I morgon påbörjar riksdagens sammansatta utrikes- och försvarsutskott (UFöU) behandlingen av Nationell strategi för svenskt deltagande i internationell freds- och säkerhetsfrämjande verksamhet.
Inför sammanträdet har ledamöterna (enligt kallelsen) fått tillgång till den rapport om Kanadas fortsatta engagemang i Afghanistan, som lämnades i januari månad av ”Independent Panel on Canada´s Future Role in Afghanistan”.
Upprinnelsen till rapporten är följande:
”On October 12, 2007 Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the creation of an Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan, which will review, analyse and make recommendations on Canada’s engagement in Afghanistan beyond February 2009.”
Skulle regeringen kunna tänka sig att genomföra något liknande, inför den Afghanistan-strategi som har aviserats till hösten? Gärna som ett gemensamt Nordiskt projekt! Varför inte sätta samman goda krafter från de Nordiska länder som avser agera mer gemensamt i Afghanistan.
Man bör också se det som ett sätt att också nå ut till allmänheten, när det gäller frågan om vad vi gör där? Och varför?
Just på detta tema är det förord som ordföranden i den kanadensiska panelen, John Manley, något av det bästa jag har läst. Jag återger det här i sin helhet:
If I learned one thing from this enquiry, it is that there is no obvious answer to the question of Canada’s future role in Afghanistan. But our presence in that distant land does matter.
Canada’s commitment in Afghanistan matters because it concerns global and Canadian security, Canada’s international reputation, and the well-being of some of the world’s most impoverished and vulnerable people. Our commitment is important because it has already involved the sacrifice of Canadian lives.
At the same time, I realize many Canadians are uneasy about Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. They wonder what it’s all for, whether success is achievable, and in the end, whether the results will justify the human and other costs. The most difficult decision a country can make is to send its young men and women into harm’s way, particularly when the outcome may appear less than certain. I can assure Canadians that each of us on the Panel wrestled with this question throughout our enquiry.
We find ourselves, with our allies, in a situation of conflict in a land that is far from us, little known by us and where our interests do not seem self-evident. We are trying to help a country whose recent history has been one long, unending tragedy, and whose prospects still appear bleak.
The question of Canada’s future role defies a simple answer. It is complicated by the challenging nature of the mission and by the difficult neighborhood in which Afghanistan is situated, made even more volatile by the recent assassination of Benazir Bhutto. It is made more complex because we assumed responsibility for fighting an insurgency in a dangerous province of the country and we did so with little political debate and not much public engagement. And that insurgency is far from defeated.
Our Panel consulted very broadly – both here at home and abroad. We traveled through four provinces in Afghanistan. We tried to assess progress made to date and the requirements for improved prospects. And we sought to answer the question of Canada’s appropriate role in the future. Our assessment of the situation recognizes the enormity of the challenge: regional instability; slow progress on reconstruction and development; mounting insecurity and violence; corruption, criminality and increasing poppy production. But there can be no doubt that compared to the starting point in 2001, living conditions in Afghanistan have seen measurable, even significant improvement.
Whenever we asked Afghans what they thought ISAF or Canada should do, there was never any hesitation: “We want you to stay; we need you to stay.” Without the presence of the international security forces, they said, chaos would surely ensue.
The Panel learned early that we must be careful to define our expectations for success. Afghanistan is a deeply divided tribal society. It has been wracked by decades of war and is one of the poorest countries on Earth. There should be no thought that after five or even ten years of western military presence and aid, Afghanistan will resemble Europe or North America. But we came to the conviction that with patience, commitment, financial and other forms of assistance, there is a reasonable prospect that its people will be able to live together in relative peace and security, while living standards slowly improve.
The essential questions for Canada are: how do we move from a military role to a civilian one, and how do we oversee a shift in responsibility for Afghanistan’s security from the international community to Afghans themselves?
To achieve these objectives, much still needs to be done. Institutions that are respected need to be built and the Afghan National Army and Police need to be further recruited and trained. Agricultural districts need to be reclaimed from land mines and poppy fields, so that traditional crops can once again flourish where they have in the past. Both the reality and the perception of corruption in the Government of Afghanistan must be rooted out. They are undermining not only the hope for an Afghan solution but also support for the Western forces sacrificing their lives to help secure the situation. Roads, bridges and electrification must be enhanced, so that ordinary Afghans can see progress.
With all that needs to be done, no end date makes sense at this point. Afghanistan presents an opportunity for Canada. For the first time in many years, we have brought a level of commitment to an international problem that gives us real weight and credibility. For once, our 3Ds (defense, diplomacy and development assistance) are all pointed at the same problem, and officials from three departments are beginning to work together. But the cost is real, and it is high.
Canadians don’t need any lessons in sacrifice. Our history is replete with examples of courage and fortitude in conflict against difficult odds when the cause was just and the determination to prevail was present. But our Panel concluded that the sacrifice of Canadian lives could only be justified if we and our allies and the Afghans share a coherent, comprehensive plan that can lead to success, and if our allies are willing to stand with us with the resources and commitment that are necessary to make success possible.
We like to talk about Canada’s role in the world. Well, we have a meaningful one in Afghanistan. As our report states, it should not be faint-hearted nor should it be open-ended. Above all, we must not abandon it prematurely. Rather, we should use our hard-earned influence to ensure the job gets done and gets done properly.
Honourable John Manley, P.C.
Ottawa, January, 2008″
Rapporten finns här.
Ekot rapporterar att det rör på sig i Norden när det gäller möjliga samarbeten på det militära området:
”I Danmark presenterar Dansk Folkeparti på onsdagen ett förslag som går ut på att slå samman de båda ländernas flygvapen. Och idén avvisas inte direkt av alla i Danmark. Men det är en lösning som Sten Tolgfors inte är intresserad av.
– Det är inte det vi diskuterar från svensk sida vare sig med Norge eller med Finland. Men det finns många andra saker att titta närmare på. Både för att få ned kostnader men också för att höja effektiviteten och som jag tror vore intressant att titta på för alla länder”, säger Sten Tolgfors till Ekot.
”Det er noget, som har utrolig stor rækkevidde. Hvem har hals- og håndsret over flyene, hvad må de bruges til osv. Der er mange problemstillinger, så jeg må blankt erkende, at det ikke er noget, jeg har langt oppe på min dagsorden. Mener partierne, at det er en mulighed, må de rejse det i forligskredsen, og så vil det naturligvis blive loyalt undersøgt.”