|
Are Canadian
Dollars in Afghanistan for ‘Reconstruction’ or Destruction?
by Barry Weisleder
How does devoting nearly 80
per cent of a country’s spending in Afghanistan on weapons and soldiers
bring about reconstruction or economic development, or provide humanitarian
aid in that devastated society? That is the question Stephen Harper’s
Conservatives want to avoid since the federal government’s own statistics
revealed that $1.8 billion of $2.3 billion spent by Ottawa in Afghanistan
since 2001 has gone to military operations. The extension of the military
intervention through to 2009 is expected to boost the bill by $1.25 billion.
While
the majority of Afghans lack adequate schools, hospitals, and drinking
water, war industries do not lack for lucrative contracts. The latter
include SNC-Lavalin/PAE, which is receiving $201 million for a “Canadian
contractor augmentation program”; General Dynamics Land Systems, which is
being paid $92.4 million for Nyala armoured patrol vehicles; BAE Systems, a
US-UK company getting $37.9 million to deliver M777 lightweight towed
howitzers; Thales Canada, paid $17.6 million to produce Mini uninhabited
aerial vehicles; and Oerlikon, the recipient of $16.5 million for Tactical
uninhabited aerial vehicles.
Such
expenditures create neither jobs nor sustenance for Afghan workers and
farmers. For an example of completely selfless and locally empowering
assistance one needs to look to revolutionary Cuba and the role it plays in
providing medical and material aid in places like the earthquake zone of
Pakistan, or amongst the poor in Haiti or Bolivia.
Meanwhile,
a new poll shows that public support for Canada’s military role in
Afghanistan has dropped “precipitously” as more and more Canadians think
troops are facing an impossible mission. An EKOS poll done for the Toronto
Star in mid-September reports that 49 per cent of Canadians oppose the
Afghanistan intervention, 38 per cent support it, and 12 per cent have no
opinion. In December 2001, only 18 per cent were in opposition, while 62
per cent backed the military action.
The
reasons given for opposing the Canadian intervention today are interesting
too: 39 per cent of those opposed say it is “unlikely to succeed in
bringing stability and democracy to Afghanistan”; 36 per cent state, “our
military involvement ... brings Canada too close to U.S. foreign policy”;
and 23 per cent cite the “deaths and injuries of Canadian soldiers”. (On
Oct. 6, it was reported that the death toll of Canadian soldiers in
Afghanistan had risen to 40.)
Issues From 1996-2003:
Click here for info on how to subscribe to Socialist Action
newspaper.
|
