Every month on the 7th day we post a new edition of “7 on 7,” where Jeff Jacobson will ask 7 questions of one of JJA’s speakers. We are proud to feature Mark Sedra today. Mark runs the Security Governance Group (SGG) and is a contributor on Foreign Policy Matters to many media outlets including CBC. Check out his profile by clicking here.
The Security Governance Group (SGG) is an international policy consultancy that specializes on security issues in fragile, failed and conflict-affected states. We provide advice to governments, international organizations, non-governmental bodies and private sector firms on how to advance stabilization and reconstruction activities in these difficult environments. Most of our work focuses on the challenge of rebuilding security and justice structures, typically seen as a lynchpin for peace and stability. Our clients have included the United Nations, the Canadian Government, the US State Department and a range of non-governmental organizations.
Unfortunately, the security and political situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating. The Taliban insurgency has shown no evidence of running out of steam, and levels of violence have increased across many areas of the country. The future of Afghanistan will depend on a number of key events over the coming year. First, the results and aftermath of the Presidential election in early April will be very important. If the election is marred by fraud or high levels of violence then it could seriously destabilize the current environment. If, on the other hand, the election is free and fair and power is passed without major incident to a new administration, than it could be a major boost for democracy and political stability. The second factor surrounds the upcoming decision of the Obama administration on the number of troops to leave in Afghanistan, which will, in turn, be dependent on the next Afghan President’s decision on whether to sign a Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) with the US. If the BSA is signed and the Obama administration retrains a residual security force in the country, than the prospects for Afghan stability will be strengthened. If on the other hand, the new regime refuses to sign the BSA and the Obama administration opts for the zero troop option, withdrawing all US forces from the country, than the chances of a resumption of large-scale conflict will be high. Finally, the future of peace negotiations with the Taliban will play a key role in determining whether peace is consolidated in Afghanistan. Negotiations have been on and off over the last few years and must be restarted if violence is to be reduced. Without positive outcomes in these three areas, there is a 50/50 chance that civil war could resume in Afghanistan over the next 5 years.
Violence has surged in Iraq over the past year, reaching levels unseen since the height of the insurgency. Al Qaeda, largely kicked out of Iraq only five years ago, has returned to many areas, contributing to sectarian violence. The conflict in neighboring Syria has further destabilized the situation, with Islamist fighters using Iraq as a transit point to join the fray against the Assad regime.
The options for the West in Syria are limited, beyond providing humanitarian support for the millions of refugees in neighboring states, imposing sanctions on the Syrian government and supporting the UN negotiating process under the leadership of envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. There were options for a military intervention 2 years ago, but those are no longer viable. The conflict has reached a stalemate, with the regime having an edge. The war in Syria has fast become one of the greatest humanitarian crises in the last 50 years. It is critical that the West stay engaged, but it doesn’t have many good entry points to influence the situation on the ground.
I don’t see China playing a very large role in the peacekeeping/peacebuilding field anytime soon, although they are playing an expanding role on other levels, principally economic, in fragile, failed and conflict-affected states. That role is largely driven by economic self-interest. One need only look at the expanding presence of China in Africa, which they see as a key source of natural resources, to see the growing international influence of China. They are a player, and donors in the peacekeeping/peacemaking field will have to engage China increasingly in their work if they want to be effective on the ground.
With Canada’s complete military withdrawal from Afghanistan, our role there will be very limited. We have never had a strong government presence in Iraq and this won’t change in the immediate future. On Syria, the Harper Government has made some modest contributions to humanitarian aid and delivered some bellicose public statements criticizing the Assad regime, but beyond that we won’t play a major role on the Syrian file either. In fact, Canada is no longer a major player in the world of peacekeeping/peacebuilding, an outgrowth of major cuts to the government’s aid and diplomatic arms as well as a political posture skeptical of multilateralism. Many actors in the peacekeeping/peacebuilding community across the world are asking: What happened to Canada?
In our interconnected world, what happens even in remote areas can impact Canadians at home, whether it is in the price of key resources like oil, fluctuations in our stock market or influxes of refugees. No country is an island today, so Canadians must pay attention to the world if we want to be prosperous and secure in it.
Add comment