The main reason why I have chosen this topic is fact, that I had heard about planned withdrawal of Canadian troops three years ago and since then I focused on NATO issues and transatlantic relation in combination with security studies. Therefore this topic seemed perfectly fitting to my focus. Despite the fact, that this topic is definitely an object of various speculations, which are mostly related to an institutional point of view, there are several important reasons, why have Canada chosen to withdraw its troops from ISAF mission in Afghanistan.
When it comes to matter of logics – it can be understood as reasoning and understanding a motive of action and understanding the process itself. Therefore, I would like to concentrate on reason of Canada's action(s). Canada is considered as one of the major contributors to the Afghan mission and loss of support means complications mostly for its biggest ally and the leading country in NATO – the United States. The United States feel a bit betrayed by Canada's decision to withdraw its troops and not to continue in eight years lasting effort to defeat Taliban and change the situation in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, I attempted to search for these reasons from institutionalist point of view, despite the fact that I have found only some selected implications from the readings assigned for this topic very helpful. To be so frank, article by Mr. Spruyt[1] and information contained in this article, I have found rather inapplicable and I would find more helpful slightly different source than an article which is supposedly dedicated to historical development of sovereign states. However, it provided certain helpful information, but I still have feeling that this reading would be more suitable to different topic than mine. (it is only my very personal opinion related to unsuitable combination of this topic with selected article) I structured this paper on following sections – firstly, I would like to provide theoretical and purely informational introduction into situation, then I will try to make implications with readings assigned to this topic, Mr. Spruyt's “Institutional Selection in International Relations: State Anarchy as Order“[2] and March and Olsen's article called “The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders“[3] , then I would like to summarize implications and provide conclusion. So, I start with providing information about planned withdrawal of troops in theoretical introduction.
Theoretical background and current situation
The information, that Canada is going to withdraw its troops from ISAF mission in Afghanistan is definitely not “so brand new”. This information was reported firstly in the year 2006 and Canadian media reported that, “Liberal leadership contender Stephane Dion says Canada should withdraw its troops "with honour" from Afghanistan before 2009 because their current mission is ill-conceived and misguided.”[4] This position have started discussion about legitimacy and efficiency of this mission and lead into the vote about the withdrawal in 2007. However, in April 24th, Canadian House of Commons defeated proposition of opposition Liberal party by vote and this decision prolonged mission until necessary. This mission should have ended in 2006, but proposal of the Conservatives to extend the duration of the mission was successful and extended mission till 2009. [5] Canada have encountered lack of support in various provinces and tasks and demanded from US more troops to help Canadian soldiers with reconstruction and defensive missions. As BBC reported “Prime Minister Stephen Harper is demanding that a further 1,000 NATO troops be sent to Kandahar province where Canada's 2,500 troops are based.” [6] But Canadian expectations were denied by US and even an attempt to persuade French troops, in February 2008, to support the mission in Afghanistan, totally failed. [7] This turn of events, duration of operation, unclear results and possibly attempt to succeed in parliamentary election in 2008, led Prime Minister Stephen Harper to promise withdrawal of Canadian troops until 2011.[8] Since then, Canada is affirming its position and brings up new reasons, why to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and concentrate on different missions. Definitely as one of the main reasons why Canada is going to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan is being presented “ignorant” approach of US to certain aspects of the Afghan political decisions. One of the main reasons was incapability of US to prevent enactment of several Afghan laws related to unethical behavior toward women and suppressing their basic human laws. The most controversial laws are related to marital law and include laws as [9]“As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night,” and as “Article 132 says. “Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband.” Article 133 reintroduces the Taliban restrictions on women’s movements outside their homes, stating: “A wife cannot leave the house without the permission of the husband” unless in a medical or other emergency. Article 27 endorses child marriage with girls legally able to marry once they begin to menstruate.”[10] Therefore the Canadian political elites refused to participate on the mission, while it is awaited from them to ignore violation of the basic human rights.
As Mr. Coglan from Times online wrote, “Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, said he was troubled by the law and would lobby other leaders to support him in seeking to have it repealed. “This is antithetical to our mission in Afghanistan,” he said. Stockwell Day, the Canadian Trade Minister, who is chairman of the Cabinet committee on Afghanistan, warned that if Kabul did not back down Canadian support for the Government could be imperiled. “If there is any wavering on this point, this will create serious difficulties, serious problems for the Government of Canada,” he told reporters in Ottawa.”[11] I guess, that there is nothing to add, but if there are some other institutional reasons and also rational reasons I will attempt to reveal them in the next sections of this work. Firstly, I would like to make several implications according to article by MR. March and Mr. Olsen.
Implications with Spruyt's article
Since, there has been in Spruyt's article too many links to historical development of institutionalism, in the following lines there would be extracted only implications related mostly to new institutional history (NIH) with current topic and under specific conditions.[12] In this case, we can proceed to first issue - there have been institutionalization of “success” and “failure”. How success and failure is being evaluated is matter of social construction within institution and it is being rated by several categories depending on the initiator of mission. When this institution in meant to be NATO, success would be achievement in form of successful accomplishing of goals, which have been set before commencing the mission. In NATO has been these conditions set by the leading power – the United States. From institutional point of view, rules and conditions can dynamically change during the fulfillment, but fundamental rules which determine existence of organization should remain the same. If NATO, lead by the US have made an oath, that they will “help to liberate or democratize” country and implement respect to basic human rights and defeat the terrorists, the condition to success would be – firstly, defeating Taliban, secondly bring democracy to this country and liberate regular Afghan people from non-democratic and totalitarian rule of Taliban in specific time duration. If these conditions, (which are very generalized and simplified) has been, what made distinction between “failure” and “success”current standing can be perceived as failure. This effort, which seems to be currently considered as failure, have several reasons. Firstly, duration of mission, which determines success ratio is over the original presumption and makes mission inefficient. Secondly, too many factors determining situation changed or have not been fulfilled – the major trouble for Canada represents inability of political elite to implement (into customary law or legal order) rules containing basic human rights, (controversy about marital law this year)[13] and this reasoning have played important role in Canada's decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. Obvious reasons can be mortality of Canadian soldiers and diplomats, enormously ineffective use of military manpower and technologies, which do not have required outcomes on socio-politic situation in Afghanistan and elimination of hostiles. Therefore, Canada will attempt (till 2011) to fulfill at least some objectives and help with consolidation process, but then is going to invest its military potential into different (also joint) missions. But this is more institutional dimension based on the fact, that Canada is part of dynamically evolving institution. But what happens if this dimension would be applied on logics of interaction of sovereign states from perspective of Spruyt's “new institutional history”? Firstly, we have to take into account, that sovereign state have defined notion of “domestic market” and vital interest of authorities in sovereign state should be maximizing revenues in order to reach welfare and prosperity within sovereign territory. Nevertheless, Canada is being seriously jeopardized by high expenses on military mission, which is originally agenda of another sovereign state – an ally in international institution, and this agenda is based on military expansion to another sovereign country with purpose of change and possibly “attempt to adapt on institutional rules” dictated by international institution with possible agenda of narrowing the cultural gap. If this attempt would be recognized as success, there would be positive outcome and jeopardizing position of Canada as sovereign state can be from (for this country important perspective of the Western civilization) certain perspective point of view successful. But failure can threaten the sovereignty of country and its position in international order. When participation (in institution) is based on mutual effort of sovereign countries, which decided to reach certain goals by cooperation on institutional level, is for country not beneficial and institution does not suppress country's right to deny participation on specific task, country can logically utilize this right and when this step does not “hurt” political or any other kind of cooperation or relation, (or if it does, but county has good reason to ignore this fact) everything is “all right”. Another important issue is related to understanding of terms “domestic”, “foreign” and “national interest”. In sovereign state is authority territorial and exclusive. However, in current international order, interaction of actors and sovereignty of states are being shaped by involvement of institutions, which have very individual rules and operation mechanisms. Also, division of powers and political influence, within specific institution, differs. NATO is dominated by the United States by human resources and financial participation in this institution. The United States also represent the leading power in “the current Western civilization” and its national interest on the global level is being supported by political allies. Canada is territorially more than ally and share with the United States the Northern American continent, therefore is being directly involved into various actions and decisions of the US. When in the year 2001 and 2002, US initiated Afghan mission, it was something, that US issue become from “foreign” matter also of domestic policy and national interest have been elevated on the institutional level to the interest of allies. Nevertheless, support of this mission is also influenced by possible outcome and benefit which can be brought to participating country. Canada, which is being directly influenced by the US, supported this mission and participated on the US national interest with vision of sharing certain outcome, which will bring specific benefits. Nevertheless, now when national interest is less influenced by the US political pressure, political situation in Canada changed since 2001 and Afghanistan is being within this territory considered as failure, domestic policy and foreign policy united, resulting into withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. Sovereign country only utilized its position in current situation and environment, which have negative influence on domestic policy to pursue its national interest.
Implications with March&Olsen
When it comes to implications on March and Olsen' s article, I guess that most applicable is use of logic of appropriateness and logic of consequences which are related to basis of action, and to use ,very briefly implication with efficient and inefficient histories. Thus, it would be logical to start with logic of consequences which is defined by March and Olsen as “consequential frame sees political order as arising from negotiation among rational actors pursuing personal preferences or interests in
circumstances in which there may be gains to coordinated action.”[14] What consequences could Afghan mission have in the year 2002? Probably, it was meant to be securing of middle east region (accompanied by invasion to Iraq) with purpose of forming strategic cooperation and breaching middle east terrorist attempts to be outsourced and targeted on the North American continent. This securing of territory and gaining of political influence, including elimination of hostile targets, should have been consequences of this mission. Despite of this goal, there have been also domestic agenda which used this issue for gaining support of public (mostly after 9/11 which had been very emotional impact on general public, which was encouraged by media and more radical politicians (or those who supported publicly “hard power” solution) to support American invasion to the Middle East and the Western Asia. Naturally, Afghan issues was used in the Canadian federal general elections. Position of liberals and conservatives on this issue was rather similar. Public supported mission to Afghanistan and both parties , more or less, respected this decision. But as we can see, firstly played the “withdrawal card “ in year 2006, leader of the Liberals – Stéphane Dion[15], and then before 2008 elections, this issue (when sympathies to US dropped, also thanks to Economic crisis rising) was brought up by leader of the Conservatives, current Prime Minister Stephen Harper (whose Conservative party succeeded also in 2006 elections) and he succeeded.[16] Awaited consequences of the Canadian withdrawal have been also influenced by the Economic crisis which jeopardized ISAF mission also for the US. Therefore Canadian reasoning was and is very legitimate. From point of logic of appropriateness which can be described as ”the pursuit of purpose is associated with identities more than with interests, and with the selection of rules more than with individual rational expectations. Appropriateness need not attend to consequences, but it involves cognitive and ethical dimensions, targets, and aspirations.”[17] This logic of appropriateness can be applied on already mentioned reason for withdrawal – unclear outcome of mission according to many political compromises which have been done mostly by the United States and violation of basic institutional rules, which determine participation of Canada on this mission – letting president Karzai to practice laws, which are against Canadian ethic and insufficient support by
allies in dangerous zones. This logic of appropriateness include also another important feature mentioned by March and Olsen – it is identity. Canadian identity corresponds with the way how Canadians perceive themselves and the way how do they represent themselves in world. Canadian identity have been always related to “image” of righteous and very good-natured defender of values and rule of law. Canada is represented as “soft power”, highly vivid, liberal democracy and by this “philanthropic” image is represented in the international environment as nation which does not make any steps which would encourage other nations to raise hostile position against Canada. When current acting of Canada can empower this perception, it can be considered as contribution to positive image of Canada. But this is just one point of view, there is always possibility, that this step will have negative consequences in future (it is almost impossible to predict according to enormous count of factors in this game). Shortly, an implication to efficient and inefficient histories – according to efficient history, Canada have never been struggling for domination, Canada's natural resources are very self-sufficient and business relations are made through trade with natural resources, especially timber. Canada is self-dependent and rather in invulnerable position (the only flaw in this matter could be supplies of oil), but step to cooperate on mission in Afghanistan is not matter of rivalry. More applicable in this case would be perception of inefficient histories, because domestic and foreign situation have been shaped in the way, that in the starting point of the Afghan mission, nobody would predict, that Canada would intent to withdraw its troops because of unexpected reasons, which will shape the situation, such as influence of the Global economic crisis or lack of support from NATO allies, such as France.
A very brief conclusion
Well, to briefly conclude this topic, I would like to make a reference on Spryt's remark related to features of sovereign states, in which are the most important information, which are valued in real financial expenses. There might be totally different reason and totally different perspective on this topic, but this essay was composed on open and free sources and therefore it perhaps cannot reveal real logics of Canada's actions and perspective of current or former Canadian elites might be totally different. Reasoning or logic determining withdrawal of troops might have been failing to fulfill original objectives, unclear outcome of the mission, losing support of US actions in certain moment, violation of rules underlying institutional cooperation, worsening of reputation, need of troops relocation and focus on different more meaningful operations, use of this action with purpose of succeeding in general elections and total economic inefficiency and of course, impunity of this action.
This has been very brief summary of the major reasons for withdrawal with implications on selected readings. Space for expression of thoughts was strictly limited, therefore I would like to end this essay by very general remark which will sum up all reasons for withdrawal of troops: “Canada evaluates at this point mission in Afghanistan, from its very own perception, as inefficient and if there wouldn't be any surprising turn in short time, Canada will focus on other missions.”
Bibliography
Spruyt, H. (1994): “Institutional Selection in International Relations: State Anarchy as Order“ in International Organization, 48(4): 527-557
March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1998): „The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders“ in International Organization, 52(4), 943-969
Canwest News Service, “Dion says Canada should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan”, Canada, 22.11.2006, retrieved from http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=b476faeb-cd0e-4567-95f2-0c56cb1d6375&k=35236 ,7.12.2009
Reuters, “House defeats Afghan troop withdrawal vote”, Canada, 24.4.2007, retrieved from http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N24429973.htm, 7.12.2009
BBC, “Canada PM issues Afghan ultimatum”, UK, 31.1.2008, retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7219415.stm, 7.12.2009
BBC,”Canada seeks French troops pledge “, UK, 8.2.2008, retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7234398.stm, 7.12.2008
Lee Carter, BBC News, “Canada Afghan mission 'ends 2011'“, Canada, 11.9.2008, retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7610165.stm, 7.12.2009
Tom Coglan, “President Karzai's Taleban-style laws for women put troop surge at risk”,
Times online, UK, 3.4.2009, retreived from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6025362.ece , 7.12.2009
[1] Spruyt, H. (1994): “Institutional Selection in International Relations: State Anarchy as Order“ in International Organization, 48(4): 527-557
[2] Spruyt, H. (1994): “Institutional Selection in International Relations: State Anarchy as Order“ in International Organization, 48(4): 527-557
[3] March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1998): „The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders“ in International Organization, 52(4), 943-969
[4] Canwest News Service, “Dion says Canada should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan”, Canada, 22.11.2006, retrieved from http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=b476faeb-cd0e-4567-95f2-0c56cb1d6375&k=35236 ,7.12.2009
[5] Reuters, “House defeats Afghan troop withdrawal vote”, Canada, 24.4.2007, retrieved from http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N24429973.htm, 7.12.2009
[6] BBC, “Canada PM issues Afghan ultimatum”, UK, 31.1.2008, retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7219415.stm, 7.12.2009
[7] BBC,”Canada seeks French troops pledge “, UK, 8.2.2008, retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7234398.stm, 7.12.2008
[8] Lee Carter, BBC News, “Canada Afghan mission 'ends 2011'“, Canada, 11.9.2008, retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7610165.stm, 7.12.2009
[9] Tom Coglan, “President Karzai's Taleban-style laws for women put troop surge at risk”,
Times online, UK, 3.4.2009, retreived from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6025362.ece , 7.12.2009
[10] Tom Coglan, “President Karzai's Taleban-style laws for women put troop surge at risk”,
Times online, UK, 3.4.2009, retreived from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6025362.ece , 7.12.2009
[11] Tom Coglan, “President Karzai's Taleban-style laws for women put troop surge at risk”,
Times online, UK, 3.4.2009, retreived from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6025362.ece , 7.12.2009
[12] Firstly, according to Spruyt's article, these conditions are – actors as states are considered as sovereign states and NATO is institution.
[13] Tom Coglan, “President Karzai's Taleban-style laws for women put troop surge at risk”,
Times online, UK, 3.4.2009, retreived from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6025362.ece , 7.12.2009
[14] March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1998): „The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders“ in International Organization, 52(4), p.949
[15] Canwest News Service, “Dion says Canada should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan”, Canada, 22.11.2006, retrieved from http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=b476faeb-cd0e-4567-95f2-0c56cb1d6375&k=35236 ,7.12.2009
[16] Lee Carter, BBC News, “Canada Afghan mission 'ends 2011'“, Canada, 11.9.2008, retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7610165.stm, 7.12.2009
[17] March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1998): „The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders“ in International Organization, 52(4), p.951
Žiadne komentáre:
Zverejnenie komentára