Has Afghan commitment limited Canada's ability to participate?

Has Afghan commitment limited Canada's ability to participate?
An analysis feature from Thursday's issue of the "Globe and Mail"...

Alleviating the human suffering in Darfur was a goal into which the Paul Martin government sank much money and political capital. Now that a peacekeeping mission has finally been announced for the area, it probably won't be Canadian troops helping to make up the force.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor pointed out to reporters yesterday [Wednesday] that the Canadian government has not been asked to take part in the breakthrough United Nations force. The UN, he said, is looking for soldiers from African and Asian nations to make up the bulk of the force.

(Yesterday, Sudan endorsed a UN resolution to send 26,000 peacekeepers to Darfur, raising hopes for a force that could provide real protection to civilians in one of the world's most-embattled regions.)

If Canada were requested to send soldiers, it must still be asked whether the government of Stephen Harper could respond. Has the psychological and physical commitment of the Afghanistan mission tied Canada down so much that its capacity to take part in such deployments is severely restricted, if not exhausted completely?

"Right now we are rotating 2,500 soldiers through Afghanistan," Mr. O'Connor said when asked about Canadian availability for the force. "When you rotate 2,500 soldiers, that means [that] you tie up many times that number, because people have to get ready, people are just coming back, et cetera. We have to wait to see if we are asked at all, and my guess - I could be wrong - is [that] they won't ask us for combat troops or anything like that. They will ask us for support, or maybe finances, or maybe equipment, or whatever."

When the Liberal government decided in 2005 to increase its participation in Afghanistan, then-prime-minister Paul Martin asked, and received assurances from the military, that the commitment would not preclude Canada from taking part in a future mission in Darfur.

Darfur was a humanitarian issue dear to Mr. Martin's heart, and an issue into which he poured more than a little of his political capital, as well as a substantial amount of Canadian aid.

But, as his former defence minister, Bill Graham, said yesterday, the commitment to Afghanistan has changed since 2005. For example, the government has extended the mission's length by two years and increased the complement of Canadian soldiers. Mr. Graham said [that] he's not surprised by Mr. O'Connor's remarks.

"I think [that] it's unfortunate, but I think [that] it may be a reality of the Afghan engagement, which has become more substantial than people foresaw."

Although Mr. Martin couldn't be reached for comment yesterday, a spokesman for the former prime minister confirmed that Afghanistan was not supposed to prevent Canada from taking part in Darfur.

"He asked for and received a commitment from the Canadian Forces that Canada would have the troops necessary to participate in a peacekeeping force in Darfur," Jim Pimblett said. "He believed strongly that Canada could play a meaningful role in there, precisely because we had never been a colonial power."

So does Mr. Martin believe [that] the Afghanistan commitment has exhausted Canada's capacity to take part in the more-traditional peacekeeping efforts for which it has become known?

No, said Mr. Pimblett, who noted that the Afghanistan action itself is a UN-sponsored NATO mission. Others agree, but still worry.

Dawn Black, the NDP's defence critic, said [that] she believes [that] Canada has soldiers in reserve who can take part. "This is such a good fit," she said in an interview. "This is a humanitarian emergency."

It would be a calamity, she said, if the commitment in Afghanistan has robbed Canada of its capability to perform duties with which it has become so identified. "If that's the case, it would be really tragic."

August 02, 2007 | Permalink