NDP leader Jack Layton, and to a lesser extent Liberal leadership candidate Gerard Kennedy have transformed the debate about Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. On the eve of the federal NDP convention in Quebec, Layton has come out squarely in favour of an end to the Canadian presence in Afghanistan. Stating that this is “not the right mission for Canada”, Layton has called for the whole of the Canadian contingent to be pulled out of the Kandahar region by February 2007. Meanwhile Gerard Kennedy has written that the Harper government’s current strategy for Afghanistan is “a long term losing one.” He said that the Harper government “has failed to answer the fundamental question of whether we’re building a civil society in Afghanistan alongside the Afghan people or essentially occupying a troublesome part of the world.”
Both Layton and Kennedy have taken courageous positions, which point in the same direction although Layton has gone further than Kennedy. They deserve vocal public support. A very large number of Canadians have already made up their minds that this is the wrong mission for Canada, that what we are doing in central Asia is intervening in a civil war and shoring up one part of an American war front that now stretches through Iraq to the borders of Pakistan. With the Iranian government standing firm in its decision to proceed with the enrichment of uranium despite the recent resolution of the UN Security Council calling on Iran to call a halt, and with George W. Bush touring the U.S. warning that he will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, there is a very real danger that the current conflagration may soon widen. It is clear that a sizeable wing of the Republican Party in the U.S. favours military action---in the form of aerial strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities---if Teheran does not do a humiliating about face.
The stands taken by Layton and Kennedy prepare the way for two critical debates this autumn, one in parliament, the other in the Liberal Party on the eve of its leadership convention. If Layton goes into the fall session of the House with the strong endorsement of his party, as I believe he will, he will be well placed to demand the basic debate on Afghanistan that this country has never really had. Given the shift in opinion in Quebec against the Harper government in response to the Conservative position on the war in Lebanon, Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc Quebecois are bound to be much more militant in their opposition to the unpopular Afghanistan adventure. The BQ’s timidity following the election of the Harper government has ended, with the Bloc no longer fearful of an early federal election. Now it will be Harper who will have to play for time.
The position taken by Gerard Kennedy will bring on a showdown with Michael Ignatieff, not only over Afghanistan, but over the role of Canada in the American global mission. As long as none of the Liberal leadership candidates was prepared to challenge Ignatieff’s pro-imperial position directly, the debate was being sidestepped. Now it will be front and centre. Its outcome will determine what kind of Liberal Party will take the field following the December convention in Montreal.
Meanwhile, the Harper government and much of the media will launch a concerted assault on Layton and Kennedy for supposedly failing to support the troops while the war is raging. It will be ugly, phony and emotional. The deaths of young Canadians will be used to insist that the mission must continue with the inevitable cost of yet more deaths. The goal will be to isolate Layton and Kennedy from mainstream opinion.
I’m betting on Layton and Kennedy to gain in popular support. Progressives need to do more than sit back and watch, however. The time to speak up is now.
Both Layton and Kennedy have taken courageous positions, which point in the same direction although Layton has gone further than Kennedy. They deserve vocal public support. A very large number of Canadians have already made up their minds that this is the wrong mission for Canada, that what we are doing in central Asia is intervening in a civil war and shoring up one part of an American war front that now stretches through Iraq to the borders of Pakistan. With the Iranian government standing firm in its decision to proceed with the enrichment of uranium despite the recent resolution of the UN Security Council calling on Iran to call a halt, and with George W. Bush touring the U.S. warning that he will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, there is a very real danger that the current conflagration may soon widen. It is clear that a sizeable wing of the Republican Party in the U.S. favours military action---in the form of aerial strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities---if Teheran does not do a humiliating about face.
The stands taken by Layton and Kennedy prepare the way for two critical debates this autumn, one in parliament, the other in the Liberal Party on the eve of its leadership convention. If Layton goes into the fall session of the House with the strong endorsement of his party, as I believe he will, he will be well placed to demand the basic debate on Afghanistan that this country has never really had. Given the shift in opinion in Quebec against the Harper government in response to the Conservative position on the war in Lebanon, Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc Quebecois are bound to be much more militant in their opposition to the unpopular Afghanistan adventure. The BQ’s timidity following the election of the Harper government has ended, with the Bloc no longer fearful of an early federal election. Now it will be Harper who will have to play for time.
The position taken by Gerard Kennedy will bring on a showdown with Michael Ignatieff, not only over Afghanistan, but over the role of Canada in the American global mission. As long as none of the Liberal leadership candidates was prepared to challenge Ignatieff’s pro-imperial position directly, the debate was being sidestepped. Now it will be front and centre. Its outcome will determine what kind of Liberal Party will take the field following the December convention in Montreal.
Meanwhile, the Harper government and much of the media will launch a concerted assault on Layton and Kennedy for supposedly failing to support the troops while the war is raging. It will be ugly, phony and emotional. The deaths of young Canadians will be used to insist that the mission must continue with the inevitable cost of yet more deaths. The goal will be to isolate Layton and Kennedy from mainstream opinion.
I’m betting on Layton and Kennedy to gain in popular support. Progressives need to do more than sit back and watch, however. The time to speak up is now.
2 comments:
This is the first time in a very very long time that the NDP have set the terms of debate. I hope all attention this brings years of NDP strategic quietism to an end.
There are real benefits to moving around the Liberals left flank. That said, judging from the NDP’s 5 priorities I very much doubt the party will attempt such flanking maneuvers. The party’s five priorities bare a striking resemblance to the issues the Liberals are Harping on; these in turn bare a striking resemblance to the platform the Liberals ran on in January and lost. And so, outside of Afghanistan, the NDP’s wedge issue for the next election looks like it will be again vote for us we are real Liberals and not Conservatives in drag like those fake Liberals.
The NDP can out flank the Liberals on several other issues and in the process grab headlines. Promise to legalize marijuana; leave the Liberals to champion a strange and inconsistent mix of stiffer penalties for trafficking and fines for possession; the Liberal position inspires no one and with the prospect of legalization on the table it will grab no headlines. Promise to abolish the senate; that is after all party policy. Let the Liberals stumble over their own tongues trying to cut a path between the Conservative and NDP positions.
James & Koby, like your ideas. Koby, I like the ones, especially about getting rid of the senate, and also legalization.
Post a Comment