Canadians and Torture in Afghanistan – Nov 2009 version

 Once again it appears, the truth has a curious way of not staying quiet. The disturbing part of this is the character and credibility assassination of a respected diplomat by the government, instead of just dealing with the facts. Witness the comments on the subject by McKay, (“dupe of the Taliban” comment), MP Laurie Hawn, and former General Hillier (the “murderers and scumbags” comment. What message does that send to our troops about how we should treat or care about these people?). We have seen all this before! Does anyone remember Somalia and the shameful treatment that was accorded Dr Armstrong by the military? We all know how that ended, and that was badly for the government. The truth is out there, with the many soldiers that handled prisoners, with the Canadian Military Police involved, with the military intelligence community interacting with Afghan prison staff,  in witness accounts, and in the endless conversations, meetings, memos and files that go with all this. One thing I know from personal experience is that we have many honorable soldiers in the military and the truth will be told at some point and accountability served.

Closure means all parties (victims, offenders, institutions, governments) acknowledging the truth, accepting responsibility for their actions, and making appropriate restitution. The ethic of justice – YES. The ethic of care for victims – ALWAYS!

Message to all concerned, “the truth will set you free.”

Lansdowne Live Consultation, Participation and Influence

If it is important consideration in professional urban planning, that the people affected by city planning and project decisions should have a serious voice in the process, then I would ask city planners for a list of all changes made in the “Lansdowne live” project plan” as a result of the public consultations held. Were we listened to at all? Did we change anything? Was there ever any intention to honestly listen and respect dissenting views? No significant changes are evident to me, and for sure, I did not detect high levels of agreement by the local residents during the consultations. Quite the opposite in fact.  Did the voice of those whose everyday lives stand to be really affected the most, count at all?    If so, where?????

How did Canada get into such a mess in Afghanistan

 This tragic venture in Afghanistan has abandoned 40 years of peacekeeping and two Nobel Peace Prizes. I believe the deaths of over 130 Canadian soldiers, many more wounded, and a number of Afghan civilians killed or wounded by Canadians, lies squarely in the hands of the Liberals, the Conservatives and the former General Hillier.

In time, I am sure that the Canadian people will insist on clarity and accountability for what has been done here. We need to accept the truth of this, acknowledge responsibility, and begin a process of restitution and change. Canadians like to take pride in their values, but this is a cause for shame. Canada needs to rediscover its moral values and have the courage to live them.

How do we get out of the mess? To me this is a question of government will and Canadian values. Governments and politicians make promises that are usually in the face of an unknown future, and circumstances change, and so do promises. I expect that the twisting and turning will start soon, and we will be caught in a humanitarian dilemma. The government will start to define withdrawal as withdrawal from the combat role, to a protection role, or whatever.

In addition, this government has a puzzling habit of abandoning Canadians in prisons or places abroad, and be it Guantanamo, or the person in a US prison under a death sentence. Let us not extend this unfortunate predisposition to the Afghan people. I think we need to put the Afghan people first. It is very tragic to be involved here, but this is a question of doing the right thing, and the ethic of care for others. It is who we are, or at least who we want to be

Success Criteria For Afghanistan

 The angst over “success” criteria certainly reflects the tendency for western thinking to be obsessed with the need for a short term win. The issue of this being “winnable” or of “defeating anyone” is certainly the big mistake the west makes over and over again, given the historical and religious context of the region.

In my experience, I believe the key is to manage expectations and think long term, for as much as “seven generations”, to use an aboriginal term. I believe that the way forward should involve some type of a “direction-engagement-results” strategy. This concept is useful in advancing anti-corruption and integrity frameworks in governance, particularly in failed or developing countries where corruption is very serious. The direction component involves defining success as a commitment to changing the direction of governance or security or poverty, to one that is slightly more hopeful and may make life better for future generations. We think long term. Engagement means doing what one can at all levels to advance this. This may mean selecting many “early participation” projects that are feasible, small, involves a lot of people, and whose collective effect begins to make a difference. The saying “I may be one and only one, but will not refuse to do what one can do” begins with everyone. The big projects and studies can run in parallel with this. Only much later should we begin to concern ourselves with measuring or defining results.

The key is to help them define and go in some direction of their choosing, that is hopeful and has a future. Then we need to have a lot of patience and compassion, and above all, to not give up on these people. Bosnia was a hopeless disaster at the time, and now life is getting better. I believe we can save lives and contribute towards this in Afghanistan, and we should not refuse to do so.

Does Afghanistan need another 40,000 troops?

 No thanks! I recently attended an Ottawa Peace Festival 2009 panel discussion in Oct 09, entitled “Afghanistan and Canada – Is there an alternative to war”. The panel expressed a lot of frustration, uncertainty, and a strong sense that we are on the wrong course. They were, however, unable to articulate an alternate strategy in compelling terms.

As a former Colonel in the military, it struck me that 40,000 combat troops only equals more killing, more civilian casualties, more property damage, and without a general Taliban or Al Qaeda surrender. The only result could be a request for even more troops in a year or so. Remember the Canadian Manley report and the statement that “all we need is 1000 more troops”. That was more than 20,000 US troops ago and the military situation is worse now. Even from a military perspective, there are so many variables, that any US military statement insisting on certain mission failure or defeat if additional troops are not sent, is beyond irresponsible.

The bottom line is that we have been committed to this war. We are part of the global community and the security of others is our security. The question we face is about how Canada can best contribute. What lines we should never cross? As a start point, we must take full responsibility for what we are doing there. Any level of harm, that we now dismiss as collateral damage, is just not acceptable. We should not be doing anything that we are not prepared to do or allow in downtown Vancouver or Washington. This means no heavy or standoff weapons or tactics that may take any possible chances with the lives of civilians or non-combatants. Heavy weapons, such as indirect fire weapons, airpower, and tanks, are not morally defensible in urban or settled areas. The results are predictable and tragic. Any civilian casualties or damage we cause must be investigated with a view to exposing the truth, accepting of full responsibility, and making full restitution. This means taking care of people just as we would back in our country. The same as we look after our wounded and veterans. People are human beings deserving of equal care and respect everywhere. The global community has a moral obligation to protect people who are undergoing such suffering.

To state the obvious and often repeated manta, even by military experts; there is no military victory possible here. So why is the main effort, the largest commitment of our “blood and treasure”, the one with the least prospect of success? To say we need a change of strategy is the understatement of the decade.

I realize that it is easy to criticize, but hard to suggest better alternatives. So what is possible in this tragic situation?

On one hand, there is a military saying that “amateurs talk of tactics and professionals talk of logistics”. Insurgents need a population to live and hide in (either through coercion or support), and they need lines of supply money, food, replacements, weapons, and training. Who funds and supplies these insurgents? Which regional states are involved? These are the main culprits here, and should be a bigger focus of effort, resources and attention, than we accord to any terrorist in the field. If logistics stop, the insurgency dies.

On another hand, the people who suffer most in war are invariable civilians and non-combatants. We need to change the role of the foreign military from war fighting to population security. We can build national security forces. We need to go into villages and stay there until replaced by national forces, one village at a time. We do not have to continue be complicit in the killing and suffering and collateral damage.

On yet another hand, if the region wants western withdrawal then the mid-east transnational community has to take full and effective responsibility for ending the violence and building peace. The region as a whole has to engage and show firm leadership. We need Arabic or Persian peacekeepers.

And finally, it is clear that an all-party settlement is the best solution, given the impossibility of a military solution. However, the warring parties must do their part. Warring parties eventually or periodically reach points of exhaustion and for their reasons become open to cease fire or peace talks. When those moments occur we must have the safe spaces ready and waiting and welcoming. Facilitating and encouraging such opportunities, talking to both sides, is a key role for outside intervention. We cannot afford to miss even the slightest overture from either side.

So what is possible? A strategy of insurgent support denial, regional engagement, civilian protection and settlement facilitation.

1. A strategy that reduces arms and supplies of the insurgents and reduces the population support that they live in.

2. A strategy that involves the increased support and direct engagement of the transnational mid east community to protect civilians, end the fighting, and rebuild Afghanistan.

3. A strategy that actively protects civilian populations. The ethic of care is central to who we are as human beings and to any chance of a lasting peace.

4. A strategy that talks to all sides and facilitates the creation of safe spaces for the negotiation of a settlement and ceasefire and a stopping of the violence and killing.

I realize that much of this is a “statement of the obvious” and very difficult in execution. I realize that some of this is already being done, but some real clarity and fundamental changes to the current strategy are desperately needed now.

To the Prime Minister of Canada; We need to reclaim our two Nobel Peace prizes for peacekeeping and neutrality. We need to stop our complicity in killing. We need do more to protect and care for the victims and the people of Afghanistan. We need to be an uncompromising part in advocating and facilitating an all-party settlement.

To President Obama; Please do not compound the mistakes we have made in the past. Please have the courage to walk the path of non-violence, diplomacy and reconciliation. Please have the courage to put the ethic of care and the lives of the Afghan people first. Please have the foresight to engage in a diplomatic offensive such as the world has never seen.

Lansdowne Live – A lesson in social responsibility for Orleans

“Lansdowne Live” certainly came to Orleans last night.  Passion and emotion, and angry people, were certainly flying high.  This is an interesting case from the perspective of ethics, sustainable communities and social responsibility, with some lessons for Orleans as we plan our future.    

The Lansdowne issue is clearly an issue of balancing competing interests and rights.  The rights of the developer to make a profit.  The expectation exists for the city to minimize costs through a fair and open competition.  The rights of the local community not to have quality of life adversely affected, but in fact improved (ie, to have facilities they care about, decreased traffic congestion, parking problems, noise, the concerns of small business.). The requirement exists for the city as a whole to benefit from this (ie possibly to address shortage of sports and trade show capacity).  There is a need for the project to be honest, environmentally and socially responsible, affordable and sustainable.

 From an ethics perspective, we should seek to balance rights, the ethic of care, the values we have, and seek to maximize the good and minimize the bad consequences, as tradeoffs are considered.  We need to balance economic and social interests.  Gone are the days when social responsibility considerations can be discounted by large overpowering development and economic interests.

 So the question becomes which interests are given the most weight when interests compete, and which must give way.  If we give primacy to the ethic of care (which would be my choice), the rights of the local community should be given the highest weight.  The local community deserves a reasonably safe, quiet and beautiful family oriented neighborhood with decreased traffic congestion and decreased parking problems.  This project is in the middle of a huge residential area and that counts.  People come first.  If we sacrifice the few for the many, we diminish the many.  Unlimited development, profit and expansion is not everything.   A crumbling stadium and a significant interest in professional football does not seem to be what this community cares about.

 If we truly care about people, then maybe we should bulldoze the stadium and create a green space, a park, a small market, with spaces for community sports fields or small open air concerts.  We look elsewhere for professional sports and trade show spaces.  Quality of life counts.  There is no force so great as a community discovering what it cares about.  What they care about is what is sustainable, because they will look after it.  They deserve to be listened to and their comments should be taken seriously.

 We in Orleans, would do well to pay close attention to the lessons learned here, as the NCR and City ”Futures Forum” begins to make far reaching and similar decisions that will affect the development of Orleans.  We have to ensure that where we are going is a direction that we care about, and that puts families and people first.

Reaching for a new politics

A recent CBC radio show raised the question of whether the current parliamentary “culture had run its course”, a culture with a “lack of civility” and in “a permanent discourse on electoral politics”. The prospects of continuing minority governments, with the emerging growth of new parties being an increasing prospect for the future, is a contributing factor. In the face of this, it is very easy to be critical, and harder to act to change the unsatisfactory direction in which we are headed. Perhaps wishful thinking (trusting that organizations have a tendency to reorganize, change and self-adapt to a severe crisis) is not enough. Perhaps it is time to set an example. We are proposing to extend a hand to the political constituencies to help create a “new politics” that will put the east end, put the interests of the people and their well being, before partisan interests. We propose a “new politics” of “COOPERATION, COMPROMISE, COURTESY, COALITION,” that may set an example and model for others. Just to start small, with even an east end group of our municipal representatives, our MPPs, our Federal MPs and candidates, the president of the Chamber of Commerce and others, meeting for a lunch and producing a non-partisan communiqué on some issue of importance to the east end. This may go a long way to building a new political culture that puts our residents and their concerns first. The alternative is business as usual and dissatisfaction as usual. What do the people of the east end think of this? What do the political interests think? Should we do this?

Politics has to change – Why we are different

 There is no doubt that current political culture as practiced in Parliament, in attack ads, and in public debate, is disturbing to most Canadians. Surely we can do far better than this. There is a growing assertion in the Green Party that if we say we are different, that we must be different, and if we advocate political reform, then we must practice what we preach. I believe it useful to evolve a clear commitment to Canadians of what it means to be different, be articulate about exactly what this means, to strive to practice what we preach every day, to be willing to be held accountable to this commitment, and to promote it strongly within party governance and our relationships.

Our Green Commitment

to our Ridings, Our Party, to Canadians and the Global Community

· We are a values-based party. We are committed to a new era of true values-based politics. Strong ethical values and our green values of Ecological Wisdom, Social Justice Participatory Democracy, Non-Violence, Sustainability and Respect for Diversity guide our behavior and our place in public debate, and we take them very seriously. We do not condone or tolerate discourse of even a potentially hateful, violent or disrespectful nature.

· We are a full spectrum party with a particular strength in environmental issues. We have a diverse, rich, respected and strong professional depth in our Green Party membership in all facets of government and international issues will take full advantage of their counsel, their voice and expertise.

· We believe in parliamentary evolution and reform. Canadians expect parliamentarians to govern for all Canadians. A new era of cooperative government and alliances that better reflects and represents the political, ethnic, language and gender diversity of Canada is our future. We will seek to set this example in our party governance and operating structure, that it reflects the diversity of Canadians and the full spectrum of government and Canadian interests from international affairs to health care.

· We will be civil, respectful and courteous in relationships among ourselves and with other parties. We will practice a high level of decorum as your voice both in and out of Parliament. We will set the example for integrity as expected from Canadians in our external and internal political behaviors. Power is not everything. Making a difference, contributing, and the ethic of caring is our priority.

· We will maintain a healthy balance between being in continuous election politics; and being an effective, contributing and active force in the political issues of the day. We will engage issues of importance and make a difference now.

· We will not wait to be elected to be strong and engaged part of the Canadian polity. We receive public funding and represent the vote of about a million Canadians and will strongly represent these voters and their values and issues now.

Endorsed by: The Ottawa Group of 4: Paul Maillet (Ottawa Orleans), Sylvie Lemieux (Glengarry Prescott Russell), Akbar Manoussi (Ottawa Vanier), Qais Ghanem (Ottawa South).   Jonathan Lumer, (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Quebec), Debborah Donnelly, (St. Paul’s)

If you also wish to be listed as endorsing or supporting this, please contact us?

About time – Canadian Afghan Policy Changing

Looks like, from the UN speech on Friday 25 September 09 by Minister Cannon, that someone  has been reading some of the alternative solutions submitted to the Manley Panel that were discounted by the commission and the government.  The speech indicates an intention to ease ourselves out of our combat role.   Maybe the Manley contention that 1000 more troops and more killing will ensure success, as a major part of the Canadian contribution, is being relegated to the dustbin where it more properly belongs.  Maybe someone has seriously read my submission to the Manley Panel and also published in the “Peace Research, The Canadian Journal of Peace and Conflict Studies” Vol 39, Numbers 1-2 (2007).  In this Journal it was noted that the panel received 219 submissions and there were “some indications that panel members only read summaries of these submissions”.  Peace Research decided to publish a selection of these submissions as a “historical marker of alternative thinking”,  as they noted that  it appears that “the panels website and all submissions were taken off line.”  Those published, of which mine was included, were cited as “some indication of the depth and breath of thinking” that occurred and that may also serve to “enrich our thinking for the future of Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan”.

Now we only have to take a few more steps to reclaim the two Nobel Peace prizes that Canadians have shared for peacekeeping in the past, such as easing ourselves to a posture of neutrality, to a focus on diplomacy, of talking to all sides, of facilitating the creation of safe spaces for dialogue by all parties when they are ready, and of further rethinking of our military role and structure.  Good luck to us.

Peace Festival 2009 Religions and Peace Forum

Last night Wednesday, I attended a Peace Festival Forum at St Paul’s University in Ottawa, on “How World Religions can Promote Peace”.  A fascinating panel discussion in which people from seven of the major world religions stood up and talked about their religion and how their religions were essentially peaceful.  This was fine up to a point, but I wonder if anything was achieved.  The positions taken were essentially an expression of what seemed as very fixed and inviolate doctrines.

 This reminded me of another conference I attended during the summer at Carleton University, which made an important point related to this.  It involved a group of Western philosophers and a group of Eastern philosophers from the University of Delhi having a discussion on  how east and west, or differing ethnic groups, can have a moral discussion in a transcultural sense.  It struck me how the western tendency was to deal with differences from a perspective of “fixed views” or philosophies and the eastern group form the perspective of “sympathetic inquiry’.  In other words, the west has a tendency towards “critical analysis”, and the east to put “fixed views aside” and ask the question; What are they really trying to say here?  They try to deeply understand what is being said rather than to reflexively criticize.  They look for moral possibilities as a basis of the relationship or discussion.  The dialogue asked; what values do we have in common to hold a moral discourse? West and east both agreed on “the moral worth and dignity of all persons because they are persons”.  But to test any conclusions reached using this common position, the west proposed: to minimize comparative harm and neglect, and the east chose: promote the public good and harmony.   What I concluded was that to think of the “other” rather than the “self” in terms of moral possibilities might be one answer to the problem of peace.

 So my question to the peace panel of religions and to everyone is: what fixed views can you set aside and what moral possibilities can you think of, that you can promote to advance world peace.  I challenge you to find one thing you can do today to promote harmony and public good and relieve the suffering of people of other faiths?  To the Jewish religion, I challenge you to do or say one thing today that can relieve some of the suffering of the Palestinian people.  To Islam, I challenge you to find one thing you can do today to relieve some of the suffering of the Israeli people.  This must be from the heart.   If you can solve the suffering of others, you will solve the suffering of yourself.  If you can care for others, then you care for yourself.

 With sincere wishes for the advancement of peace;

 Paul Maillet

Nominated Candidate Ottawa Orleans Green Party of Canada,

Paul Maillet CENTER FOR ETHICS