Editorial: The true Afghan mission

Globe and Mail, 17 Oct 06

British Prime Minister Tony Blair reminded Canadians yesterday that they are fighting the good fight in Afghanistan. But Afghan authorities are undermining that fight by allowing tribal customs to prevail over civilized legal norms.

It has not escaped Mr. Blair that while Canada's soldiers are playing a leading role in Afghanistan, alongside those of his own country, the United States and the Netherlands, Canadians back home are feeling ambivalent about the mission. Some of that ambivalence is due to a perception -- nurtured by Liberal leadership aspirants such as Bob Rae -- that Canada's role is one of "peacekeeping, constitution-making," rather than fighting in violent battles.

But some of that ambivalence is due to the painful juxtaposition of events, as in yesterday's Globe and Mail. In one story, two more Canadian soldiers were killed by insurgents, bringing the total Canadian dead to 43; in another, a 13-year-old Afghan girl sat in jail because she had run away from home rather than marrying the 50-year-old man her father had promised she would.

This newspaper has argued that the job of rebuilding Afghanistan requires a strong military presence from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and that Canada is right not to shirk its fair share of the load. (Questions could be asked of some of the NATO partners about whether they're willing to do the same.) Six Canadians have died since September while helping to protect a road-construction project that is still just four kilometres long. The road is to link the isolated farms and villages of Panjwai with a highway to southern Afghanistan.

That is the new era of peacemaking ina nutshell. The job requires soldiers who are willing to engage in pitched battles over a few metres of road. Peacekeepingas Canada knew it belongs to anotherera.

But sustaining the political will to keep such dangerous peacemaking going is difficult when 13-year-old girls are jailed for doing what any 13-year-old girl would surely do if allowed basic freedoms. In civilized countries, these freedoms cannot be taken away; they are inherent in being human. The post-Taliban Afghanistan has a constitution, yet in the south the ancient customs of the Pashtun people hold sway. Running away from a husband is an offence punishable by jail. Even running away before the marriage occurs is a crime. As The Globe's Jane Armstrong reported yesterday, 13-year-old Shabano, jailed in Kandahar, ran away from "the old man" to whom her late father had signed her life away.

Mr. Blair is right: Canada should keep at it. It was not altruism that drew Canada to Afghanistan, though keeping that desperate country safe from the Taliban is a sensible use of the Right to Protect, a United Nations policy pushed by Canada. No, it was largely self-interest. As Mr. Blair said in a speech to a Canada-United Kingdom business group, it's in the West's interests, and Canada's, to keep the terrorists from settling in again.

A Canadian pullout would send the wrong signal to NATO and to the insurgents. An optimist would point out that in a more secure, stable country, social change becomes possible. But with girls and women still lacking basic rights, it's fair to ask: Is this the new Afghanistan that Canadians are dying for?