Transcript: Season 4, Episode 28

Watch: Full broadcast of The West Block with Tom Clark, aired March 15, 2015.

THE WEST BLOCK
Episode 28, Season 4
Sunday, March 22, 2015

Host: Tom Clark
Guest Interviews: David Mulroney, Jennifer Ditchburn, Mark Kennedy, Andrew Cohen

Location: Ottawa

On this Sunday, lessons learned from our mission in Afghanistan. A new audit says while some things went right, many more went wrong. How do we avoid repeating our mistakes in Iraq?

Then, Stephen Harper says his comments about using guns for personal security were taken out of context.

And the Liberals have a big decision to make this week. Will they now support the war resolution? We’ll unpack the politics of a very interesting week.

Plus, more than 40,000 Russian troops are now taking part in mass military exercises. A show of force as tensions between Moscow and the west continue. We’ll look back in history for a possible solution to this standoff.

It is Sunday, March the 22nd and from the nation’s capital, I’m Tom Clark. And you are in The West Block.

Well this week we will find out exactly what Prime Minister Harper means when he says he’s planning to extend and expand our mission against ISIS. We know to expect more of what we’re already doing. Sources told Global News that the new mission could last nine months to a year and Canada’s air campaign will likely expand into Syria. But Canada’s foreign affairs minister also told us last week, being in this for the long haul means more humanitarian and economic aid. And he said recently, “it could be similar to what we saw in Afghanistan.”

So it’s perfect timing that his department recently published an internal audit on how well we did in Afghanistan. The government spent more than $2 billion dollars over a decade.

The audit says there were short term achievements. Thousands of schools were built, teachers were trained and access to health facilities improved. But it also said too much emphasis on short term goals came at the expense of long term development. The biggest flaw: understanding the political economy and the main drivers of the conflict. That received relatively little attention from the Canadians. And when Canada’s military mission ended, we essentially just walked away from all of our aid projects.

And joining me now from Toronto is David Mulroney. He was the former deputy minister of the Afghan task force. He is now retired from the civil service. Mr. Mulroney thanks very much for being here. You know when you take a look at this audit of what happened in Afghanistan, one thing really jumps off the page to me anyway and that was the notion that Canada simply didn’t understand what was going on, on the ground both in terms of the country and the conflict. How on earth did that ever happen that we didn’t understand?

David Mulroney:
Well I think that’s one of the questions that I’m happy to see that CIDA, the development agency, has done this audit of their programming but that’s one of the questions that it doesn’t answer. The international community selected Afghanistan in the wake of the fall of the Taliban and that was challenging enough but midway through our engagement in 2004-05, we selected the toughest corner of that country which is Kandahar. And much of what the audit says about our failure ultimately to perform to expectations has to do with the fact that we were in a place… doing this in the teeth of a ferocious counter insurgency. So it’s a really valid question and I think it’s one that we would need to answer before we take on other international assignments.

Tom Clark:
You know one of the criticisms that I heard many times, even when I was in Afghanistan was that we were perhaps a little bit blinded through almost a government mandated boosterism about our mission in Afghanistan. Did that in any way, in your opinion, blind us to the very fundamental complex things that we needed to understand?

David Mulroney:
I’m not sure… boosterism was probably part of it but he sheer challenge of understanding a society like Afghanistan and the challenge of understanding a particular portion of that society, southern Afghanistan, Kandahar which had been torn apart by 30 years of civil war was a challenge that was beyond us and was beyond I think almost every other country that engaged there. So to a certain extent it might have been boosterism. It might also have been simply overreaching. Too much faith in what technology and modern methods can achieve in a place that is that different and that difficult.

Tom Clark:
Yeah you know one of the other quotes that again jumped off the page for me in this audit was this. And I’ll just read it to you. It says, “There is limited evidence of positive outcomes in terms of more jobs, enhanced income opportunities or better quality of services outside of health and education services. In fact, there are some signs of potential negative impacts as rapidly growing groups of unemployed, educated youth, especially in Kandahar City may be turning to drugs or to the insurgency.” That’s a pretty damning statement in that audit.

David Mulroney:
And essentially what the audit says too is that there were a number of development efforts. When we started out and we had a mission based in Kabul, CIDA, the development agency was doing what CIDA always had done in the past and that is a wide variety of things through international agencies, through the UN and other agencies, in some cases a hundred or more projects going on. Then over time, Canada zeroed in on the Kandahar mission. And to be very honest, CIDA was slow to understand that the mission had changed fundamentally. It wasn’t about doing traditional aid work. It was about providing the assistance we could provide in that very war torn portion of Afghanistan. And in fact, it took the Manley panel back in the fall of 2007 to speak hard truths to CIDA and to Foreign Affairs and to the Canadian Forces to say this is a new mission, you guys have to work together in ways that you haven’t worked together in the past and you have to set some short term achievable goals.

Tom Clark:
Okay, let’s now fast forward to what’s going to happen this week. We know that the prime minister is going to introduce a new resolution in the House to expand and extend our mission in Iraq. So with the knowledge of Afghanistan sitting on our shoulder, let’s start here, is there or should there be one definable goal for our humanitarian and economic mission in Iraq because it seems to me that we’re once again walking into a country that we’ve got very little experience with and very little understanding of.

David Mulroney:
I’d say, if not one then a very limited number of goals in Afghanistan, we had six, certainly no more than six. But more than just definable, I’d also say achievable. Are these things that we can actually do and how do we define success? One of the criticisms of the Afghanistan program was that it achieved some short term gains but these were not sustainable. So what is it that we want to do? Is it for the short term or is it for the longer term and how do we measure success?

Tom Clark:
And how do you define that because again what happened Afghanistan as has happened in many other countries, international aid seems to dissipate when the spotlight moves on to something else. Afghanistan sort of dark right now, Iraq is the new start if you want of the show but for aid to be effective, do we have to find a way to get over this sort of attention deficit disorder when it comes to international aid?

David Mulroney:
That is sadly almost inevitable in a modern world. One of the ways though of dealing with that is to set objectives that are maybe more modest and more achievable. They used to say in Afghanistan that people sometimes deluded themselves into thinking they were constructing Switzerland in the Hindu Kush. Basically, we need to ensure that these states can defend themselves, there’s a basic level of protection for its citizens and they’re on the road to economic recovery. If we can do those basic things and keep them modest and achievable we will have succeeded. But even doing that will be a big challenge.

Tom Clark:
Okay, well we’ll take a look at what those goals are later this week and talk to you then. David Mulroney thanks very much for joining us.

David Mulroney:
Thank you very much.

Tom Clark:
Well coming up next, we’ll unpack the politics of what has been a pretty interesting week.

But first, Canada has taken a very tough stance against Moscow. Is there a better way to ease tensions between Russia and Ukraine? Perhaps, we’ll find the answer by looking to the past.

Break

Tom Clark:
Welcome back. Well last week may have been a break week here on Parliament Hill but that didn’t stop news from happening and it certainly didn’t stop my next guest from following at all. Jennifer Ditchburn the senior parliamentary reporter for the Canadian Press and of course Mark Kennedy, the parliamentary bureau chief for the Ottawa Citizen. Welcome to you both.

Within 24 hours perhaps or a little bit longer, but next week, this coming week anyway, the prime minister is going to walk into the House of Commons and put down his resolution for an expanded and extended mission in Iraq. It seems to me that the people who are going to be on the hottest seat this week are going to be Tom Mulcair and especially Justin Trudeau. What do they do with that resolution? Thoughts?

Jennifer Ditchburn:
Well I think it’s more clear with Thomas Mulcair. I don’t see them wavering from their position. They’re opposed to the mission. They would rather see Canada go in on a humanitarian basis. It’s really Justin Trudeau that I’m waiting to hear what he has to say because he took so much heat even from within his party over his opposition to the mission and he has left the door open for a scenario that would involve combat involving ISIS. So is he going to reign that back in and say yes he supports a mission in some form or is he going to stick with his previous position, that’s what I’m going to be really interested in.

Tom Clark:
And Mark, that’s against the background too of polls that seem to suggest that a majority of Canadians certainly are behind this mission and that going into an election or an election six months down the road to take an unpopular position, some might say a principle position but it’s principle versus politics.

Mark Kennedy:
You know I think the Liberals, if they were looking at the strategy of it, they were probably looking long term thinking that eventually Canadians would tire of a mission but they have to tire pretty awfully quickly in the next six months and that probably won’t happen. There was a time I thought that would have been very difficult for Trudeau to turn around on this and now I’m not so sure. I think he’s under a lot of pressure from his own party and Canadians to come forward in support of this mission. He knows the Tories have used it as a wedge. I think what he has to do if he does it; he has to be out there. We have to see Justin Trudeau. We have to see Trudeau delivering a speech in the House of Commons. It has to hang together and Canadians need to see him as a leader because right now Harper is describing him as someone who is basically standing in the shadows.

Tom Clark:
It’s an interesting point isn’t it because even Justin Trudeau recognizes that the ballot question if you want in October is going to be is this a leader of a G8 country? And you seem to be suggesting that his moment to define himself may be in fact this week.

Jennifer Ditchburn:
But I think he’s moving in that direction. His speech on… I mean for lack of a better term, on racism and whether the prime minister’s position on the terror bill and on the Niqab was pandering to sort of a racist undercurrent in Canada. I think he’s positioning himself in that area and whether he can conflate the two things: the ISIS mission and the Tories other positioning on these other issues, I could see that happening. The Conservatives I think also run the risk of if the public’s interest in the anti-terror bill is starting to wane where there is at least one poll that suggests that it is, will that have some trickledown effect on the public support for the mission in Syria and in Iraq? I’m saying Syria but we don’t know yet.

Mark Kennedy:
We’re in this for the long term. Our own foreign affairs minister has told us we’re in this for the long term. We’re not in this for another six months. We’re in this for another nine months, another 12 months and beyond. So whoever it is that’s talking about this, hopefully in the House of Commons because that’s where I want to be hearing them and I think that’s where Canadians ought to hear them, they have to justify why we ought to be there, what we ought to be doing on foreign aid, what we ought to be doing in the skies and frankly, probably a lot more information about what our people on the ground are doing and how much risk they face.

Tom Clark:
Sorry, I was just going to say, speaking about politics and positioning and sending out messages, there was another thing that happened last week and that had to do with reopening in a sense the gun debate. So Stephen Harper, about eight days ago, nine days ago, stands up in Saskatchewan speaking to the rural municipalities and the issue of guns came up. Now just to refresh everybody’s memory, here’s what Stephen Harper had to say in Saskatchewan about guns and personal safety. Take a listen:

Stephen Harper: “You know it’s… my wife’s from a rural area. Gun ownership wasn’t just for the farm. It was also for a certain level of security when you’re ways away from police, immediate police assistance.”

Tom Clark:
Okay so security when you’re away from immediate police assistance for personal security. Well then a few days later as we know, he’s campaigning in Southern Ontario in the outskirts of Toronto and it comes up again. What did you actually mean by that prime minster? And take a listen to what he said about that same issue in Toronto:

Stephen Harper: “Well look, in terms of the remarks, I think some interpretations… the interpretation you just put on it is patently ridiculous. It’s patently ridiculous. You know gun owners in Canada are not allowed to take the law into their own hands.”

Tom Clark:
You know it’s not often that a politician denounces himself in a matter of about a week. Jen what did you think of that?

Jennifer Ditchburn:
Honestly when I watched the Toronto news conference, I went what? What does this mean? And in those kinds of contexts, that kind of news conference you can’t really, and purposely so, you can’t really press him. So what did you mean by personal security? Remember the first part of that statement was that it’s not just about the farm, right? So he’s taken out of the equation presumably shooting pests and so on, on your farm, that element of safety. So he’s talking about some sort of personal security… what home invasion? We don’t know. He really confused the issue but perhaps that’s on purpose, right? There’s a two track message going on.

Mark Kennedy:
He could be. You know what? There are two audiences to this. What we have to remember too is that when he said that, I asked myself, my gosh, did he put his foot in it? I mean does he know what he’s doing? Within a day, Jenni Byrne who runs the campaign for the Conservative party put out an e-mail and what she said she was proud of how the prime minister was saying that you can use guns in a rural setting for your own safety, if the cops aren’t nearby. This is the first time we’ve heard this. I’ve always heard Stephen Harper talk about guns being needed by farmers for their own… you know out on the farm but for duck hunters as well. He’s never said, if you need a gun for your own safety. Now the story breaks, I and others write about this. The Canadian Bar Association points out that you know you can’t really do that and if you’re going to use a gun in your own home, if there’s an intruder, you might want to think twice because you might end up in jail yourself. Then we get the statement from the prime minister which seems to be on the absolute opposite end of what he said just a few days earlier. What’s it all about? Covering your you know what.

Jennifer Ditchburn:
But if you get a whole bunch of well… for lack of a better term, urban organizations, the Canadian Bar Association, different media pundits and so on coming out against what you just said about the prime minister’s statement on guns, that can also work in your benefit, right? To your base, people that would support you for your position on gun ownership, on the situation in rural areas.

Mark Kennedy:
It will work for the Conservative base but all I guess I’m thinking is this, there will be Canadians out there, and I’ve heard from them, who have already interpreted this as a sign that Stephen Harper wants to move down the path of an American gun system, which he denies flatly but that’s the danger for him.

Jennifer Ditchburn:
And this is very negative in Quebec, apart from certain rural areas but I mean really gun control is a major issue in the province.

Tom Clark:
But probably a classic example of one message working well in one part of the country and the same message hitting a clinker in the other. Jennifer Ditchburn of Canadian Press, Mark Kennedy of the Ottawa Citizen thanks as always, I appreciate your time.

Jennifer Ditchburn:
Thank you.

Mark Kennedy:
Thank you.

Tom Clark:
Thank you.

Well coming up next, in a massive show of force, tens of thousands of Russian troops are taking part in high readiness training and Canada remains firm on its tough stance against Vladimir Putin. We’ll talk to an expert who suggests that a different tack may be more effective. That’s next.

Break

Tom Clark:
Welcome back. Well in the next few weeks, a small number of British and American forces will be heading to Ukraine to train soldiers there, just as Russia ramped up a massive show of strength. Last week, Russia launched large scale high readiness training in the Arctic and some other areas. At least 40,000 troops are involved in the air, on the ground and by sea.

Canada continues to take a very hard-line stance against Russia but is it the right approach? We might find the answer in history and a new book by Andrew Cohen. It’s called, Two Days in June: JFK and the 48 Hours that Made History. We spoke to its author earlier last week.

So what, 10,000, 40,000 books already out there about JFK, what are going to learn new about him that we don’t already know?

Andrew Cohen:
Why am I writing another book about JFK? Because in June of 1963, JFK pivots dramatically, boldly and consequentially on the two biggest issues of its generation: nuclear arms and civil rights. And he does it through two powerful speeches which are exercises in soaring rhetoric. But more than that, he does it in the midst of all kinds of things happening around him.

Tom Clark:
Let’s go to the second pivot which was arguably one that had enormous impact around the world and that was the pivot that he made on the Soviet Union at the time.

Andrew Cohen:
Well in June of ’63 and interestingly Tom, the events of June are very much foreshadowed by the events of eight months earlier in the fall of 1963 when you’ll recall the Cuban missile crisis. Of course JFK and Nikita Khrushchev come as close to a nuclear confrontation, conflict as the world had seen before or since. Both Khrushchev and Kennedy are very aware of that and by June of ’63 they’re looking for a way out. Kennedy is a cold warrior. He’s presided over the largest military buildup… peace time buildup in American history in his first two years in office. He is not a peacenik. He is a former decorated naval officer, fought in the Second World War. He’s looking for a way out. He’s going to leave behind all the rhetoric of the Cold War and Americans were well used to the Russian bear and the atrocities and the gulags and he’s going to humanize the Russians in the speech at America University at 10:30 am on June the 10th an he’s going to speak of them as America’s ally in the Second World War where they had lost 20 million people. He’s going to talk about their achievements in the arts, in space. The only reason the Americans are in space is because the Russians are in space. They beat them there and Kennedy of course is taking America to the moon and they will get to the moon by 1969 just as he’s promised and return safely to earth but he talks about the Russians in a way that a president had not. And then he says to Khrushchev, if you’ll agree, let us begin negotiations on a comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. When Khrushchev hears this, and he won’t hear it until much later, eight, nine, ten hours later, he’ll unjam the broadcast of Voice of America, the Russian broadcast. He’ll allow Russians to hear the whole speech. He’ll allow his vestia and task to translate it. He’ll allow them to hear the President of the United States because he’ll say to Averell Harriman two weeks later, no president has talked about us or to us this way since Franklin Roosevelt was our ally. Six weeks later, Tom, there will be the limited; it won’t be comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, the first of the arms control treaties of the Cold War.

Tom Clark:
Let me ask you this because in that era, Kennedy had a choice. He could have in a sense rubbed Khrushchev’s nose in it. The Soviets had to back down in the Cuban missile crisis and tensions were rising but he didn’t. He chose to let Khrushchev save face. Bring this forward 52 years, Washington and Moscow are once again at daggers drawn over global supremacy, what are the lessons from the Kennedy era that could or should be applied to now?

Andrew Cohen:
You’ve absolutely nailed it in terms of he didn’t rub his nose in it. So what can we learn? My sense is that if we look at the manner in which JFK approached Khrushchev, giving him every opportunity as I say to save face, understanding his situation, it isn’t comparable exactly. There’s not a straight line but we can learn from JFK the idea of reading your opponent. And as bad as it looks with Putin now, he has in the last two months absorbed several blows. One is the collapse of the Ruble. The other is the collapse of oil. He is a cornered rat. If he wants to reconsider his position in the Ukraine, let’s give him every opportunity. Let’s use every opportunity through back channels. The Kennedy’s were terrific with back channels. The only reason by the way that what’s called a peace speech happened at American University was the Pope was involved and there were other intermediaries. The Kennedy’s were happy to go outside diplomatic channels to give an opponent every opportunity through every means to change his mind and I think that’s what we have to do with Putin.

Tom Clark:
Andrew Cohen a terrific book. As you say, a minute by minute account of those two days in June, two extraordinary days in the history of the world. Thanks very much for being here.

Andrew Cohen:
A pleasure.

Tom Clark:
Now as you heard in that interview, there was another pivot point which was a speech about race and you can hear all about that in an extended interview with Andrew Cohen on our website: http://www.globalnews.ca/thewestblock and here are the other addresses where you can reach us.

Well that’s our show. Have a great week ahead. We’ll see you back here next Sunday.