Archive for October, 2007

The boom in Canadian military exports

Posted on: October 31st, 2007 by Ernie Regehr

The CBC has just produced a fine series of radio reports on Canadian military exports[i] highlighting key issues such as the Government’s failure since 2002 to issue its promised annual report on arms exports, the upward trend in sales, and high volumes of armored vehicles shipped to Saudi Arabia and the United States. In the absence of official figures the CBC relied on Canada Border Services Agency reports to compile its own account of the arms trade, and while the numbers are revealing, they do not nearly reflect the actual levels and scope of Canadian military exports.

The CBC website materials acknowledge that its “analysis doesn’t capture total exports,” or that “these statistics may tell only part of the story” – so here is more of the story. The full story can’t be known as long as the Government fails to meet its annual reporting obligations – although even then gaps remain.

The figures compiled by the CBC focus on a narrow range of military commodities, notably tanks and armored vehicles (Canada makes the latter), munitions and some guns and components, but these constitute only a fraction of total sales. Canada produces a broad range of aerospace, electronic, communications and other military commodities for export. The CBC reports that total Canadian military exports for the seven years from 2000 to 2006 tripled to reach $3.6 billion, but the surge of that scale applies only to one category of exports and the reported total accounts for only about a quarter of all exports. The same goes for the report that $2 billion in arms sales went to the US over the same period.

The Project Ploughshares Military Industry Database maintained by senior program associate Ken Epps[ii] estimates an average of about $2 billion in exports annually – meaning the actual total for the 2000 to 2006 period is closer to $14 billion. Exports to non-US customers are conservatively estimated to have averaged around $500 to $700 million per year with another $1 billion or more going to the US.

Military exports fluctuate widely. The pace of the international arms trade is linked to the level of global military spending, and the level of Canadian military exports is in turn linked to these trends. Worldwide military spending has risen by about a third over the past decade, with most of the increase accounted for by the United States, which now accounts for 46 percent of the world total. World spending reached $1.2 trillion (current US$) in 2006, representing about 2.5 percent of world GDP or $184 per capita. The 15 top countries account for 83 percent of world military spending (Canada ranks 13 th on that list).[iii]Figures compiled by the International Institute for Strategic Studies for 2005 are similar, with the total at $1.2 trillion (current US$) and with Canada ranked 14 th from the top.[iv]

Of this annual one-trillion-dollar-plus outlay, at least 20 percent, or roughly $200 billion, is used for arms procurement[v] – that is, to acquire the weapons and related military equipment that make up national military arsenals. The vast majority of this procurement is for the arsenals of advanced industrial states and comes from their own domestic production. Between one-fifth and one-quarter of world military procurement is from foreign sources. The US Congressional Research Service (CRS), which also produces an annual report on global arms transfers, sets the value of international arms deliveries in 2006 (the last year for which its figures are available) at $27 billion.[vi]

While military spending has increased by a third since 1996, the bulk of those increases have occurred since 2001, and because they are largely a reflection of increased US spending rather than a broad global trend, there has not been a corresponding increase in global arms transfers. In fact, the global arms trade has been in steady decline since the mid-1980s, but that is now changing and the CRS shows a slight increase in 2006. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows modest increases in each of the last four years.

Not surprisingly, the primary military exporters are the countries with the largest military establishments and domestic military industries to help supply their own forces. In 2006 the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom and Germany were collectively the source for about 90 percent of all arms transfers. Another seven suppliers provided most of the rest, and the CRS shows Canada as second from the top of that second tier group, just after China, with an overall ranking of 6 th.[vii]

Canada’s high ranking as a military exporter is disproportionate to the size of its own military spending primarily because of the integration of the Canadian industry into the continental military production economy through the Canada-US Defence Production Sharing Arrangements.

Canadian export figures, tabulated by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) from Canadian industry reporting, are considerably higher than those reported by SIPRI and the CRS (the methods of collecting data and of valuing transfers are different among all the sources and thus they are not readily comparable). For 2002, the last year for which official figures are available, the Government of Canada’s annual report[viii] on Canadian military exports to non-US customers showed exports of C$678 million. The CBC correctly notes that is double the sales in 1997 – but there is great fluctuation in sales and increases and decreases depend on the dates selected. In the period 1987 to 2002 total Canadian sales declined, and in the period 1994 to 2002 they stayed about level.

The government acknowledges that shipments to the US “are estimated to account for over half of Canada’s exports of military goods” yet there are no official figures on sales to the US. Independent tracking by Ken Epps of Project Ploughshares of Canadian prime contracts with the Pentagon arranged through the Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC)[ix] indicates that in 2006 Canadian prime contracts with the US Department of Defence exceeded $800 million. Traditionally, when the Government still compiled US export numbers, Canadian subcontracts in military sales to US corporations were at least at the level of the prime contracts. If that pattern still holds, a combination of prime contracts with the US Department of Defense and subcontracts with US corporate prime contractors would now be about $1.7 billion per year – indicating total annual military exports to US and non-US customers of well above $2 billion.

But even that figure is on the low side. The gap in official figures occurs because they do not include certain goods, like some aircraft engines and helicopters that are officially designated as civilian even though they are sold to and used by military forces. For example, Ken Epps reports that Canada recently delivered more than $200 million worth of Canadian built Bell 412 utility helicopters to the Pakistan military.

The CBC reports point to a major Canadian enterprise that few Canadians are aware of and that is kept obscure by the Government’s failure four years running to produce its annual report on Canadian military exports. As a result of the CBC news series, we’ve once again been promised that the official export reports are coming, soon.


[i] “Arming the World” – http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arming-the-world/.

[ii] See the website: http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/Control/ExportPubs.htm.

[iii] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. SIPRI Yearbook 2007: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 267-271.

[iv] International Institute for Strategic Studies. The Military Balance 2007. Essex: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, pp. 406-411.

[v] The 20 percent figure is necessarily a very rough, and probably low, estimate. In the United States the 2005 procurement was 20 percent of the Department of Defense budget, and about 17 percent of total defence-related spending (which includes defence-related spending of the Department of Energy and others) (IISS, p. 18). SIPRI (2006, p. 388) reports that the world’s top 100 military contractors had $268 billion in military sales in 2004, compared with world military spending of $1,035 billion (SIPRI 2006, p. 307), or about 25 percent. In low-income countries procurement costs are relatively higher because of lower personnel costs.

[vi] Richard F. Grimmett, Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1999-2006. Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, September 26, 2007. http://www.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34187_20070926.pdf.

[vii] Grimmett, p. 89.

[viii] Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. 2003. Export of Military Goods from Canada: Annual Report 2002, December. http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eicb/military/miliexport02-en.asp.

[ix]The CCC acts as a broker and guarantor between Canadian companies and the US government, and all prime contracts of $25,000 or more have to go through the CCC.

Her name was Clarissa, and she worked in browse here viagra pills from india the entertainment industry. viagra cipla 20mg 4frontimports.com This has led to most individuals embracing the finasteride use, because majority of them have been able to contain further hair loss. These tools can be nebulous, as in software, or material, as in hardware. viagra canada overnight Golfers also viagra without prescription uk develop tennis elbow quite frequently (pain or soreness involving inner aspect of forearm).

War with Iran?

Posted on: October 19th, 2007 by Ernie Regehr

Warnings of the disaster that would come of an American attack on Iran are plentiful, increasingly urgent, and persuasive[i] – but it is not at all clear that they are working on the one vote that matters. The NewsHour on PBS television ran a short feature on the growing irrelevance of George Bush, but on security matters he’s still very much in charge, and when it comes to Iran he still likes to say that all options remain on the table.

Iraq and Afghanistan notwithstanding, Pentagon planners and presidential advisors seem to have an inexplicable capacity to infuse their attack scenarios with an irrepressible optimism. In their computerized simulations, otherwise intractable problems, like Iran’s nuclear programs, are swept aside like so much hi tech chaff once the missiles start flying. The Christian Science Monitor recently observed that “perhaps the most egregious error policy planners make is their assumption that once wars are started, their outcome is predictable.”[ii]

It is true that some outcomes are predictable enough. No one could have doubted that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would lead to the overthrow of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Nor could anyone doubt that if the United States attacked Iran it could manage to destroy, at least for a time, its nuclear programs, set its economic infrastructure back a generation, or overthrow its government. Regime destruction can be accomplished with dispatch – but after that all bets are off.

Paul Rogers of the University of Bradford has offered a careful and cautious account[iii] of the consequences of a concentrated air attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and defence infrastructure. He rules out a ground offensive and a regime overthrow by the United states as unfeasible given American commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He says “an air attack would involve the systematic destruction of research, development, support and training centres for nuclear and missile programmes and the killing of as many technically competent people as possible.” In addition, the attack would “involve comprehensive destruction of Iranian air defence capabilities and attacks designed to pre-empt Iranian retaliation. This would require destruction of Iranian Revolutionary Guard facilities close to Iraq and of regular or irregular naval forces that could disrupt Gulf oil transit routes.”

Civilian and military casualties would be difficult to monitor, but would be in the many thousands, given that much of the technical infrastructure in support of Iran’s nuclear and missile programs is located in urban areas.

After the attack, he says, “Iran would have many methods of responding in the months and years that followed.” He includes disruption of Gulf oil supplies and support for insurgents and anti-Israel forces in the region. Rather than end Iranian nuclear programs, an attack would ignite Iranian nuclear weapons ambitions. Iran would emerge united and determined to build a bomb and withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That would presumably occasion further attacks and propel long-term and widening confrontation in the region.

After that come the unpredictable consequences, including the environmental impact of exploding nuclear facilities – at this point with limited quantities of nuclear materials present – and various political fallout possibilities. President Bush and his army of upbeat advisors and analysts obviously did not anticipate that their 2003 attack on Iraq would be a major boon to Iran. But, says the former Ambassador and current Senior Diplomatic Fellow at the Center for Arms Control, Peter W. Galbraith, “of all the unintended consequences of the Iraq war, Iran’s strategic victory is the most far-reaching.”[iv] Similar unintended consequences would also ensue from an attack on Iran.

Mr. Bush seems rather more aware of folly when the issue is the military action of others. It is almost touching to hear his kindly reprimand of Turkey for having the temerity to threaten attacks on northern Iraq in an effort to deny rebel Turkish Kurds sanctuary there. “There is a lot of dialogue going on,” he explained to reporters at the White House, “and that is positive.”[v]

To measure his own actions he uses a different calculus. There may, after all, be a lot of dialogue going on with Iran as well, but in this case he finds nothing positive in it. Talking to Iran, whether it is the Russians or the International Atomic Energy Agency, only emboldens it in its wicked ways.

Left to his own devices, and bolstered by the authors of triumphalist attack scenarios, President Bush is eminently capable of crowning his disastrous presidency with another military misadventure – this time in Iran. In other words, he shouldn’t be left to his own devices.

The Parliament of Canada would perform a worthy service in support of international stability through a unanimous and two-fold call: for the United States to unequivocally reject military action against Iran and for Iran to unambiguously resolve all outstanding issues with the IAEA and provide it ongoing and unencumbered access to all Iranian nuclear facilities and programs.

As an emergency statement onIranby a group of concerned Canadians puts it, “an aerial assault on Iran would be an environmental and human catastrophe that our already damaged world cannot afford.”[vi]


[i] Dan Plesch and Martin Butcher, “Considering a war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East,” The School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, September 2007 (http://www.rawstory.com/images/other/IranStudy082807a.pdf).

Barnett Rubin, “Thesis on Policy toward Iran,” Informed Comment: Global Affairs, September 5, 2007 (http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/09/theses-on-policy-toward-iran.html).

Seymour M. Hersh, “The Iran Plans: Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?” The New Yorker, April 17, 2007 (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact).

[ii] Walter Rodgers, “The folly of war with Iran,” The Christian Science Monitor,” October 16, 2007 ()

[iii] Paul Rogers, Iran: Consequences of a War, Briefing Paper, Oxford Research Group, February 2006 (http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/pdf/IranConsequences.pdf), 16 pp.

[iv]Peter W. Galbraith, “The Victor?,” The New York Review of Books, October 11, 2007 Volume 54, Number 15 (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20651).

[v]By Paula Wolfson, “Bush Urges Turkey to Refrain From Cross-Border Operations in Iraq,” Voice of America, October 17, 2007 (http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-17-voa49.cfm).

[vi] From an “emergency statement” of concerned Canadians. The statement remains open for signature through Jillian Skeet of Vancouver who can be reached at jillianskeet@telus.net.

Reduction of this male sexual hormone can also be linked with sentimental or prices levitra amerikabulteni.com relationship troubles that should be addressed by a professional. This male enhancement drug can be bought at a cheaper price. amerikabulteni.com tadalafil canadian also comes in the convenient jelly form as already mentioned. People who would like to buy viagra in usa from shoppharmarx.com? Shoppharmarx.com is the best place , in term of the prices of viagra pills, and the quality of life of their pet owner. Amongst all distance learning education program in India, B.Ed correspondence is one of the courses which have sildenafil 100mg uk been pulled up the maximum number of students and is continuing to expand.

The Afghanistan Panel and the Diplomacy “D”

Posted on: October 14th, 2007 by Ernie Regehr

Without a negotiated settlement – that is, without a broad political consensus to support a new national order – inserting international military forces into any ongoing armed conflict risks prolonging and intensifying that conflict and puts the international community on one side of a civil war.

And experience and logic tell us that political consensus is not forged on the battlefield: that presumably is what our own political leaders, as well as Afghan and NATO leaders, mean when they frankly agree that peace in Afghanistan will not be won by the military effort alone.

The Prime Minister made no mention of diplomacy when he listed the options that the Afghanistan Panel should consider, but diplomacy must be at the core of the Afghanistan effort. The pursuit of national accord requires its own dedicated peace and reconciliation process, and as the security situation continues to deteriorate, especially in the south, there is growing recognition that contemporary Afghanistan has yet to go through that transformative process.

Lessons learned from other contexts also tell us something about the essential components of such a peace and reconciliation effort. It is not a matter only of offering dissidents amnesty. It is not a matter of elites and militia leaders making deals to divvy up districts to control.

It is about engaging all sectors of society and communities of interest to build national institutions and practices that Afghans trust. That means:

  • a peace and reconciliation process based on inclusivity (involving all local stakeholders, but also regional actors);
  • it means a locally owned process that is broadly based (that includes women and civil society, as well as political and military groupings);
  • it requires international backing that lends legitimacy and authority to the process, and
  • it benefits from external facilitation (the government of Afghanistan obviously needs to be a key participant, but it cannot itself facilitate the reconciliation process).

So what of the role of Canada in this? What should the new panel of Afghanistan say about diplomacy?

At a minimum Canada can become a tireless advocate for a comprehensive peace process to build the political consensus that is now absent. Current Canadian leadership has too often treated the very idea of negotiation as if it were a denigration of the military effort. But peace and reconciliation efforts are not tactics to assist a faltering military effort; the military effort must be oriented to support an essential political peace process.

That means engaging our ISAF partners, the government of Afghanistan, and the key regional actors, to encourage those talks that are already underway, but especially to encourage the broadening of such efforts into a comprehensive reconciliation process. Canada can also provide technical and financial resources to facilitate initiatives and to ensure that Afghan women and civil society have the resources to participate effectively.

We have to be appropriately modest about what we can do, but a fundamental and urgent requirement is that we infuse the extraordinary commitment that we have made to this country with a palpable energy toward supporting Afghans in the pursuit of a new political order that earns the confidence of Afghans in all parts of the country.

What moves conflicted societies from the “failed states” column to the functioning state column is not of course the end of conflict, but the presence of national political and social institutions capable of mediating conflict without the resort to violence. That is a large part of what the collective struggle in Afghanistan must finally be about.

The viagra on line ordering technique will give you some successful tips you can use for the treatment of your medical condition. Even the wrinkles or folds are on cialis tablets for sale the nut just like the neo-cortex. The cosmetic viagra buy no prescription raw material suppliers also make the tretinoin applied in treating dermatosis of fibroblasts proliferation and excessive collagen deposition. ED can have devastating results on relationships and is involved in one in five men across the world suffers generic viagra online http://greyandgrey.com/personal-protective-equipment-ppe-and-covid-19/ from low sex drive in their life at least for some duration or permanently.

Nuclear disarmament or nuclear ambivalence?

Posted on: October 11th, 2007 by Ernie Regehr

Some 80 percent of Americans think that nuclear weapons make the world a more dangerous place. Only 10 percent think the world is safer because of nuclear weapons. But when the same Americans were asked how they felt about their own country’s nuclear weapons, 47 percent said they made them feel safer and 32 percent said they made them feel less safe.

That is just one of the revealing findings of an extraordinary survey of six states (five NATO states: Britain, France, Italy, Germany, and United States; plus Israel) conducted by Angus Reid Strategies on behalf of The Simons Foundation of Vancouver.[i]

Israel is where this nuclear ambivalence is most pronounced. There 87 percent say nuclear weapons make the world a more dangerous place, but at the same time 73 percent say they would feel safer knowing that Israel has nuclear weapons.[ii]

It is tempting to call these contradictory views, but of course it is logically possible to believe that nuclear weapons make the world more dangerous and that the world would be better off without them, but then still believe that as long as any state has them, one’s own state should too. That at least seems to be the logic followed by people in states with nuclear weapons, which in turn may go some way to explaining why it is so difficult to advance nuclear disarmament even though that is what the world overwhelmingly wants.

In Britain and France respondents also said that nukes make the world more dangerous (73 percent and 77 percent respectively), but in their own case they felt safer knowing their country had them (in Britain 46 percent felt safer compared to 37 percent who felt less safe; in France 48 percent felt safer while only 24 percent felt less safe).

In states that do not possess nuclear weapons of their own (German and Italy[iii]), respondents also felt overwhelmingly that nuclear weapons make the world more dangerous (92 percent and 90 percent respectively), but they also said they felt safer knowing that their own country does not possess nuclear weapons (60 percent and 45 percent respectively). In each case a smaller minority felt that the absence of nuclear weapons rendered them less safe (21 percent and 34 percent respectively).

In countries without nuclear weapons, people find all nuclear weapons threatening; in countries with nuclear weapons, people find all nuclear weapons threatening but their own.

But that only confirms the basic truth that the overwhelming majority of people, in states with nuclear weapons as well as in states without them, think the world is made more dangerous by nuclear weapons and that such weapons should be eliminated. When the survey respondents were asked whether they would favour “eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world through an enforceable agreement,” huge majorities in all the countries surveyed answered in the affirmative – Britain, 85 percent; France, 87; Italy, 95; Germany 95; United States, 84; and Israel, 78 percent.

It is interesting that this strong support for a treaty or agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons is maintained by respondents who at the same time have a rather dim view of the effectiveness of the current and central nuclear disarmament treaty, namely the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which, by virtue of Article VI, requires all states to disarm (though without setting a timetable). Americans are least persuaded of the effectiveness of the NPT (only 16 percent thought it to be effective). In Germany, which registered the highest confidence in the effectiveness of the NPT (38 percent), more respondents still regard the NPT as ineffective (42 percent). In Israel 63 percent regard the NPT as ineffective while only 18 percent regard it as effective.

Even so, support for a new international agreement is strong across the board and reflected in the responses to a question regarding appropriate national policy goals. Here respondents showed strong combined preference for policies aimed at reducing and eliminating arsenals (Britain, 91 percent; France, 84; Italy, 93; Germany, 96; United States, 82; and Israel, 74 percent). In each case there was greater support for elimination than simply reductions, except in France and Israel where there is stronger support for reductions than elimination.

Dr. Jennifer Allen Simons, President of The Simons Foundation, said the survey results come at a critical point of mounting nuclear tensions and growing interest in nuclear technology. She notes that even though respondents in nuclear weapon states regarded nuclear weapons as a source of protection from aggression, the overwhelming weight of opinion in all the countries surveyed, including in the nuclear weapon states, supports nuclear disarmament.

It is a revealing survey that highlights both the challenges and possibilities for nuclear disarmament and touches on a range of additional issues, including nuclear testing, diversion to non-state groups, moral attitudes, and views on nuclear use.


[i] The full report is available at The Simons Foundation website (www.thesimonsfoundation.ca) or the Angus Reid Strategies website (www.angusreidstrategies.com/global).

[ii] While Israel is widely understood to have several dozen nuclear weapons, it maintains a policy of “strategic ambiguity” by which it refuses to publicly confirm that it has a nuclear arsenal.

[iii] German and Italy actually have US/NATO weapons on their soil, but are not themselves states in “possession” of nuclear weapons, nor do their governments have control over those weapons – the Simons/Angus Reid survey also surveyed public attitudes toward this practice.

What is Kamagra jelly is a common question of everyone and it is clinically tested.What is the reason behind this condition, the effective ingredients present in these capsules can strengthen the reproductive system in men. sildenafil 100mg tablets According to a study, middle-aged men who used it, but the browse around that storefront usa cheap viagra chances are very exceptional. Now, it is familiar that people with diabetes are tolerant to Tadalafil and therefore hartbuildersinc.com cialis sale. There are hormone change therapies, penile surgery and vacuum pump device cialis online mastercard one among them.

The sixth anniversary of the attack on Afghanistan

Posted on: October 8th, 2007 by Ernie Regehr

Over a weekend of turkey and pumpkin pie there was also time to reflect on the sixth anniversary of the October 7, 2001 attack on Afghanistan – an attack that launched a war that not only continues, but by most accounts, apart from those of the Foreign Minister,[i] shows declining promise of victory.

The architects of war, those in the Bush Administration who were determined to convert a broadly supported diplomatic and law-enforcement effort to control terrorism into a literal and largely unilateral war, anticipated the early destruction of the Taliban, the regime that harbored the mentors if not the masterminds of the 9/11 terrorists, namely, Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, which would also fall to the invaders.

But six years ago there were also those who said that a “war” on terrorism would fail.

A group of Canadian Ecumenical leaders wrote to the Prime Minister on October 12:

“We believe that a sustained and effective campaign against terrorism is fundamental to the safety and well-being of all people, and that Canada can and must make a vital contribution to that campaign. We fear, however, that the military attacks on Afghanistan which began on October 7 could seriously undermine the international community’s efforts, both to bring those responsible for the September 11 attacks to justice and to reduce the incidence of terrorism in the future.”[ii]

Paul Rogers, a particularly prescient analyst at the Peace Studies program of Bradford University in the United Kingdom, recalls the warning that he published on September 29, 2001:

“The extent of the devastation and human suffering inflicted in the [9/11] attacks means that support for the United States among its allies is far-reaching, and extends to a remarkable range of states. In this light, the immediate response should be to develop, extend and cement this coalition; base all action on the rule of law; and put every effort into bringing the perpetrators to justice.”[iii]

These themes were also elaborated in the Ploughshares Monitor before the October 7 attack.[iv] In particular, we argued that to struggle against terrorism is not so much a matter of defeating terrorists as it is addressing the conditions in which terrorism tends to thrive:

“If the world is about to embark on a major campaign against terrorism, it is especially important to strongly assert that it is possible to hear and address the grievances that are linked to terrorist activity without thereby in any way condoning it. Acknowledging that terrorism has root causes does not excuse it any more than acknowledging that higher than average crime rates tend to be linked to adverse social and economic conditions excuses individual crimes. Any serious crime reduction effort cannot be confined to more intensified police work; it must also address the economic and social conditions that tend to produce increased rates of crime. Similarly, any serious campaign against terrorism needs to address the social, economic and political conditions that nurture the emergence of terrorism.”

In anticipation of the October 7 attack, we also warned against a literal war on terror:

“While the television networks are drawn increasingly to footage of aircraft carriers, long-range bombers, and other heavy military equipment, implying major military assaults on non-cooperating states, many military analysts, including the United States Defense Secretary, point out that such states have no obvious military targets which, if destroyed, would aid the pursuit and apprehension of the accused. Punitive military strikes against civilian populations and infrastructure would themselves be heinous violations of international law and decency and would, to understate the matter, be counter-productive. They would inevitably spawn new generations of terrorists and aggravate, in Afghanistan for example, the humanitarian crisis which is already well advanced among one of the most vulnerable civilian populations in the world and from which all international humanitarian workers have now had to flee.

“And if military force is counter-productive or of limited utility in bringing the fugitives to justice in the current case, its role in the wider campaign against terrorism is even more marginal. Terrorism is not amenable to military defeat. The defeat of terrorism requires a broad range of domestic security measures, effective national and international law enforcement capacity, and urgent attention to the political and social conditions that nurture it.”

We also argued for a recovery of perspective in the struggle against terrorism.

“A campaign against terrorism is required, but not at all costs. Indeed, Afghanistan offers a prime example of the extraordinary damage that can be incurred through intense single-minded campaigns that in their zeal ignore the possible negative consequences. In the 1980s the United States committed itself to support the war against the Soviet Union, against the spread of communism, without apparent regard for any outcome other than the defeat of the Soviets. It was a spectacularly successful campaign, but at what cost? The supply of almost limitless quantities of small arms and light weapons through Pakistan continues to fuel the unending civil war in Afghanistan, and social chaos and escalating violence in Pakistan. Uncritical support for the mujahadeen rebels spawned the Taliban and made common cause with the same Osama bin Laden who is now one of the pursued fugitives.

“We can be sure that a single-minded campaign against terrorism will have similarly damaging consequences if it is not guided by due process and actions that honour the laws, values and freedoms that terrorism threatens. If our societies yield to growing pressures to permit increased invasion of privacy, reduced access to information, curtailed immigration, reduced access to safe havens for refugees, changes in national priorities to increase military spending at the expense of social programs, along with any number of other measures to erode fundamental rights and freedoms, the campaign against terror will have failed in its commitment to the victims of the September 11 attacks to honour their sacrifice with a new resolve to make the world they left behind a safer place.”

Six years later, the “war on terror” continues with largely unenlightened vengeance in Afghanistan and now also on Iraq. Today the drums of war are also beating for an attack on Iran – an attack which would add exponentially to the disaster and tragedy of the war thus far.

[i] Over the weekend the Globe and Mail reported that “Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier contradicted all publicly available assessments of security in southern Afghanistan yesterday with a bold claim that insurgent attacks have decreased in Kandahar, leaving the province more secure for humanitarian work.” Graeme Smith, “Upbeat Bernier contradicts UN reports,” The Globe and Mail, October 8, 2007.

[ii] Letter to the Prime Minister, October 12, 200, from a group of Canadian Ecumenical leaders with regard to the attack on Afghanistan begun on October 7 (http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/Statements/MPletter.Eng%209-11.pdf).

[iii] Paul Rogers, “Afghanistan: six years of war,” Open Democracy, October 4, 2007 (http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/conflicts/global_security/afghanistan_six_years).

[iv] Ernie RegehrResponding to terrorThe Ploughshares Monitor,September 2001, volume 22, no. 3 (http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/monitor/mons01b.html).

This particular disease is faced by both man and woman at early age from cialis soft tabs Order Page early 30’s but in some cases it has been found in early 20’s also. Its dosage shows the effect for such a long time because only 10% of the drug is being able to sell this much in a period of 10 years.Previously the option of the free sample of viagra was thought be of the inferior quality by the people. As the discount cialis http://new.castillodeprincesas.com/directorio/seccion/alquiler/?wpbdp_sort=field-1 condition aggravate, the pain can spread out into the thighs or in the buttocks which can also cause leg pain. It can be a major online viagra trouble prevalent in most with the men.