Tick tick tick. Time wears on as the Harper government struggles against a two-week deadline for handing sensitive documents on the Afghan torture issue over to Parliament.[rssbreak]
But while the country is riveted by a parliamentary crisis over how our military handled Afghan detainees, there’s evidence we should stop using the past tense. Many observers believe the risk of torture remains high for Afghan prisoners turned over to the dreaded National Directorate of Security by Canadian Forces.
According to Amnesty International lawyer Paul Champ, Canada has a policy of detaining “widely and indiscriminately” – a situation not likely to change during NATO’s June offensive in the regions around Kandahar city. In Operation Omid (Dari for Hope), “we can expect a large number of people to be swept up, and no doubt they will be handed over in significant numbers to the NDS, an agency notorious for torture.”
And for impenetrability as well. The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission complained last month that the NDS is still frustrating the commission’s attempts to check on detainees.
Champ also speculates that the U.S. military, which has its own prison facilities, including the notorious Bagram, in far-off Kabul, might turn Operation Omid detainees over to Canada, which has working relationships with the local NDS in Kandahar.
But it’s not only the prospect of more torture that worries human rights monitors on the eve of the assault. The example of last year’s operation in Helmand isn’t encouraging. There, thousands of civilians were displaced from their farms, says the Rideau Institute’s Steven Staples. In that campaign, he says, Canada supplied helicopters for air transport in NATO’s mistaken bombing runs that killed scores of civilians.
Staples thinks most Canadians would be surprised to learn that we need an offensive against the city of Kandahar itself. Western forces are struggling to retake the city, which is now dangerous for NATO forces, UN personnel and local civilians.
“This is illustrative – we have lost so much ground. Now is not the time to be going on a major military offensive we should be looking for a major negotiated exit,” Staples says.
Mike Skinner, an Afghanistan researcher and PhD student at York U, worries about the looming sweep, given a little-discussed 2006 Canadian campaign in Panjwaii.
“There, villages were given 24 hours’ notice by the Canadian Forces, who then performed a security clearance. They were looking for weapons but were not prepared for building-to-building searches. So they just blew everything up. Those farmers couldn’t come back and pick up their lives. They became refugees.”
Then there’s the land mine danger that arises because insurgents plant explosives in the path of Western advances. “I have had a conversation with a senior NATO official who has privately expressed those concerns,” says Rachel Reid, a Human Rights Watch researcher in Kabul. U.S. and NATO operations attract insurgent activity “like a magnet,” she says.
At Canada’s Department of National Defence, Captain Dean Menard says only that “the upcoming NATO offensive is not a secret. [But] at this time we are unable to provide details on the role of Canadian Forces, as the offensive is in the planning stages.”
One interesting wrinkle is the refusal of local Afghan shuras (consultative bodies) in Kandahar to endorse Operation Omid – after their approval was sought by NATO commander Stanley McChrystal. Opposition has also arisen in the Afghan government, which is conducting its own negotiations with Taliban elements.
Shibil Siddiqi, a global affairs analyst and research fellow at Trent U’s Centre for the Study of Global Power and Politics, warns that NATO is taking “a big gamble” in Kandahar.
“If the offensive secures NATO control, then the U.S. will be in a stronger position from which to negotiate with the Taliban.” But, he says, if it leads to protracted fighting on the ground, the U.S. will find it far more difficult to win substantial concessions.
“Given the views of Kandahar’s population and the Wild West state of the government there,” he says, “the latter outcome unfortunately seems more likely.”
news@nowtoronto.com
DETAINEE TROUBLE
DECEMBER 2005 Liberal government makes deal to hand detainees to Afghan National Directorate of Security.
APRIL 2006 Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor insists the Red Cross ensures prisoners aren’t abused.
MAY 2006 Diplomat Richard Colvin starts sending memos to Canadian officials about detainee abuse.
FEBRUARY 2007 The Canadian Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) launches probe into detainee torture.
MARCH 2007 O’Connor apologizes to the House, saying he was wrong about Red Cross’s monitoring role.
APRIL 2007 More charges surface that detainees handed over by Canada were tortured.
MAY 2007 Canada signs a new deal allowing our forces to follow up on prisoners turned over.
AUGUST 2007 O’Connor out as defence minister Peter MacKay in.
OCTOBER 2007 Colvin leaves Afghanistan, having sent 17 memos on torture.
MAY 2009 MPCC begins hearings after chair Peter Tinsley charges that the government is withholding info.
NOVEMBER 2009 Colvin tells House committee that all the Afghans we handed over were likely tortured.
DECEMBER 2009 Opposition parties pass motion ordering the government to release documents.
APRIL 2010 Speaker Peter Milliken tells the government it may be in contempt of Parliament for keeping files from MPs.
