Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

What's the difference?

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, October 22, 2010 1:22pm - 0 Comments

Here again is what Jack Layton said four years ago.

Here now is what Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who favours the complete withdrawal of Canadian Forces from Afghanistan in 2011, said today about recent reports of negotiations between the Karzai government and members of the Taliban.

REPORTER: Prime Minister Harper, there are reports that the Afghan government of Mr. Karzai is having deepened and expanded talks with leadership of the Taliban. How do you view those talks, and in light of the blood and the treasure that we have spent in that country over so many years, how do you feel about the fact that the people we have been fighting for so long may end up inside the government?

RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: Well, I think you might be racing a bit ahead of yourselves on the conclusion. But let me just say this in terms of the general question. I think I’ve responded to this before. Our country, all the allies of ISAF have always strongly supported attempts at political reconciliation. It has always been our position that that is part of an eventual solution. It is not simply military action alone, but obviously there are important conditions that the Afghan government and that the allies’ support with regard to those talks have to do with things like respect for the constitutional order, the laying down of arms and obviously any agreement along those lines would be something that Canada would strongly support, and as I say, we encourage talks that respect those kinds of conditions, and that has been the position of the Afghan government.

REPORTER: And respect, as well, of human rights, for example the rights of women in Afghanistan?

RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: We would expect all aspects of the Afghan constitution, including its human rights guarantees, to be respected, and as I say, that has been our position and the Afghan government position for many years.

Tags: Afghanistan, Canada, Hamid Karzai, ISAF, Jack Layton, reconciliation, Stephen Harper, Taliban

More by Aaron Wherry

ZestyMordant

When Layton was talking about negotiation, the alternative for the Taliban was to continue to fight indefinitely.

When Harper is talking about negotiation, the alternative for the Taliban is to wait a few months for us to leave.
AT1

Most wars end with a some sort of negotiated solution. That doesn't necessarily mean that a negotiated settlement was available at the outset. The real question is; who's more desperate for a settlement?

For example, perhaps Layton could have been asked which rights he'd have been willing to negotiate on. Harper's view is that constitution must be respected, otherwise no deal, insofar as he has any input into the agreement. Unfortunately, negotiating while packing up next year (Can/US/UK) doesn't provide a position of strength in these talks.

Ultimately, this is not for us to negotiate, but for the Afghan government to decide what is acceptable.

Mike T.

Strangely, Layton would be a lot more believable in saying he would not negotiate away constitutional rights for citizens of a foreign country we were occupying.
PolJunkie

"That doesn't necessarily mean that a negotiated settlement was available at the outset"

In this instance, it was always the one and only viable option to end the conflict. Only those who still hold on to the delusion that a military victory is possible in Afghanistan would reject it.

AT1

Uh, OK…but nobody's rejected it!

PolJunkie

At the time, they most certainly did. That's how Layton ended up with the name Taliban Jack.

Anon 001

The difference, Wherry, is that Harper loves the troops, or at least loves having his picture taken with the troops, while Layton clearly does not.
gottabesaid

Does this mean we can call Stephen Harper 'Taliban Steve' for having the audacity to suggest sitting down with the Taliban? Or does this mean we can stop calling Jack Layton 'Taliban Jack'? I just want to make sure I have it straight.
madeyoulook

I would like to think that the difference is, four years on, we are winning the war and the negotiations will be one of their surrender, whereas "Taliban Jack" was prepared to permit the "terrorist scum" to negotiate from a position of strength.

I am not saying I can think like that, events being what they are. But I would like to think that.

brooster2

Yup, this is our position of strength, as we pack up our ol' kit bags and head for the sunset.
Thwim

There's a number of things I'd like to think too.

However, I try to avoid bringing up complete nonsense when it might confuse the issue.

madeyoulook

Wow. It is "complete nonsense" to like to think we might win a war we are sending our soldiers off to fight. You really are a piece of work, Thwim.

brooster2

It makes little sense to me to continue to put good young Canadian men and women in harm's way in the hope of justifying the already costly loss of too many good young Canadian men and women.

Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away…

tobyornotoby

Do you honestly think we are winning this war, myl?

madeyoulook

Repeat: I am not saying I can think like that, events being what they are.

Cats

Negotiating from a position of strength vs negotiating from a position of weakness ??

Nope, too much nuance for Emily to handle.

This is a women who after all believes that US has low corporate tax rates. LOL! (second highest in the world.)

Cats away!

E_B_

Would you please be so kind as to justify that we are in a position of strength? At the most charitable, I believe that at best we could say not much has really changed over the last several years, and that the best description is that the situation is stalemated.
brooster2

Whose assessments of relative strength are you relying on?
Emily

Not remotely what I said, but then cats can't speak English.

Cats

"The US has low corporate taxes"

You didn't say that ? Because let me tell you, the US actually has the second highest corporate tax rates in the world.

Its one of the reasons why their unemployment situation is so bad.

Cats away!

Emily

No, I didn't.

And no, their tax rate has nothing to do with their unemployment rate.

Cats

Haha. That's a direct quote.

You said the US had low corporate tax rates yet they also have high unemployment so lowering corporate tax rates = bad policy.

Now you're saying you didn't say what you said and there is no link at all.

BAHAHAA. Oh jeez Cats.
RayK

Cats: While your whole claim is irrelevant to the threa a t hand, if you think it's important you should provide a link.
Cats

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/21/backward-bendi…

Third comment in on the first thread that starts with the second comment.

"The US has a low corporate tax rate" its a DIRECT QUOTE.

Discredited Emily. Cats caught a fish!

lenny

I agree with Cats. Having committed to leaving soon, Harper is negotiating from a position of weakness.

Emily

The proverb, 'Too soon old, too late smart' come to mind over Harper.

He shoulda peeled outta there the minute he got into office.
Allan Wood

Emily is right. The answer is simple. The difference is four years. At the time Layton made his remarks Canadian forces were taking some casualties and he wanted the Canadian military to run away from this fight. Spoken by a person who, at the time and may still be true, had never visited Afghanistan.

Today Afghanistan has a new reality which may in fact include peace negotiation with the Taliban. However the Taliban have stated on more than one occasion they will not negotiate and want complete capitulation.
Orson Bean

Another difference is that when Layton spoke — and when he speaks today — it's in the capacity of the leader of an opposition party that has the 4th largest number of seats in our House of Commons.

When Harper speaks on this issue, it's in the capacity of Prime Minister of Canada.

Layton was free to pretty much say whatever he wanted when he made those comments. But Canada's Prime Minister is circumscribed in his/her actions and statements by the fact that Canada is a member of NATO, and this is a NATO mission. There's such a thing as NATO's official position on the mission.

I note also that it has been NDP official policy for many years that Canada withdraw from NATO and NORAD. This is often not known, ignored or forgotten. And the NDP itself tends not to mention it. I wonder why that is . . .
john g

Orson,

Just curious…Are you actually this Orson Bean or is that just your stage name here?
Jenn_

Your response would be a good one if the question was why did Jack Layton say such a thing instead of Stephen Harper back then.

But the problem isn't that Stephen Harper didn't say it, it is that his government was so outraged at Layton's remarks that they began calling him Taliban Jack. I agree the Prime Minister of Canada can't muse about having discussions with the enemy in the middle of a war. But he could have said something more like, "The leader of the NDP is entitled to his opinion, it is one I don't share, but he does present an alternative view." At the very least, it would make him saying it today a little less hypocritical.
RayK

"I note also that it has been NDP official policy for many years that Canada withdraw from NATO and NORAD. This is often not known, ignored or forgotten."

It was never the policy of the NDP to withdraw from NATO. During the cold war, it was the position of the NDP to withdraw from the operational military aspects of NATO–i.e. conducting active operations rather than withdrawing from the mutual defence alliance–just as France had done for decades.

More importantly, within a year of becoming leader of the NDP Jack Layton made clear that he no longer considered that policy to be operative since the end of the cold war. He said that an NDP government would seek to reform NATO and NORAD rather than withdraw from them. This updating of a policy that had clearly been overtaken by time and events got widespread coverage at the time.
Orson Bean

I can't believe you tracked me down!

Life just hasn't been the same since Match Game went off the air.
john g

Heh. If that really is you, I loved your character in "Being John Malkovich". Welcome!
Orson Bean

I don't think I disagree with you. And I don't think what I posted and what you posted are necessarily inconsistent.

BTW, did Harper himself actually use the Taliban Jack label?
Mike T.

I have no problem with the prime minister being open to negotiation at any time. As I've said on these boards before, even if an arrangement can't be reached, it keeps negotiations open so that the next parley is easier, and hopefully sooner.
Orson Bean

That was clearly Orson Bean's finest hour. Even bigger than Match Game.
Jenn_

No, I don't suppose they are inconsistent.

I have no idea if Harper himself used it. I doubt it, though, he usually leaves that sort of thing for Baird and Pollievre. And I'm far too lazy to google my way back through time to find out.
Reverend_Blair

Doesn't matter if Harper used it himself or not, he never told his MPs not to. Harper is ultimately responsible for the behaviour of his party, and to let cheap hacks yell "Taliban Jack" every time Layton rose to speak in the House was an act of political cowardice and low-rent thuggery on Harper's part.