policy

Marcia Ramirez and other local residents from Intag confront private security forces, most former military, Dec 1, 2006. (Photo: Liz Weydt)

By Jennifer Moore
Briarpatch Magazine
May/June 2010

Marcia Ramírez hopes to set a precedent in Canadian courts that will benefit peasant farmers and indigenous peoples across the Global South.

A community leader in her mid-20s, Ramírez is one of three Ecuadorian plaintiffs suing the Toronto Stock Exchange for over $1.5 billion. The lawsuit alleges that violence in their rural community could have been avoided had the TSX not listed the Copper Mesa Mining Corporation (formerly Ascendant Copper), which is also named in the lawsuit. The TSX Group and TSX Inc. are accused of causing or materially contributing to alleged violence committed by the company in response to local opposition to an open-pit copper mine. An environmental impact study had indicated that the mine would displace several communities and jeopardize the health of forests and rivers in the northwestern valley of Intag. The defendants have vigorously denied the allegations.

“I ask the noble people of Canada,” Ramírez stated in her comments when the civil suit was filed in March 2009, “that you demand from your elected authorities significant changes in your national legislation so that what has happened with Copper Mesa in Intag will never happen again, not in Intag nor in any other part of the world.”

The TSX is a principal source of global mining financing today and specializes in services for junior mining companies like Copper Mesa. According to the Mining Association of Canada, 55 per cent of the world’s publicly traded mining companies were listed on the TSX at the end of 2008, far more than any other stock exchange. Canadian stock exchanges also provided 31 per cent of the world’s mining equity and handled 81 per cent of financing transactions for the global mining industry between 2004 and 2009.

In Latin America, a prime target for Canadian mining investments, Canadian-listed companies operate roughly 1,400 projects and have been the focal point of widespread protests and human rights abuses throughout the region. Just in the past year, anti-mining activists have been reported killed in Mexico, El Salvador and Guatemala in presumed relation to Canadian projects. In Argentina and Honduras, Canadian operations have led to complaints of water scarcity, contamination and illness. In Peru, a Canadian mining oper­ation has provoked opposition among northern Amazonian peoples who question why a national park intended to protect their territory was reduced by half, giving miners access to pristine forests in headwaters of great importance to them. Alleged human rights violations and abuses by such companies are seldom investigated and almost never brought to justice.

"Mining companies are prohibited here," reads the sign. "We don't sell our lands, we defend them."

As a result, Canadian mining companies have developed a reputation for human rights violations and environmental devastation that even the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racism has complained about. Members of the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability were also dismayed when the government released a belated response to a series of public recommendations on the Canadian overseas extractive industry in March 2009 that only reaffirmed its commitment to the status quo: voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility guidelines. The government’s position “falls far short of international human rights norms,” said Amnesty International. KAIROS, a faith-based organization advocating for human rights, ecological and ecumenical justice, complained that Canada leaves “mining-affected communities with no recourse.” MiningWatch added that the government’s complaint mechanism “undermines the principle of independent fact-finding.” One survey of Canadian mining companies has also demonstrated that adherence to international standards by our overseas extractive industry is “inordinately” low, especially among junior mining companies.

In other words, voluntary principles are not enough.

Intag, Ecuador, says no

The Ecuadorian community of Intag has a long history of opposition to large-scale copper mining, beginning with the expulsion of a Japanese mining company in the 1990s. In 1997, Bishi Metals left the area when locals balked after obtaining a copy of its environmental impact assessment, which detailed how its projected open-pit mine would cause deforestation, dry up rivers and displace at least four local communities.

Following this victory, Intag continued organizing, aware that although Bishi was gone, the copper remained. Various initiatives were undertaken to demonstrate that Intag could live without mining, including a local conservation organization, an ecotourism project, a women’s committee, a committee of all the rural parishes in the valley, a coffee co-operative, a community newspaper, a local radio station and a community development association.

By the time Copper Mesa acquired mineral rights in Intag in 2004, it was local organizations rather than the technical challenges of working in the remote area that would prove to be its greatest obstacle. As a result of the strong collective response, the company never managed to get a drill in the ground.

Intag, December 1, 2006: in response to local resistance, the heavily armed security forces spray tear gas at close range and fire shots at close range, injuring one man in the leg.

According to Polivio Pérez, president of the Community Development Council for the rural parish in which Copper Mesa’s project is situated, “the company came in trying to buy support and divide the communities” in an effort to weaken local resistance. When it could not gain enough support, he continues, “they tried to enter by force.”

Prior to listing the company in 2005, the TSX was warned that violence and human rights abuses could result from facilitating access to capital. Human rights abuses had already been documented by the well-respected Ecumenical Human Rights Commission in Quito (CEDHU), including physical mistreatment, death threats, persecution, slander, false charges against community leaders and intimidation. Such concerns motivated the county mayor to write a letter to the finance and audit committee of the TSX urging them not to list the company. The company’s own prospectus, which the stock exchange requires of companies before they are listed, also indicated “the potential of further escalating violence” given existing problems with its community relations in Intag.

It was no surprise, then, that things heated up once the company was listed and started raising funds.

The worst incident, both Ramírez and Pérez agree, occurred in December 2006 when heavily armed security guards were hired to reach the company’s mineral claims and set up camp.

Villagers blocked the only access road to the potential mining site with a single-link chain and stood guard. A sign posted on a nearby tree read: “Mining companies are prohibited here. We don’t sell our land, we defend it.”

The residents, including men, women and children, refused to let the private security agents pass. But the guards were impervious to their arguments and began to fire their weapons and to spray Ramírez and others at close range with tear gas. Israel Pérez, the third plaintiff in the case and Polivio’s brother, was shot and injured in the leg.

In response, local residents successfully carried out a peaceful citizen’s arrest and the guards were held in a local church for several days until local authorities arrived. “Despite being assaulted with tear gas and bullets,” says Polivio Pérez, “we were able to demonstrate once again the strength of our local organization and our decisiveness [against mining] here.”

The incident was captured on film by two German journalism students and is featured in Malcolm Rogge’s 2008 film Under Rich Earth. Ultimately, government authorities suspended the project and declared that they were unable to process the company’s environmental impact assessment.

Months later, after company directors had been personally informed about the December events and persisting tensions, individuals believed to be linked to the company assaulted and uttered death threats against Polivio Pérez. The statement of claim for the lawsuit alleges that the directors could have done more to avoid further confrontations, such as actually signing and implementing the “Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights” that the company publicly purported to respect.

Challenging Canada’s “judicial paradise”

The Toronto-based Klippenstein legal firm, best known for its defence of the Dudley George family against the province of Ontario, is representing the Ecuadorian villagers in their suit against the TSX and Copper Mesa. Their lawsuit, Murray Klippenstein says, seeks “the same level of corporate accountability that is expected in all other areas of Canadian life.” He anticipates a tough battle.

In 1997, the last time a mining company was sued in Canada, the plaintiffs were told to go elsewhere. Twenty-three thousand Guyanese villagers filed a class-action lawsuit against Cambior after the collapse of its tailings dam at the Omai Mine, which polluted their water supply. But the Quebec Superior Court ruled that it was not the best jurisdiction for the case. When the suit was later filed in Guyana, it was dismissed and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant’s legal costs.

In order to address jurisdictional issues, explains Klippenstein, the Intag lawsuit focuses on decisions that stock exchange and company executives made in Ontario, “rather than on the finger that pulled the trigger in Ecuador.”

This aspect of the legal strategy appears to be working. The Toronto lawyer says that the TSX and Copper Mesa have decided not to challenge the Ontario court jurisdiction. This puts them one step ahead and potentially trims years off the time they might have spent in legal battles before going to trial.

However, it is not just the reticence of Canadian courts to deal with cases of abuse beyond our own borders that this case aims to confront, but also the skittishness of an entire industry to subject itself to legal oversight.

Given the weak reporting requirements for listing on the TSX and the lack of relevant legislation in Canada, author Alain Deneault calls Canada a “judicial paradise” for our overseas mining industry. “Listing on the Toronto Stock Exchange,” writes Deneault, who co-authored an exposé of Canadian mining abuses in Africa entitled Noir Canada, “is a way of seeking shelter in one of the more permissive stock exchanges in the world, while taking advantage of the reputation of the rule of law in Canada – all the while knowing that one is outside of state control and regulation when operating overseas.”

The Toronto Stock Exchange openly markets itself to companies hoping to work in areas with weak governmental institutions and vulnerability to conflict and violence. Its own online promotional materials give the example of the Democratic Republic of Congo as one potential site for which it can help companies raise financing.

In other words, the Intag lawsuit is just the tip of the iceberg. Just as Klippenstein’s legal team will argue that members of Copper Mesa’s board of directors and the TSX had significant prior indications that further violence and human rights abuses could result from listing Copper Mesa Mining, it is highly possible that a plethora of other such cases exist for which this lawsuit could set an important precedent. Coincidentally, the same year that Copper Mesa was listed, La Presse reported that another junior mining company was allegedly implicated in the massacre of about 100 Congolese civilians.

Great expectations

MiningWatch Canada is a coalition of 18 faith, social justice, indigenous and union organizations. Communications and Outreach Coordinator Jamie Kneen told Briarpatch that if the lawsuit succeeds it could really “open the door” for other communities that have been harmed as a result of Canadian mining operations. From the Congo to Papua New Guinea to Guatemala, people who have faced illegal land appropriations, forced relocation, water contamination, threats or even murder could sue.

The lack of suitable mechanisms for addressing such disputes in Canada has also drawn the attention of parliamentarians and legal experts. Recently, Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie, speaking at the 2008 Canadian Bar Association conference, urged Canada to draw up new legislation that would provide a forum for foreign citizens and companies to have such cases heard. In the spring of 2009, two Members of Parliament initiated attempts at legislative reform by tabling private member’s bills. NDP MP Peter Julian’s Bill C-354 aimed to replicate the U.S. Alien Tort Claims Act, which allows foreign citizens to fight global human rights violations in U.S. courts, while Liberal MP John McKay’s Bill C-300 would make public financing for the extractive industry subject to government oversight. Up against a fierce industry lobby and government opposition, both bills were stalled when Parliament was prorogued.

“It’s not fair,” says Ramírez, “that a foreign company comes onto our land and violates our rights, when all we want is to live in a clean environment and to defend our water and our land.” She hopes, after the procedural battles are over, for a cathartic day in court when “the stock exchange will listen and understand that we’ve been hurt by a company of theirs.”

Ramírez, the other plaintiffs and the legal team will face a tough fight. But the underlying principle of their case is straightforward, says Klippenstein: “You shouldn’t harm somebody and you shouldn’t use your money to hire someone whom you know is likely to do harm” – a golden rule that Canadians would likely agree to in any other circumstances.

However, only time will tell whether Canadian courts are prepared to hear Ramírez’s voice and those of many others calling for a 180-degree turnaround in a sector rife with human rights and environmental abuses.

Sign on to our Deeper Roots campaign.

Order this issue.

Subscribe to Briarpatch.

Subscribe to the digital edition.

By Mark Brooks
Briarpatch Magazine
May/June 2010

Last December’s Copenhagen climate summit fell far short of expectations. Explanations for the failure to reach a legally binding, fair and ambitious agreement to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions are legion but, in the end, the summit produced little more than the hastily negotiated Copenhagen Accord, a face-saving effort that does not commit nations to any binding emission reduction targets.

The accord does, however, call for the increase in average global temperatures to be limited to two degrees celcius (2 C) above pre-industrial levels. Many scientists believe that beyond this point, we may cross a climate threshold into potentially catastrophic and unmanageable runaway warming.

Achieving this objective is another matter and the path forward is plagued by uncertainty.

Since Copenhagen, 55 nations (including Canada) representing some 80 per cent of humanity’s annual greenhouse gas contributions have made voluntary commitments to reduce their emissions. Sounds promising – except for a couple of nagging details. First, even if fulfilled, these commitments added together leave the world heading for warming of over 3 C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.

Due mainly to fossil fuel emissions, we’ve already witnessed a temperature increase of 0.8 C during the 20th century. That leaves us just 1.2 degrees of wiggle room to remain within the 2 C limit endorsed in Copenhagen.

Second, many feel that the 2 C target is itself simply too high. An average global increase of 2 C means some regions in the developing south – much of Africa, for instance – will be subject to a 3.5 C or even 4 C increase. This, as Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa has said, “is to condemn Africa to incineration and no modern development.” Many in the climate change struggle strongly believe that warming must instead be limited to a maximum of 1.5 C globally.

Finally, according to the 2007 synthesis report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), limiting warming to 2 C will require that the atmospheric concentration of carbon not exceed 450 parts per million at the very most. From the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, we are now sitting at a precarious 390 ppm and rising fast. If we accept the 450 ppm limit, that leaves us a meagre 60 ppm to work with. Sixty ppm for all of humanity to share, including China, India and the rest of the Global South whose economies, fuelled by carbon-intensive energy, are growing at rapacious speeds.

It is safe to bet that these countries will not be content to fight over the atmospheric table scraps that now remain. Indeed, the battle for the atmosphere is shaping up to be the geopolitical struggle of the 21st century, dividing North from South, high emitters from low, industrialized nations from industrializing. And if recent developments are any indication, Canada is readying itself for one dirty fight.

Canada as climate pariah

Canada’s Conservative government has long maintained that full participation by both Global North and South in cutting greenhouse gases is necessary to tackle global warming.

In 2007, Prime Minister Harper blocked a consensus among 50 Commonwealth countries to endorse binding commitments by industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, noting that the declaration did not include developing countries. “Canada’s view is that we need binding targets on all nations,” Harper stated at last November’s Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Trinidad and Tobago. The government then proceeded to push for a new paragraph in the Commonwealth’s statement that called for further negotiations on climate change to be done “individually and collectively” and to “have respect for different national circumstances.”

This position, when viewed in combination with the frenzied development of Alberta’s highly polluting tar sands and with Canada’s abysmal record in living up to our past greenhouse gas reduction commitments, has made Canada a pariah of the climate change movement. Our country’s total emissions are now 34 per cent above our Kyoto targets and our per capita emissions are among the world’s highest. Prominent campaigners, politicians and scientists have even called for Canada’s suspension from the Commonwealth over its climate policies and failure to take meaningful action. “Stephen Harper’s position is that there is no history – we all start at zero from today,” journalist and author Gwynne Dyer told Briarpatch. As a result, Canada is now seen by many countries “basically as a climate change rogue state” he says. In December of last year, George Monbiot, columnist for the Guardian and climate change activist, wrote that Canada had become so obstructionist on international efforts to combat climate change that our fair country “now threatens the well-being of the world.”

The Canadian government has responded to these criticisms with a predictable refrain: Canada is a small player, contributing only 2 per cent to global emissions and, as Stephen Harper stated at last year’s APEC meeting, if emissions from emerging economies are not controlled, “whatever we do in the developed world will have no impact on climate change.” Moreover, the government says, countries and companies that are not subject to reduction targets may gain a competitive advantage over those that do face regulations.

It’s a persuasive argument and many Canadian media commentators (not to mention the general public) have swallowed it whole. But there is a problem. To accept this line of reasoning is to ignore the crucial historical context behind the climate crisis and to overlook one indisputable fact: the unsustainably high levels of carbon currently in the atmosphere are almost entirely the work of industrialized countries. In our fossil-fuelled development, the Global North has emitted roughly 75 per cent of total historical greenhouse gas emissions.

By asking poorer countries to bind themselves to diminishing emissions budgets before the rich have set their own targets, Canada is contributing to perhaps the single biggest impediment to progress in international climate negotiations.

For developing countries, acquiescing to such a demand would be “like jumping out of a plane and being assured that you are going to get a parachute on the way down,” as Yvo De Boer, the Executive Secretary of the UN climate negotiations, said just prior to Copenhagen.

Some have gone even further in their condemnation of Canada’s position. “The attempts by northern commentators to lay blame on some countries for derailing the result (in Copenhagen) . . . are seen in most developing countries as further evidence of an essentially colonial outlook,” Indian economist and columnist Jayati Ghosh told Briarpatch. “Colonialism was all about appropriating global resources – and climate change is really no different. With their emissions, developed countries are currently consuming much of the world’s resources and saying, ‘we did it in the past and now that we’re used to our standard of living, we’re going to continue to do it and we will prevent you from trying to have more for yourself.’”

Strong words indeed. But are Canada’s climate change policies really tantamount to neo-colonialism? Let’s take a closer look.

What is Canada’s fair share?

Very few would deny the fact that southern countries will have to rein in their carbon emissions if we are to have any chance of solving the climate crisis. After all, emerging economies now contribute close to half of all global emissions and that proportion will rise to two-thirds in the future.

But given the unequal emissions history and the fact that per capita emissions are still vastly higher in the Global North (even in China per capita emissions are still only one-quarter of Canada’s), how much can the South reasonably be expected to contribute?

We’ve seen that we are a mere 60 parts per million shy of the crucial 450 ppm atmospheric carbon threshold. To translate this into actual emissions, a recent study published in the journal Nature calculated that humanity can afford to put no more than one trillion metric tons of CO₂ in the atmosphere between 2000 and 2050. This is in addition to the 1.2 trillion tonnes we (mostly northern countries) emitted prior to 2000. Because CO₂ remains in the atmosphere for 50-200 years on average, one of the authors of the study, Myles Allen of Oxford University, said that what is important is the total emissions that have accumulated since the start of the industrial revolution. “To avoid dangerous climate change we will have to limit the total amount of carbon . . . not just the emission rate in any given year.”

One trillion tonnes. Sounds like plenty. Trouble is, more than a third of that amount was emitted globally from 2000-2009 and we still have 40 years to go.

That leaves only 650 billion tonnes for poor countries – 80 per cent of the world’s population – to share if emissions from the Global North stops immediately. Obviously, they won’t. Rich nations, after already benefitting enormously from unchecked emissions in the past, are now fighting for a bigger piece of the world’s remaining carbon budget as well.

Consider Canada’s emissions. The Canadian government’s most recent goal is to reduce emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020, making it one of the least ambitious targets of all industrialized countries. Setting aside the fact that the government has yet to issue any convincing plan on how it intends to meet this objective given the explosion of emissions from Alberta’s tar sands, let’s assume for the sake of argument that they succeed.

Based on Environment Canada’s own figures from 2007, we can estimate that total emissions from 2001-2020 will average at least 700 million metric tonnes per year (they will almost certainly be higher). That means that more than 14 billion metric tonnes will be emitted in Canada over this 20-year period.

Of the available 650 billion tonnes of total atmospheric space remaining until 2050, Canada, with just 0.5 per cent of the world’s population, plans to take at least another two per cent of the remaining global carbon budget by 2020. How much more carbon we will emit by 2050 is anyone’s guess.

And remember, this is to reach the 450 ppm (or 2 C increase) target. If we are to limit warming to 1.5 C, as many feel is imperative, the global target would then be 350 ppm. This would shrink the available atmospheric space considerably and make Canada’s share of the remaining carbon budget even more disproportionate.

Who then should sacrifice their emissions for the sake of Canada’s continued atmospheric expansion plans? Carbon intensive energy has driven our economy and made us rich, but if 2 C is the limit (and Canada has agreed to this), will we now deny these same benefits to those living in poverty in the Global South?

Of course, due to economic inertia, most of Canada’s emissions in the next few years simply can’t be avoided at this stage. But where does this leave southern countries? Quite simply, with almost no room left to expand.

If countries like Canada are unwilling to make deep cuts quickly, it’s very difficult for poor countries to see how they can reconcile their development aspirations to the atmospheric limits of climate stabilization at 2 C of warming. As Jayati Ghosh wrote in the Guardian, “even without trying to replicate western standards of living, just to provide every citizen with minimum decent standards that contemporary technology can offer, such as permanent housing, electrification, access to clean water, sanitation and sufficient food, will necessarily require more resource use and result in more carbon emissions.”

And so begins the battle for the atmosphere.

Climate justice

The historical legacy of inequitable resource appropriation by rich countries is deeply felt in the developing world. In his landmark 1971 book Open Veins of Latin America, Eduardo Galeano wrote, “The strength of the imperialist system as a whole rests on the necessary inequality of its parts…The oppressor countries get steadily richer in absolute terms – and much more so in relative terms – through the dynamic of growing disparity.” For many in the Global South, the atmosphere is simply another resource that the North is seeking to appropriate disproportionately through international climate negotiations.

Partly in response to the position of some northern countries such as Canada, a climate justice movement has started to emerge around the world. Those involved believe that climate change cannot be separated from issues of equity, justice and the need for development. They refuse to accept the choice between developmental justice and climate stabilization and they insist that the Global North, through its past emissions, owes an ecological debt to the South.

Predictably, the call for reparations has been dismissed by governments in rich countries. Todd Stern, the chief U.S. negotiator in Copenhagen, said, “For most of the 200 years since the Industrial Revolution, people were blissfully ignor­ant of the fact that emissions caused a greenhouse effect.”

But if our past actions could result in grievous harm to others, whether through wilful negligence or otherwise, do we not have a profound moral obligation to act quickly to alleviate potential suffering? Moreover, we have known about global warming for over 20 years now, yet developed countries are still doing very little to reduce emissions and make atmospheric space available for other nations.

Responding to Stern’s remarks, renowned Indian environmental leader and feminist Vandana Shiva said, “I think it is time for the United States to stop seeing itself as a donor and recognizing itself as a polluter, a polluter who must pay for its pollution and its ecological debt. This is not about charity. This is about justice.”

North American media have for the most part utterly failed to recognize the ethical dimensions of climate change, and consequently most Canadians see little problem with judging our government’s climate change policies solely on the basis of our national economic interest. As a result, ethics and justice are the crucial missing ingredients in our national conversation about climate change. Gwynne Dyer put it this way: “The reason no deal was possible [in Copenhagen] is that public opinion in the Global North is still in denial about the fact that the final deal must be asymmetrical. It’s got to accept and account for the history. Until the general public grasps that, especially in the United States, there will be no real progress.”

The reason for this impasse is quite simple. Today, the only proven routes out of poverty still involve an expanded use of energy and, consequently, a seemingly inevitable increase in fossil fuel use and carbon emissions – unless more expensive alternative energies can rapidly be deployed.

Only when the North has committed to deep cuts and put sufficient money on the table, can we justifiably expect the South to commit to binding reductions of their own. As one climate change adviser to the Indian government noted, “The basic concern of the developing countries is not whether or not to initiate mitigation actions, but how the mitigation burdens will be distributed among nations.”

The Harper government surely knows that its demands of developing countries cannot be accepted and will only serve to further delay any meaningful global action. “Western nations are engaged in a lose-lose game of chicken with developing nations,” writes author Naomi Klein in Rolling Stone. And in the meantime, Canada’s emissions will continue to rise. The government’s ballyhooed Clean Air Regulatory Framework from 2007 still has not been implemented and the recent federal budget contained no new funding whatsoever for climate change mitigation.

Poverty alleviation and equitable forms of development are possible within the world’s small remaining carbon budget with existing clean energy technologies. But this will only become a reality if rich nations like Canada are willing to accept their historical responsibilities by implementing stringent domestic reductions that will free up atmospheric space for the rest of the world, and by paying developing countries to leapfrog fossil fuels and make the transition directly to cleaner energy.

Tragically, our current government has shown no such inclination. With the world sliding towards 2 C of warming and potentially catastrophic climate change, Canada seems quite content to simply fight for whatever atmospheric space remains.

Sign on to our Deeper Roots campaign.

Order this issue.

Subscribe to Briarpatch.

Subscribe to the digital edition.

By John W. Warnock
Briarpatch Magazine
September/October 2008

“No nation can donate liberation to another nation. Liberation should be achieved in a country by the people themselves.”

Malalai Joya, Member, Afghan House of the People

The U.S. imperial project in Afghanistan has faltered. The government created by the United States lacks credibility and legitimacy. The vast majority of the people remain poor. The drug economy is dominant. Despite an increase in NATO military forces, the armed resistance led by the Taliban is increasing in strength. So what should Canada’s response be?

The public debate on Afghanistan has had a very narrow focus in this country. The primary concern has been the role of the Canadian Forces in the counter-insurgency war: How many more Canadians will be killed? How long will our forces remain in Kandahar province? What will the United States think if Canada withdraws from the southern conflict zone? If Canada pulls its forces out of Afghanistan, will there be chaos? Meanwhile, the occupation grinds on and the hopes for peace in Afghanistan recede into the distance.

It is time for Canadians to ask what the Afghan people want. At the top of the list would certainly be an end to the death, destruction and despair of the current occupation (the real “three Ds” that Afghans have inherited from Canada’s “development, diplomacy and defence” state-building strategy). The polls all show that a large majority of Afghans want a negotiated settlement and an end to the war. The majority do not want to see the return of the Taliban to government. The fact that the Afghan public supports negotiation with the Taliban insurgents is an indication of how far they are willing to go to end the violence. The current U.S.-NATO policy, supported by the Canadian government, however, only perpetuates the war.

The Afghan people also want their sovereignty, their right to self-determination and their democratic rights. Since October 2001 the United States, its allies and United Nations agencies have directed political, military and economic policy in the country. Afghanistan has been treated like a 19th-century colony.

Beginning with the Bonn conference in 2001, the U.S. government has imposed a political structure of its own making on Afghanistan. They installed Hamid Karzai, their key agent from the 1979-92 anti-Soviet proxy war, as president. They dictated the basic structure of the new constitution. The Afghan people had wanted to restore the democratically instated 1964 constitution after the removal of the Taliban government. Instead, the U.S. government and its allies, including Canada, manipulated the process to impose an Islamist constitution on them. This Islamist constitution, demanded by the jihadist allies of the U.S. government, has proven to be a major barrier to the development of democratic parties and movements in Afghanistan. Many parties and political groups did not want a highly centralized government with enormous powers given to the president, but rather a federal system with a balance of powers and election by proportional representation. Given the democratic freedom of choice, the Afghan people would most likely choose a political system different from the one imposed upon them.

All surveys of Afghan public opinion indicate that a strong majority wants warlords, commanders and criminals banned from the government and legislature. This demand was blocked by the U.S. government and its allies, including Canada.

Public opinion polls also show a large majority wants to see war criminals brought before war crimes tribunals. But the U.S. government and its allies have systematically blocked this process. Most of these war criminals were supported by the U.S. government at one time or another over the past three decades; some hold prominent positions in the Karzai government and many are in the legislature.

A very narrow, neo-liberal economic development policy has been imposed on the Afghan people by the U.S. government, their allies who are providing economic assistance and international aid agencies like the World Bank, the UN Development Programme and the Asian Development Bank. The Afghan people and even their government have had no say in this matter. The neo-liberal model represents a repudiation of the policy direction developed by Afghan governments throughout the 20th century. There is no indication that this model has the support of the Afghan population.

Indeed, the imposition of neo-liberalism is only exacerbating the problems that average Afghans face. Almost every analysis of the situation in Afghanistan today reports the persistence of poverty: there are food shortages, unemployment, a lack of housing, electricity, heating and medical care, and a weak educational system. A major part of the problem is the fact that international assistance is largely outside the control of the Afghan government, provided by international lending institutions, foreign governments and a myriad of non-governmental organizations. Even the Karzai government has asked that international aid be funnelled through the Afghan government.

The present government, widely denounced by the Afghan people for its corruption and ineffectiveness, is weak because it has no legitimacy. Defenders of U.S. policy often state that Afghans today are better off than they were under the Taliban. That is a vast misconception. The large majority of Afghans are far worse off today than they were in the 1970s.

Beyond the Manley report: Real alternatives for Canada

The Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan, headed by John Manley, released its report in January 2008. This report summarized the position of the Canadian political and military establishment and the economic ruling classes. There is no alternative, the panel argued, to supporting the U.S. position in Afghanistan. There is no alternative to participation in a long counter-insurgency war.

At the same time there were two major studies released in the United States that contrast strikingly with the Manley report. The Atlantic Council of the United States, chaired by retired General James L. Jones, former commander of NATO, concluded, “Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan.” The January 2008 report by the Afghanistan Study Group reached a similar conclusion and stressed the “growing lack of confidence on the part of the Afghan people about the future direction of their country.” Both identified the “stark poverty” faced by most Afghans and the steady increase in violence.

Meanwhile, the panel headed by John Manley recommended the assignment of more NATO forces to Kandahar province and more equipment for the Canadian Forces. But this is no solution. Extending the war into Pakistan, as proposed by some U.S. and Canadian politicians, and hinted at in the Manley report, will only make the situation worse.

Looking at possible alternatives, the Manley panel argued that if the Canadian Forces were to move to another province to reduce exposure to conflict and loss of life it “would inevitably waste a large part of Canada’s human and financial investment in Kandahar.” They also argued that “Canadian interests and values, and Canadian lives, are now invested in Afghanistan.” Echoing the “support our troops” faction in the Canadian public, the panel stated that “[t]he sacrifices made there, by Canadians and their families, must be respected.” This suggests that in order to honour those who have lost their lives, Canada must keep fighting and lose even more lives. This is a ridiculous argument. All wars eventually come to an end, usually by a negotiated agreement. What the Manley panel seems to be saying is that not enough people have yet been killed to warrant an end to this war.

One clear option for the Canadian government would be to withdraw our military forces from Afghanistan, propose a ceasefire and make a strong commitment to finding a peaceful solution. Contrary to the view of the Manley panel, Canada’s world reputation and influence is not a product of fighting counter-insurgency wars in support of U.S. policy but of our historical role in United Nations peacekeeping operations. Canada could take on a leadership position, constructed with those countries in the United Nations which are not committed to the U.S. war policy. This would necessitate bypassing the Security Council, where the U.S. and the U.K. have the veto, and going directly to the UN General Assembly. Of course, this would require Canada to pursue a foreign policy initiative independent of the U.S. government.

What is needed is a broad regional peace settlement that includes Afghanistan’s neighbouring countries. Such an approach has been formally proposed to NATO by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), but was flatly rejected by the United States. The other NATO governments have remained silent. An SCO-brokered settlement would be based on the revival of the Six-Plus-Two negotiations on Afghanistan (1997-2001) which were hosted by the United Nations and which consisted of the six countries that border on Afghanistan, plus the United States and Russia. The SCO has recommended that NATO be formally added to this group. Afghanistan is already an official observer to the SCO and has sought full membership.

Following such an international settlement, the United Nations could create a real peacekeeping operation. It would have to be completely separate from the United States, NATO and the “coalition of the willing.” The largest contributors to UN peacekeeping forces today are Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Jordan, Nepal and the Organization of African Unity.

Investing in Afghan-centred development

The Senlis Council (an NGO with many years experience operating in Afghanistan) and many others have criticized the Canadian government for allocating 90 per cent of its budget for Afghanistan to military forces and only 10 per cent to humanitarian assistance. They have called for a radical change that would put the bulk of our resources into economic and social development. This is an obvious policy alternative, in line with the Canadian public’s strong support for humanitarian assistance.

Canada could make a significant impact if it would concentrate its funding on health, housing, food and agriculture. As the Senlis Council has repeatedly stressed, there is a real need for emergency food assistance. The Canadian government could choose to bypass the international aid organizations like the World Bank and direct its spending to the most needy areas. This would have to be done with the support of the Afghan government.

The United States and international aid organizations have determined that the health system in Afghanistan shall be run on free-market principles. Canada could demonstrate that a public-health approach is better. Our government could begin by financing community health clinics open to all.

The Canadian government would also win a great deal of support in Afghanistan if it directly provided major funding to the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and other human rights organizations. The legal system is hardly functioning in Afghanistan. Canada could provide significant help in this area, especially in the development of a legal aid program. The educational system is still in need of schools and teachers. Official Canadian aid could be funnelled to the Afghan government for this purpose.

What can we do in the area of food and agriculture? No poor, underdeveloped country can make progress towards social justice unless it can feed its people. Food security requires a rejection of the free-trade and free-market model of agricultural development.

The Afghan economy depends on food and agriculture; these account for over 50 per cent of the gross domestic product. Added to this is the poppy economy, which is estimated to be 35 per cent of the total GDP. Afghan agriculture is characterized by many small- and medium-sized farms with very few large operators. In this context Canada has a great deal to offer from our own history. Canadian farmers have expertise in the development of farm organizations, farmer-controlled co-operatives, credit unions and marketing agencies. Afghan farmers need help in developing transportation and marketing. As in many European countries, farmer co-operatives can expand into food processing, wholesaling and retailing.

Canada could readily provide assistance in this area. But it would mean rejecting the neo-liberal model imposed on Afghanistan that promotes the free market and foreign corporate agribusiness. The “Food First” model of self-reliance and egalitarian development as promoted by the Institute for Food and Development Policy, supported by many Canadian non-governmental and ethical organizations, is the obvious alternative.

Afghanistan has relied on two state-owned banks, but they are now being privatized. Through political mobilization Canadian farmers were able to establish the Farm Credit Corporation to provide long-term, low-interest mortgages. The People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan government of 1978-1992 was establishing similar credit programs. The Canadian model would be welcomed by Afghan farmers who are now victims of local money lenders and drug lords.

Afghanistan has very little industrial development; this is one of the main reasons why it is one of the poorest countries in the world. It has natural resources and good potential for mining, oil and natural gas. The current model for development, set by the United States with the support of the Canadian government, places emphasis on attracting investment from foreign-controlled transnational corporations. The previous state-owned enterprises are being abolished or privatized.

It is most important for Afghanistan to establish state ownership and control over natural resources, including the creation of state-owned enterprises. This is the only way that a less-developed country can capture high economic rents from natural resource extraction. In the Middle East all of the Muslim states maintain state-owned corporations for the development of the oil and gas industry. These states could provide the technical assistance to create this model. Assistance could also come from the central Asian countries who are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. They are all developing oil, natural gas and other resource extraction through their own state-owned corporations, working in partnership with transnational corporations.

Of course, such a pronounced change in policy will be difficult for any Canadian government to realize. Since the 1980s our major political parties and federal and provincial governments have developed a commitment to the free market and foreign-ownership model of resource development. Prior to 2001, however, the Afghan government was developing its resource and energy sectors using state-owned enterprises. Canadian governments must recognize the right to self-determination and democracy. If the people of Afghanistan want to pursue a different road, we must accept that and provide assistance.

There are many policy options that are different from those being pursued by the U.S. and Canadian governments. If the alternative policy approaches outlined above were presented to the Canadian public there is a very good chance that they would receive majority support.

From counter-insurgency to peacemaking

The immediate goal of any Canadian movement for a new policy direction in Afghanistan must be to pressure the political parties in Parliament to respect the sovereignty and democratic rights of the people of Afghanistan. This would include an end to the Canadian government’s commitment to a large-scale deployment of military forces in Afghanistan in support of the U.S. counter-insurgency war. Instead, Canada should take on the role of peacemaker.

The second goal would be to convince the Canadian government there should be a major budget shift from the military role in Afghanistan to economic and social development. If the people of Afghanistan were given the right to self-determination and democracy, it is doubtful they would choose the neo-liberal agenda that is being imposed upon them.

Recent public-opinion polls indicate that around 50 per cent of the Canadian public want to see the government withdraw from the counter-insurgency war in Afghanistan. Over 60 per cent took the position that Canada should not continue a counter-insurgency military role beyond February 2009. Polls regularly show that 70 per cent choose UN peacekeeping over a combat role. Several polls report that a large majority, around 80 per cent, is pleased that Canada is not officially involved in the war in Iraq.

So what can those of us wanting to act on these sentiments do to directly aid Afghanistan? In the 1970s and 1980s Canadians formed local organizations across Canada to help the people of Guatemala and El Salvador resist and survive the horrors of their right-wing dictatorships, backed by the U.S. government. People mobilized in support of the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, under attack from the Contras who were backed by the Reagan administration and the CIA’s narco-empire. Canadians can do that again.

There are quite a few parties of the left in Afghanistan, constantly undergoing change. There is also a group of younger parties, referred to as “new democrats,” which have a strong commitment to human rights, secularism and broad-based democracy. In her visit to Canada in November 2007, Malalai Joya, the embattled and determined advocate from the Afghan parliament, urged Canadians to give direct support to the “freedom-loving democratic parties” that need so much support. She also urged organizations in Canada to give assistance to the established non-governmental organizations doing good work in her country that cannot complete their projects because of lack of funds. There is a great need for the formation of Canadian solidarity organizations to go to Afghanistan to build alliances with political and non-governmental groups. There is a need for Canada’s alternate media organizations to do the same thing.

In the past Canadians have undertaken international solidarity activities that were in direct opposition to the policy positions taken by their government. They were willing to stand up and defy the policies of the U.S. government. Because our government shares responsibility for the tragic situation that now exists in Afghanistan, it is even more important for Canadians to take action today.

John W. Warnock is the author of The Politics of Hunger: The Global Food System; Free Trade and the New Right Agenda; The Other Mexico: The North American Triangle Completed and most recently Creating a Failed State: The U.S. and Canada in Afghanistan (Fernwood Publishing), from which this article is excerpted.

Order this issue.

Subscribe to Briarpatch.