-wing thinking on Afghanistan is so disturbing; it is out of context.

So much of the thinking by the left, in regards to Afghanistan, is based on out-of-date thinking or naivety. For instance, many times I have heard how the war in Afghanistan is because of the United States’ need for oil, or, more specifically, a pipeline proposed by Unocal in 1995, which was to carry natural gas from Turkmenistan to India. This was before the Taliban seized control and, even at the time, many in the petroleum industry thought the idea was ludicrous and ignored the political realities of the area. Pipelines, by their very nature, are extremely vulnerable to attack and require a high degree of political stability to even be constructed, let alone used. When the Taliban rolled into power in 1996, they attempted to reassure Unocal that they could guarantee the safety of western construction workers but, with the northern part of the country still in the hands of the Northern Alliance, there was no way to do that. By 1998, the plan was effectively dead and remains that way.

When the pipeline was first proposed, Turkmenistan, desperate for foreign investment, was eager to sell its gas reserves to other countries. Russia, who had traditionally bought all of the Turkmen gas, was, in the mid 90’s, in an economic slump and its purchases had dropped by over 25%. On top of that, they were refusing to let Turkmenistan use Russian pipelines to transport Turkmen gas to non-Russian customers.

Today, the situation is completely different. Due to the increase in oil prices, Russia is having an economic boom. Russia is again purchasing Turkmen gas and, as part of the deal, is allowing Turkmenistan to use their pipelines. In addition to that, the security situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan has deteriorated and no bank is willing to finance such an economically questionable pipeline.

As a side note, to back up their claims, many on the left point to a myth that Hamed Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, once worked for Unocal. This is based on an article that appeared in a French newspaper Le Mooned. Although this article suggests he worked for Unocal for a short period, both Karzai and Unocal have denied this. A quick look at Karzai’s life also indicates that the only period he could possibly have worked for Unocal was in 1983, long before the Unocal proposal and while the Soviets were in Afghanistan.

The strangest part is these seemingly intelligent people appear to believe that the Bush government was willing to risk the lives of its soldiers for the profitability of one company. Worse, that other governments were also willing to have their own citizens die for Unocal. They believe countries around the world all eagerly stepped up to the plate and committed troops, and billions of dollars, for the sake of a pipeline. Forget about the terrorist groups (Al Qaeda was not the only one) that were operating out of Afghanistan, the fact the United Nations had already demanded the Taliban turn over Osama Bin Laden two years earlier, and the repressive nature of the Taliban in general, NATO rushed into Afghanistan to further the cause of an American company.

What Now?

The current NDP position seems to have been formed in a vacuum with no consideration of the consequences should their plan actually see fruition. More troubling still is the rush by left-wing minded individuals to support him.

So let’s switch it around a little and ask the questions.

Therefore, if I am correct, Jack Layton is in favour of Canada breaking its treaty obligations under NATO. As you may recall, after 9/11, NATO invoked Article 5 of the treaty that says any attack against a member nation is considered an attack against all NATO countries. This was the basis for our involvement in Afghanistan; to go after those that had attacked the United States or, given the Article 5 interpretation, had attacked Canada through the United States.

Now, the NDP wants Canada to ignore a treaty obligation and unilaterally pull out. Are we not then hypocritical for expecting other countries to live up to treaties they have signed with us? Just look at the uproar over the softwood lumber issue under NAFTA. How can we chastise the United States while at the same time breaking a treaty ourselves?

Okay, so Canada pulls out of Afghanistan because it is the “wrong” mission for us, to use Jack Layton’s words. Do they then think all of NATO should pull out or is it okay, in the NDP’s mind, for other countries to do the fighting in Afghanistan? If that is the case, then why is it wrong for us to be there? If we support other countries fighting the Taliban then, by extension, are we not indicating it is the right mission?

While we are on the subject of the right and wrong missions for Canada, what is the right mission to the NDP? I would suppose it would only be the missions the NDP support, regardless of what the rest of the country thinks.

Let’s then suppose all of NATO pulls out of Afghanistan, then what? Currently, NATO troops are supplying security to Afghanistan, allowing the rebuilding effort to move forward. At the same time, they are helping to train the Afghan National Army so one day they will be capable of supplying their own security. One day!

If NATO were to pull out now that would all come to a screeching halt. The Afghan government is struggling with corruption while the military is struggling to gain control of the country. In an attempt to clean up some of the corruption, President Karzai has asked the US Ambassador to Afghanistan to investigate whether his own brother is involved in the drug trade. This but an example of the attempts they are making but it takes outside support to do so. Without that support, there is every likelihood the country would slide back into anarchy much as it did after the Soviet withdrawal. Warlords and the Taliban would fight for control of the country while terrorists would once again be free to use the country as a staging area for attacks worldwide.

There is also the suggestion we should negotiate with the Taliban. I have given a lot of thought to how this would be possible and, for the life of me, cannot figure it out. What is there to negotiate? This is a group that stone and beat people for minor offences, where women do not have rights, and feel it is appropriate to murder women and children just for going to school. Since negotiation would mean the making of concessions to the Taliban in exchange for what we desire, what does the NDP suggest we give up?

So what is the NDP vision? According to their website, they believe Canada should only be involved in Afghanistan “through humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and a comprehensive peace process”. At the moment, humanitarian and reconstruction workers cannot operate in southern Afghanistan due to the threat the Taliban poses. Prior to coalition forces exerting control in Afghanistan, humanitarian workers were increasingly targeted by the Taliban with 32 aid workers being killed between March 2003 and June 2004 including five aid workers with Doctors Without Borders. This prompted them to suspend operations until security could be assured. The same was happening with reconstruction with many projects being destroyed by the Taliban as soon as the workers left. There is no reason to believe this situation would not return the moment troops pulled out.

This leaves the so-called “comprehensive peace process” but what, in reality, is that? Is it negotiating with the Taliban as mentioned earlier? The NDP are not clear on that point.

Fundamentally, though, either the NDP shows a lack of understanding in what they say or they are purposely twisting things for their own advantage.

Jack Layton recently used the decision to send Canadian tanks to Afghanistan as proof we are on the “wrong” mission. According to Layton, "sending tanks to destroy the homes of innocent Afghani civilians only serves to demonstrate even more strongly the futility and immorality of Stephen Harper's cheerleading for George Bush." He did fail to mention that France landed tanks in Lebanon as part of the UN mandated peacekeeping force there, a mission he says we should be involved in. Does this now mean the mission in Lebanon is wrong?

Now Layton is saying Canada should bring home the troops to engage in enforcing our sovereignty in the ocean. According to Layton, "Dealing with the fishing fleets off our coastline who are coming in and destroying the ecosystems that in many ways provide the livelihood for our coastal communities. That has a place for both the Coast Guard and possibly the military and the navy," This makes absolutely no sense since the majority of the troops in Afghanistan are ground troops and would be of no use on the ocean.

This shift in direction on the part of the NDP, and Jack Layton in particular, while appealing to the more radical elements of the left is already in the process of alienating some of the current members of the party. The grandstanding and uninformed rhetoric, while appealing to those who follow with blind faith, is slowly eroding any credibility the NDP had gained. While basking in his perceived power in a minority government, Layton is sure to drive away the critical thinkers within his own party. Instead of moving to a broader appeal, the NDP will once again be relegated to the ranks of radical socialist.

I bet the Green Party could not be happier.