- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
Here is M. Dion’s first statement on Afghanistan in his new role as Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061204.wqpdion1204/BNStory/National/home
I applaud him for wanting to stay the course. How else can we ”play a a role that will be positive in Afghanistan” if we do not stay in Afghanistan.
He may also be on the right track re: the opium trade. The problem is, most emphatically, NOT the opium crop. The problem is what happens to the crop after the harvest. The current NATO plan, which appears terminally stupid, destructive and dangerous to Canadian soldiers, is to punish poor Afghan farmers because American, Bulgarian and Canadian kids want to abuse drugs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4312557.stm
This is institutional madness; propagated to pacify the home audience – ”the lousy job of parenting you have been doing might be fixed if we abuse these poor Afghans and, in the process, drive them into the arms of the enemy.”
The Afghan farmers have to be paid, by NATO, for their opium crops, which may be one of the few things that will grow reasonably well in that poor, arid place. Then the crop belongs to NATO and we can burn it, sell it to legitimate pharmaceutical companies, etc.
So, 2 cheers for Stéphane Dion, so far.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061204.wqpdion1204/BNStory/National/home
Speaking after his caucus meeting that morning, Mr. Dion also called for an overarching plan for Afghanistan, focusing on ways to beat the opium trade.
“What we are doing now is not working,” he said. “I have suggested that we need — with the 35 other nations involved in Afghanistan — a kind of Marshall plan for Afghanistan in focusing especially about what to do with the crop. As long as it's illicit activity, giving a lot of money to the warlords (who are) many times close to the Taliban, we are in a very, very difficult situation.
“We will try to propose to the government an approach that makes sense and hopefully we'll play a role that will be positive in Afghanistan.”
I applaud him for wanting to stay the course. How else can we ”play a a role that will be positive in Afghanistan” if we do not stay in Afghanistan.
He may also be on the right track re: the opium trade. The problem is, most emphatically, NOT the opium crop. The problem is what happens to the crop after the harvest. The current NATO plan, which appears terminally stupid, destructive and dangerous to Canadian soldiers, is to punish poor Afghan farmers because American, Bulgarian and Canadian kids want to abuse drugs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4312557.stm
… aid agencies are concerned that current US strategy calls for the destruction of up to 30,000 hectares of poppy fields over the coming year - about 25% of the area cultivated in 2004.
It is pouring millions into funding "eradication teams" to cut down poppy crops.
Some have accused the US and British governments of secretly spraying already in eastern and south-western Afghanistan as part of this policy, although both have strenuously denied it … Nonetheless, aerial spraying is still an option US anti-drugs officials are considering for next year. And they insist that some eradication has to take place this year.
According to one development expert who did not want to be named: "The US is starting another Colombia-style war on drugs here" …
This is institutional madness; propagated to pacify the home audience – ”the lousy job of parenting you have been doing might be fixed if we abuse these poor Afghans and, in the process, drive them into the arms of the enemy.”
The Afghan farmers have to be paid, by NATO, for their opium crops, which may be one of the few things that will grow reasonably well in that poor, arid place. Then the crop belongs to NATO and we can burn it, sell it to legitimate pharmaceutical companies, etc.
So, 2 cheers for Stéphane Dion, so far.