Peace for whom?
Capitalists are finally realizing that making money has a human cost!
Kevin Giesbrecht
My recent perusal of the headlines has brought to my attention the renewed debate about Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan following the releease of the Manley report. One of the most interesting points that I noted on Yahoo! News was that we are in Afghanistan under a false pretence. Les Perreaux of the Canadian Press asserts that the reason why our soldiers are dying on the other side of the world “revolves around the U.S.A.” To be more specific, he suggests that we are helping to protect American (and therefore our own) economic interests in the Middle East. This supposition is presented like it’s a bad thing. I am inclined to agree that the national interest in solidarity with America is the primary factor in the presence of our fighting men and women in Afghanistan. However, pleasing Uncle Sam in this instance serves purposes that we as Canadians purport to support. Furthermore, if we can make some cash money along the way, that’s just super. We are capitalists, after all.
The primary argument on the issue is that we are offering up the lives of our finest and most socially responsible citizens (being our soldiers) for economic solidarity with the United States. In essence, we are placing a real monetary value on life. I would like to suggest that this is a narrow view. We are saving lives. Dissenters on this point are encouraging the belief that Canadians have more intrinsic value than Afghanis. I say we are taking steps toward a better, more peaceful world by cashing in our soldiers. If you want world peace, and a prevailing sense of global community, you must start acting that way. If you don’t want to take my word for it, check out Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
Before the arrival of the United Nations in Afghanistan, the slaughter of civilians was a common occurrence. On Aug. 8, 1998, the Taliban rolled into the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif and spent the next two days indiscriminately shooting non-combatants in the streets. After this bloodbath, there were more than 2,000 bodies lying in the streets, which the Taliban forbade the survivors to bury. Islam mandates immediate burial of the dead which makes the Taliban prohibition of burial a further undue hardship and slap in the face of the Mazar people who are Islamic adherents of a different denomination.
I understand we should be respectful of other people’s culture and let them handle their own business, but how much killing is too much? Would we not be outraged if our government did that to us? Would we not think it worth 79 lives of Canadian soldiers to prevent that from happening again? Why do we believe the Afghanis think any different when their friends, family, and leaders are gunned down like dogs? Whether they ask for our help or our membership in the brotherhood of man, such situations require that we take action since we are in a position to do so.
Also, bear in mind that the Taliban originally gained power by vowing to oust the previous ruling caste of Mujahedeen warlords. The Afghani people have learned to be suspicious of supposed liberators. It seems entirely likely to me that there was no public outcry to have a Western military presence in their country, because under the Taliban public outcry and public execution walked hand-in-hand. The fact that we have lost a relatively small amount of soldiers is a sure sign of widespread public acceptance. There are only a few stubborn, isolated cells of violent guerrillas left. Joe Afghan is content to see how this whole “freedom” fad works out.
Canadians like peace, right? Peace for whom? Just for Canadians? No. Everybody is entitled to put their feet up at the end of the day without taking a 7.62-mm round to the face for showing off the soles of their feet. By removing an oppressive theocracy like the Taliban from power we give the good people of Afghanistan options. As an added bonus, violating their religious tenets no longer means sacrificing the status and life of Afghanis and their families.
So, back to the original point about Canadian participation being economically motivated. Who cares what motivates our politicians as long as they’re doing the right thing? They do so little real good that we should be ecstatic every time they blunder into the right. So they lied to us. Let’s see a show of hands: who’s surprised? We should be in Afghanistan regardless of Americans or money. In this case, it is clear that the gains in lives and virtue are worth the price. The end does, in fact, justify the means behind the motive.
Kevin Giesbrecht is a U1 student and a former infantry soldier.
