Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 5 - Evidence - November 15, 2010
OTTAWA, Monday, November 15, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 4:02 p.m. to examine and report on the role that the Government of Canada may play in supporting the promotion and protection of women's rights in Afghanistan after Canada has ended its combat operations in 2011.
Senator Nancy Ruth (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: This is the committee's first meeting under its study, which has the order of reference to examine and report on the role the Government of Canada may play in supporting the promotion and protection of women's rights in Afghanistan after Canada has ended its combat operations in 2011.
This afternoon and this evening, we are pleased to have three witnesses: a PhD candidate, Aamir Jamal, from the international development section of the University of Calgary; Nipa Banerjee, a professor in the School of International Development at the University of Ottawa; and lastly, at six o'clock, representing CARE Canada, Kevin McCort, who is the president and CEO, and Kieran Green, the communications manager.
Today we have suggested that the witnesses can have more or less as much time as they want, maybe 15 or 20 minutes, to lay out their theses, and then we can have a chat with them. We are in the custom of having formal questions and we can continue that way, but I would like it if you have supplementary questions just to come in and develop the conversation, so it is a little more normal than the formality of the Senate.
Mr. Jamal, would you please start.
Aamir Jamal, PhD candidate in International Development, University of Calgary, as an individual: Thank you so much, Madam Chair and honourable senators, for inviting me here. It is a pleasure to be here, particularly on this important topic of the day.
This is the area of my research, my extensive experience in the field and, most important, my personal mission and passion. This is an area very close to the Canadian public. It is what everyone talks about. People are patient and concerned about it, in the academic world as well as outside. They are talking about Afghanistan and discussing women's issues, so thank you very much for inviting me here.
Canadians should be proud of the Afghan people, the Pashtuns. We are grateful and thankful for your very positive contribution and for your significant sacrifices in the region. It is a positive role. I said the other day to someone that it is a blessing that Canada is there in Afghanistan.
Do you know what Afghans call Kandahar? In the Pashto language, they call it ``Canada Har.'' Har in the Pashto language is a necklace. They call Kandahar ``Canada Har''; it is the Canadian necklace. They consider Kandahar as a Canadian issue, as a Canadian place.
As most of you know, my research is on gender justice. My thesis is that there is one specific area that we are missing, and that is engaging men, engaging everyone in gender justice, not just the women. Gender does not mean just female, just women. It is both. It is the relationship. It is the power structure.
I will give you about five minutes on the context and background of the whole issue to give you the big picture. Then, I will talk about my experience personally, and my journey from where I am coming from. Regarding my research, I will be brief regarding my methods, because I believe you might not be interested in that area, and I will focus on my research findings.
This is the region I am talking about. This is a critical point, that we cannot isolate Afghanistan from the tribal region of Pakistan. There is one people, Pashtuns, on both sides of the border. You can see on Peshawar and Jalalabad, most Pashtuns do not accept this border line; this is one tribe. They speak one language; they have a similar culture. If something is happening on the other side of the border, you cannot say it will not have any impact on this side of the border.
That is why, for my research, I am not considering just Afghanistan. I am taking the whole area. I am taking Pashtuns, who are 49 million people — the world's largest tribal society. You would know that most of the Taliban are Pashtuns.
This green colour is the Pashtun area. On the one side is Kandahar, and on the other is Peshawar. These are all Pashtuns, divided in two countries. They are the world's largest tribal society, and they have the same language. Pashtuns are 42 per cent to 50 per cent of Afghanistan's population of 29 million people and 15.42 per cent of Pakistan's 174 million people.
Historically, they were always a politically powerful ethnic group in Afghanistan. They always ruled Afghanistan. Except for a few occasions, Afghanistan was dominated and ruled by these Pashtuns.
They have strict adherence to cultural norms. Pashtunwali is an unwritten, undocumented tribal code. Every Pashtun, when he or she is born, knows what is Pashtunwali, how to live with it, what are the norms, tradition, culture, what to do and what not to do in this society. Their constitution is already there.
Another important area of focus is that there were always cycles of war because of the interest of the outside world in this critically important region, because this is a gateway to central Asia.
It is important to tell you that religion had a passive, traditional role before the 1980s in this whole region. Again, I am focusing on both sides of the region, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the Pashtun tribe. There was no significance in political affairs. We Pashtuns — I am a Pashtun — would consider a mullah, any religious leader, as a passive person, as a weak person. His job is just to take care of traditional roles — all those typical religious issues such as weddings, births, funerals and such. He has no role in politics. We Pashtuns would take care of his security. We would have guns. He would not have guns. That was the role of these religious people, Muslim scholars, you can say.
After December 1979 and the Soviet invasion, there was a different world. The Cold War started. The international community came to fight back against the Soviets. They helped Afghans, helped Pashtuns, to get their country back. At that time, what happened? Key Islamic states on both sides and the international community promoted and helped the mullahs. They financed religious leaders.
Now, my friends, I was a witness to all that. You have called the right person. I was there; I saw that in front of my eyes. My imam could not afford a bike, and he would ask for food. He would have people, Talib — called Taliban — moving around in the street and collecting food from different homes. That mullah now has a four-by-four vehicle. That mullah now has all those modern guns and all that. He became so strong because he was supported by the international community so we can have jihad. We can promote jihad. We can strengthen this extremism and jihadi philosophy so these guys can fight the Soviet Union back. That was the region. Key Islamic states were fully involved in that. The mosques should be just the way they are built. After that, the most beautiful building in our village would be the mosque because of finances.
Religion and imams became the dominant class, and the power structure suddenly changed. They have the guns and the power. We Pashtuns do not have that power. They are protecting us, but before, we protected them. This is very important. They became involved in politics, but before that, they were not involved. No one thought about giving a vote to a religious leader — no way. Religious leaders are not for that; they are for the mosques.
After the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, the question was where were all those mujahedeens and mullahs? They did not go with the wind. They were there, but the international community was gone; it left Afghanistan. We had thousands of jihadists from different parts of the world — some from Arabia — who had guns. They could do only one thing — fight. They needed to find avenues to fight because that was their expertise. What was to be done? We and all those people were there. They were bound to find their avenues.
That was a quick background. I will go quickly through my journey and where I come from on these gender issues. I was lucky enough to get this idea with some of my friends. I was in good company at that time in Peshawar in the border tribal area of Afghanistan. Refugees were flooding into my town. At the bus stops, I can still recall seeing women and girls with nowhere to go. People were sexually abusing them. They had no home; they had nothing. A few friends and I knew we had to do something. We decided that schools were the answer, because otherwise there were only drugs and those things.
We were Pashtun university students. We did not know that our idea was called ``social development.'' We just knew it was good work at that time. Where were we to find the place to teach them? We got the idea that we would go to the guest houses. We said to the rich guys, ``You have these rooms that are empty all day because only once in awhile a guest comes in.'' We asked if they could give us those rooms to use. Most of them said, ``Why not?''
In one village in Peshawar, we could not find a place for a school. I went to the mosque — the religious place of Muslims — and I asked the imam. There was a small room for the imam where he reads whatever he wants. I asked if he knew that those Afghan kids — the Pashtuns — have no education and that people were doing bad things to them. I asked if he could give us the room to use for teaching after the prayer at 5:30 in the morning, because after the morning prayer no one comes to the mosque until 1:30 in the afternoon. It sits empty. I told him that in the morning he could teach them a few goods words or something. That was my strategy. The imam loved the idea because he wanted an audience and he said sure. I said that after that, we would teach them math and science.
In the morning, hundreds of students came. The imam came. I took him with respect from that small room — giving him culture, religion, respect and honour. He sat there before all those kids and taught them for 20 minutes about doing good things and respecting parents.
After the 20 minutes, the mosque was mine; the washrooms were mine; and the water was mine. The whole mosque was mine. I started teaching. People kept coming. I called professors and they came. I involved the community. It went wonderfully well. We also did family counselling. I did not know that term before, but I know now that what I did was family counselling. People were giving us respect. They said that we were doing a great job. For what? Their trust, sincerity, empathy.
We established 42 schools where more than 2,000 kids were educated. It was so successful. This was the essence of my life.
The lesson learned was to involve the gatekeeper — the imam, the Pashtun man. It was a change from within. They knew that the work was bringing change. They were building trust and empathy. We went into their world. We did not impose our world on them because they would not accept it. It became a meaningful, sincere and long-term relationship. That is what I learned through that experience. I made it the mission of my life based on that wonderful experience.
My inspiration came from looking around and seeing those eyes. I cannot forget those little girls. Why is it always women? When there is conflict or war, who suffers first? Women. When there is tribal conflict, who suffers first? Women. When someone from one family is killed by someone from another family, the conflict is settled in the traditional Pashtun culture. A girl from the family of the killer is given in marriage to a man from the victim's family. You can imagine how she would be treated. The settlement is called swara in Pashtun. Who makes the sacrifice for my Pashtun honour? Women.
I saw that despite the UN international community and millions of dollars, there is no significant change, believe me. Human rights violations continue. I did this research because I witnessed a disconnect between social realities and the development policies of the international community. The aim of my study is gender research that involves the men of the community because the man is the gatekeeper.
These are my questions: How do Pashtun men perceive girls' education? What are the major factors? How can the international community involve the community and particularly men? My methodology is qualitative in-depth research and focus groups. Again, I go back to the community. Academia calls it a focus group, but we call it jirga. Why not use the same tribal culture? Jirga is an institution where men stand together and take decisions for everyone's social and economic well-being. I arranged a jirga of 18 Pashtun men: mullahs, imams, political leaders and common men. We talked about what was wrong. My strength today comes from my experience and the trust and sincerity of the long-term relationships that I built. Jirga participants sit together and make decisions, which are serious because the consequences are serious.
My key findings include the perception of girls' education. I divided my findings into barriers to education, the role of the international community and how to overcome those barriers to girls' education.
The Pashtun culture is a major barrier to Afghan girls' education. They do not want their girls to go out and have someone else see them. Religious extremism continues to promote war, and there is no peace. When there is continuous war, who is the important person? It is the person with the gun, not the person with the book. The whole community is going through the war and conflict, so it is encouraging extremism. It is not encouraging knowledge. War is conflict.
Militarization of aid is critical. When the military is involved in aid, when the military is coming to my home, giving me food, he is a military person. I know who it is. Militarization is a major barrier.
There is a lack of political will and commitment from the Pakistani government in the Pashtun areas and there is a disconnect. For the non-governmental organizations working there, there is a disconnect around social realities.
I asked those men about their perceptions of the international community's non-governmental organizations. I asked, ``What do you think about them and what they are doing?'' They said they have a negative image. They fear the NGOs. They ask me not to even say the word NGO. It is like a swear word. They said, ``They have a foreign agenda. They will misguide our people. They will take our values. We do not like our kids to get close to the NGO guys. They are representing occupying powers with a different face; just a helping face. They are part of the occupying powers.''
In another key area, NGOs are money-making tools for corrupt local elites. A common phrase in the community is: ``If you want to become rich, found an NGO. You will get lots of money.'' Last night I called Afghanistan. Some people told me they call them NGEBOs. Gebo in the Pashto language is ``pocket.'' NGEBO means ``money in the pocket.'' There is wide corruption throughout. There is duplication and lack of coordination. No one is there, and in one place everyone is there.
I asked them what would be an ideal NGO. What would be an ideal organization that can help you out and where you would love to send your daughters and children? Advise us. They told us not to impose our values on them. Do not impose women's rights on us. You can guide us, but do not impose on us that this is what you will do. We have different values and traditions, and it will take a while.
Have knowledge and respect for Islamic culture and values. It is very critical. If someone goes there and does not have the knowledge and values and is disrespectful, he is out of the community. I have many examples that I can share later.
Hire local credible people. They gave me lots of examples. What you are hiring is those people who are known for their corruption throughout, so what is the image they are giving? Establish trust through long-term commitment, not a two-year or five-year project but a long-term commitment.
Follow existing social hierarchy with good intentions and a holistic approach, not just one piece that you are doing and then you are gone. Focus on the existing assets of the community. Money alone is not important. There are existing assets within the community that can be used.
The last part is how we can overcome barriers to girls' education. Create awareness and educate and involve the elders. They are the ones. Come and talk to them. Involve them in their part of the plan. When they are involved in the decision-making process, they will own it and feel it is their school. It is different when I call it my school and I built it. How dare you come close to it to destroy it, and it happened.
Involve the jirga members. Engage with religious leaders, the imams; give traditional and respectful roles and importance to them. Not all imams are Taliban. You can find some. You can find many, and you can engage them. I did it and it worked very well.
Coordinate with the education ministry. You cannot totally ignore the Afghan government. With just the NGOs there it is like a different state — a state within a state. You need to coordinate with them. There are issues with the Afghan government, but we want Afghanistan as a state. For a state, we need to support a government.
Physical facilities, resources, and classrooms — it is poverty, believe me, senators. All over there is poverty, even in the areas that we say we have control over. Look at those areas. It is not good news. Yes, there is progress and improvement in some areas, but much needs to be done.
Community-friendly schools are very important incentives for parents.
The final thing I am coming back to is what I got from my research, and that is to involve the gatekeeper. Involve man for gender justice. Engage the grandfathers. Talk to them.
Walk into their world with empathy and understanding. Establish trust. Listen a little bit to what they are saying. What do they think the problem is? What do they think the solution is? Then talk to them with their consultation. They will listen. Dear senators, most of the people want clean water. Most of the people want a proper place to live. Most of the people want good food. They just need awareness so that they know what is clean water, what is a school, how the school benefits their kids. If they know that, everyone wants it.
I have a little story. If you allow me, I will share it with you. In doing my research, I came across this woman. She was the first woman educator in her tribe. I asked her how she was educated. You are the first one. What happened? She said: ``You know what happened? My grandpa — every morning he would take me to school and bring me back from school. The people in the tribe were saying, `Come on, what kind of man are you? You are taking your daughter to school?''' That was a shameful comment. It has deep meaning.
He was doing it, and she got Grade 10; and the instrumental value is what? She has four highly educated children. She was so happy. She said that after Grade 8 or Grade 10, ``I do not have to call my husband that my son is sick — he has the flu — and what medicine do I give? Now I know what medicine to give.''
It is a small thing, but the interesting point was that she asked her grandfather, ``Baba, why did you take so much trouble just for my sake?'' The response was unexpected. Even though I belong to that area, in research you get unexpected answers. He responded, ``My daughter, I thought at that time that you will be married one day. You will be with your in-laws, and obviously there will be a fight; with in-laws there is always some kind of argument and fight. You will not be able to respond well always, so when you are educated, when you know how to read a book, you will go into a corner of the house, sit there and read the book and get peace and tranquility.''
That was his reason for educating girls. Why not find those reasons and start from there? We do not have to say that we need education for girls so that they can come to work in NGOs. There are many reasons for education that the community gives importance to. Why not find those reasons and start from there?
I am doing research, but I am also doing a little project from here. The reason I am using — what I am telling the grandfathers — is, ``Do you not like to have your grandchildren, especially grandsons, healthy? If you want that, you need an educated girl for that. Do you not want to have a lady doctor, because you will never take your wife, your woman, to a male doctor? I have examples for that as well, going into their world.
My summary would be that we need to engage elders and community men for gender justice, ending women's oppression not just by military means. The military is important in many areas, but we need more education and economic development, establishing trust through long-term commitment.
There is no easy solution. It is a tribal culture. It is a long journey, and it needs our patience and our perseverance.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Jamal, thank you very much for your presentation. You have brought many things to our attention. I want to clarify some of the things you have said so that we get a better understanding of what we should be doing.
You talked about Muslim values. Can you expand on what you mean?
Mr. Jamal: I mentioned both Muslim and cultural values. They have Muslim values, but Pashtun cultural values as well.
Regarding Muslim values, it is important to know that it depends on the interpretation of Islam. Over there, Islam — the Quran — is mostly interpreted by men for men. There is also a Pashtun cultural Islam, which is a different version of Islam. In the Pashtun cultural Islam, they define what can benefit their own existing social structure and their own realities.
For what they call cultural values, there would be many values. For example, purdah is a value over there. There are different versions of purdah in Muslim societies. Many Islamic scholars say there is no need for purdah; some say there is a need, but a face can be shown. There are people who say burka is needed — the whole face.
In the Pashtun cultural interpretation of Islam, burka is there. They want to keep their women at home. Is it a good idea? No, but you need to start from somewhere. You cannot go directly and say take out this burka, this is wrong; because then what is the result? You will get a backlash, so there is no solution.
I would suggest not starting with all those sensitive issues. For example, they are saying that if there is a girls' school, first, we must have female teachers, and second, we must have a boundary wall around the girls' school. If there is no boundary wall, forget about it; nobody will send their girls. Also, there must be proper, girl-friendly washrooms. These are small issues, but those are values.
They say these are our values. Saying we do not care about it, that this is just a school without a boundary wall, will not help. Those are some of those values. There are some values that neither I personally nor anyone else would agree with, but you will start from somewhere, instead of creating a backlash.
Another example is from my village, in my district. NGOs sent girls to the village to educate women for family planning without consulting elders. They spoke to the girls and women; it was in Mardan district, I remember, close to Peshawar. When the men came home and the women told them what had happened, there was a big backlash. They went to the mosque and the imam was very angry. They announced on the loudspeakers to never let those girls come into your homes.
Why start with the sensitive issues immediately? Education is the best way to bring awareness. It is a slow and gradual process, and we know that. Right now, we are talking about women's rights. We came to this point after lots of struggle, and we know the history.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Jamal, you know the history of Afghanistan, and you said that before 1980, women were educated. In fact, women were so well educated that women doctors from Afghanistan used to come to our hospitals in Uganda to work. It is not that women in Afghanistan were not educated pre-1980; they were very well educated. Would you agree?
Mr. Jamal: Yes and no. Yes for women of the cities and in particular regions.
Senator Jaffer: They were educated.
Mr. Jamal: Yes. Kabul was one of the best places to visit.
Senator Jaffer: I think the very important point that you have given to us, and I thank you for that, is that we have to find ways to be sensitive and find any way in which to get women educated. That is what I heard.
Mr. Jamal: Exactly.
Senator Jaffer: I understand your passion on that, saying look, you have to go where people's beliefs are and provide education. I understand that.
We have to share the time to ask questions, so I will just ask you about one thing you said, and maybe you can provide that answer to the clerk.
In your presentation, you recommended creating awareness and engaging religious leaders. How would you create awareness? I have this belief system that people understand that education is important. What further do we need to do to create awareness?
Mr. Jamal: It is a detailed answer. You are talking about implementation strategies now and what to do.
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Mr. Jamal: These are some of the questions that I developed — how to do it, how to engage the imam and how to go and talk to the jirga. I did that. There are many ways to do that. In this short time, I can specify a few, two or three. Or do you want me to respond later?
Senator Jaffer: Go ahead, just quickly.
Mr. Jamal: For example, before going to a village, you gain the confidence of the community. Find a representative to gain the confidence of the community, jirga and elders, and go through that. That is why I call them ``gatekeepers.'' First, we need to open the gate. When the gate is open, you can get in. Hire them; involve them.
In one of my interviews, I asked an imam, ``If I had a school where I took care of all your concerns — a boundary wall, proper washrooms and female teachers — would you like to come and teach?'' He said, ``Yes, but I cannot because I am a man, and men are not allowed to teach women. But my daughter can teach.'' Involve them.
If we have five teachers in a small school, why not have just one who is an imam or someone from his family as a teacher? What will he do? To start the day, perhaps he will recite a few verses of the Quran. What is wrong with that?
Involving the local culture in many ways is a good first step.
Senator Kochhar: Mr. Jamal, I admire your passion and understanding of your country and that you are trying to bring reforms into the whole country. However, Afghanistan is fragmented in that it is ruled by President Karzai in Kabul, but he has very little power beyond that.
Mr. Jamal: Yes.
Senator Kochhar: It is very difficult for me to comprehend how you would proceed. Mullahs came in and they have the power through the Taliban. They set up thousands of madrassas where the only subject taught, besides the Quran, was how to hate everyone who was not Muslim. In particular, they taught how to hate Americans, Canadians, the British and Europeans who are not Muslims. How do you undo all of that? It has to be undone before you can introduce educational reforms.
There are not enough women teachers, so it is difficult to start these schools. It is a vicious circle. It is a difficult job because you have to undo what is going on right now, which might not be easy. How will you undo all of those thousands of madrassas around the country?
Mr. Jamal: Thank you for the question. I totally agree that it is not an easy task. It is a long journey. Should we stop? No. We should continue our work. There is lots of hope. Many good things are being done over there. I would suggest that the starting point is education and awareness.
Greg Mortenson, from Montana in the United States, wrote Three Cups of Tea: One Man's Mission to Promote Peace . . . One School at a Time. He is going to Afghanistan to engage communities. He is building hundreds of schools, after starting with only a few, because the communities own them. The Taliban came to one of his schools. One of the lead guys stood close to the school and was told he could not touch the school because it belonged to the community, not to the Taliban. One man is educating thousands of girls and changing the face of those areas by bringing development. There are good-news stories, but you are right in saying there are no female teachers.
The wife of a man got very sick. He finally listened to advice and took his wife to a physician, who was a man. The doctor had to see her so he said he would cover her with a sheet. The husband said, ``No way. How dare you touch my wife?'' The husband took his wife back, and she suffered and died. I ask, ``Do you need lady doctors?'' They say, ``Yes, we need lady doctors.'' I ask, ``Where will you get female doctors if you do not send your daughters to school?'' We need female teachers. Where will we get female teachers if we do not send our daughters to school? If we think creatively, we will find lasting solutions.
Last night at two o'clock I called a guy in Afghanistan who works in the ministry of education. My idea is to establish boarding schools in the cities so that women can attend for post-secondary education. With boarding schools, women could be educated and then return to their different places. Some women have businesses, and they negotiate with the Taliban.
There must be awareness and the trust of the community as to the good intentions, not just to fight. The majority of Pashtuns, more than 70 per cent, are not under the control of the Karzai government. They think that there are two enemies fighting each other and using our soil to do it: One is the international community and the other is the bad guys — the Taliban or others. They are fighting and killing each other using our soil. They think they are innocent casualties. They ask, ``Why is it our fault? What should we do?'' They decide to go with one side, but which side? Both sides are killing their enemies. There are 140,000 military; they are not teachers.
Senator Kochhar: Mr. Jamal, I still am not clear how you are to get rid of those madrassas. How do you start dismantling them? Where are they getting the money to run them? Those are basic questions. Once we can dismantle the madrassas, we can have proper schools for boys and girls to give them a proper education. About 75 per cent of the people going to schools in Afghanistan are getting the basic religious teachings that include hate for Western culture, civilization and nations. How do you get rid of those religious schools so that you can teach students the basic ideals of Islam to love everyone and be friendly with the whole world? Where have those teachings gone? How do we bring back those Islamic values?
Mr. Jamal: Where have those teachings gone? That is a good first question. Unfortunately, we have a little piece of the problem because in the 1980s we established those madrassas. We used some of the key Islamic states who had their own interest in providing funding for madrassas.
The problem will not go away immediately. I talked about the two sides and which one to take. With one side, they will have schools, clean water, and a better life. However, when both sides are fighting, what is there to choose? People will choose the side they are more comfortable with and that has the people from the same religion, culture and values. Change will come when we have more money, motivation and devotion to the international developing side with education. We cannot just kick out the madrassas. There is no quick solution. It will be a slow and gradual process when people feel there is change in their country.
When people in my village went outside Afghanistan for the first time, they went to Dubai. When they came back, the first thing they wanted was to have a washroom at home. Before that, people simply went outside. They realize now that there is a benefit to having washrooms. Currently, there is a lack of awareness. Most of the women I talk about are not in Kabul or in Kandahar City.
The Chair: I will have to ask you to stop there, Mr. Jamal, so we can move forward with more questions. Perhaps you could take note of each senator's question and respond to the whole.
Senator Oliver: Mr. Jamal, you are a PhD student and doing your research on the subject you discussed with us today. Is your research complete? Do you have conclusions to your research?
Mr. Jamal: My data collection is completed, and I will be finished in three or four months.
The Chair: Before you answer, I would like you to take all the questions and they will all be answered. Otherwise we will not have time.
Senator Oliver: You said that in civil society NGOs such as the Red Cross, CARE and UNICEF are not respected at all but are seen as money-making tools for corrupt elites. Who can Canada and other Western countries go to to try to reach the people and bring about change?
You say you establish trust through long-term commitment, but who do we establish that trust with if NGOs, the people on the ground, are not respected?
Senator Brazeau: I have one basic question. You mentioned that one of the solutions to the many barriers is to engage men or involve the gatekeepers. If we are to respect or whoever is to respect the traditions and the values that the men hold or the community holds, how realistic is it to try and educate, empower and really engage these gatekeepers if potentially their traditions and values trump the rights — in this particular case and study — of Afghan women?
Mr. Jamal: Would you explain your question, please?
Senator Brazeau: For example, you said doctors are not able to see a woman. Perhaps women in schools are the same thing. Perhaps they are dissuaded from going to school. If those are the traditions and the values of some of the gatekeepers, how realistic is it to involve them and to try to change their minds to ensure that some of these traditions and values do not trump the rights of individuals and Afghan women?
Mr. Jamal: Thank you.
The Chair: I want to follow up on Senator Oliver's question around the idea that if you want to get rich, make an NGO. CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, has instigated policies whereby NGOs compete for contracts with CIDA. There may be some problems with this here in Canada, but I would think it would stimulate an Afghan who wanted to get rich and bid on a CIDA contract if there is no sustained, long-term, ongoing, stay-the-way aspect, because as I understand you, the stuff that you talk about is very long term.
I want to clarify that although your focus seems to have been on rural people, this would not exclude Canada's support of women and girls in university, legal reform, or employment training programs.
Third, our military has and will, I understand, continue to support Afghan policing and military. Our government has recently come out with support for the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. How important to you is it that Canadians training Afghan police and troops should teach them about this, and how would they teach that? Those are my questions.
Senator Zimmer: Thank you for your presentation, which was quite riveting. I will cut my question down. It is in the same vein as those of Senator Kochhar and Senator Brazeau but just a little different.
A couple of years ago I went to Afghanistan with the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, to Kabul and Kandahar. In the morning we went over the line with a convoy of five. It was very dangerous. We went up into the hills and looked over the hills, and the night before we met with a good Taliban leader. Over the hill we saw them coming out of their homes at about seven o'clock in the morning. The mist was lifting. They were building their road. I think your key words were ``they own it.'' They were not only building it but naming it, which was key. They wanted it and wanted it to stay, but they get an exposure to the Western world, as we saw it in women in a barter shop. The older ones would not take off their burkas and would not let us photograph them. The younger ones did. They were aware of the Western world.
In the next five to ten years, with this movement and change, especially with the young women learning about what is out there and the older ones saying they want to live here, will that destroy and break down their culture and values? Also, the real question is would it not be very dangerous for them to do that, even though they may want to.
Mr. Jamal: If they want to change the culture?
Senator Zimmer: If they want to change their own culture, live their own lives, and adapt more to the Western world, there is this perceived danger that is always there, and I am not sure that you can break that down.
Mr. Jamal: Okay, senator, thank you.
The Chair: You have five minutes, I regret to say. Do the best you can.
Mr. Jamal: Can I start from the last question?
The Chair: You can do it any way you want.
Mr. Jamal: I have been talking about values and culture. The first thing is that culture is not and will not be constant. It will not always be the same. It will be changed. We were living in caves. We changed the culture. The culture will always change. In many areas in the Pashtun tribes, culture has been changed.
In the same culture women are changed. There are many examples of women in my family. Now men are telling me in those phone interviews that they are so proud that they educated their daughters. The daughters are now educating and have their own schools.
My mother was the first one in my home, and that is why I am here, I guess. She was the first one in the whole tribe who was educated, and she used to tell us her school name was Lady Griffith School. I still remember that. We are four sons and all of us are educated. If a woman is educated, a nation is educated. She was educated. There are good examples, and then people see.
In one area of the Pashtun tribes, when the culture changed it is interesting now that the men are competing with each other to have an educated wife. Over there the culture is different. Parents find a girl for a man. The parents are saying that if you want to have a good proposal, you need to educate your daughter. There are in those places examples where the culture has shifted. The women came out and they changed the culture.
There will be hurdles, issues, and a backlash, but when there is awareness, people will understand, and especially when the community owns it, they will go along.
The second question was the Canadian military and their role. We are in a critical stage. The government is making a decision. I have a simple answer. If we are out of Afghanistan, what is the message we are delivering to the Taliban? They will say one is out, and two remain. One by one they are strengthening.
We should contribute, and Canada is a blessing in Afghanistan. Canada's role is amazing.
The Chair: My question is around Canadians training the Afghan police and military and whether they should clearly talk about the rights of women to Afghan police and military during that training.
Mr. Jamal: Yes, they should, because I am getting the message recently that the contractors hired to train police were not effective at all. Yes, we should find some good strategies to train Afghan police, and they should be involved over there and telling the policemen who are there. Informing them and educating them about women's rights is a good idea.
The other question is about NGOs and civil society. We need NGOs. There are issues and major problems with NGOs. Yes, there is corruption. Corruption is all over. Yes, there is corruption in the Afghan government, but we still need to work along and develop good systems. There is corruption here, but we have good systems to catch it. We need to develop good systems, change strategy and have some accountability and an eye on what is happening. We need CARE Canada and all those organizations, but we need to be vigilant and develop and change those strategies because the current strategy is not working.
I think the first question was regarding NGOs and civil society and that we need to change the strategy and about my education. As I said earlier, I will complete my education within the next few months, and I have collected my data.
The Chair: Thank you for coming.
Our next witness is Professor Banerjee, whom we are delighted to have here. I have asked the professor if she would be kind enough to give us a brief introduction of herself and what she will talk about, so the camera gets it all on tape.
Nipa Banerjee, Professor, School of International Development, University of Ottawa, as an individual: I worked with CIDA for over 32 years, immediately after my graduation from the University of Toronto with my doctorate degree. I worked all my life and I have never worked anywhere but at CIDA, except for at IDRC, the International Development Research Centre, a little bit.
Between 2003 and 2006 I was appointed as the head of the aid program in Afghanistan. We started our embassy in Afghanistan in 2003, and I was sent as the head of the aid program to start up our aid office. I was the only CIDA officer, together with the ambassador and a political officer, so we had a very small unit.
I left Afghanistan in 2006 and came back and worked at the president's office for a year. Then in 2007, I was offered a job with the University of Ottawa. The university was opening its School of International Development and Global Studies and was looking for practitioners who could take up students and provide them with practical experience. Since 2007, I have been with the University of Ottawa.
I developed a passion for Afghanistan while I was there. It is my focus of research. I go to Afghanistan during my semester breaks, three or four times a year, to keep myself attuned with the country and familiarize myself with Afghanistan issues. That is my background.
I was told I should speak for 10 minutes only, so I found what I had said with the house committee. It was chaotic because the time was so short and I did not have a prepared statement. I have prepared something, but I have a lot to say that I did not put in, because I was given the time limit.
However, after listening to part of the conversation and the question-and-answer period with Mr. Jamal, I can touch upon some of those issues. I have a long experience with CIDA in various Islamic countries, such as Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan. We can have a good discussion after I give my prepared statement.
According to some eminent Islamic scholars, over 1,400 years ago Islam prescribed men and women to be equal before God and gave them various rights, such as the right to inheritance, the right to vote, the right to work, and even the right to choose their partners in marriage. For decades in Afghanistan, women have been denied these rights either by official government decree or by their own husbands, fathers and brothers. During the rule of the Taliban from 1996 to 2001, women were forbidden to work and to leave the house without a male escort. They were not allowed to seek medical help from a male doctor and were forced to cover themselves from head to toe. Professional women doctors and teachers were forbidden to practice.
Since the fall of the Taliban in late 2001, many would agree that the political and cultural position of women has improved substantially. The Afghan constitution states that ``the citizens of Afghanistan — whether man or woman — have equal rights.'' So far, women have been allowed to return to work, and the government no longer forces them to wear the all-covering burka. Some women, although not enough, have been appointed to prominent positions in the government. The graduation of women as trained air force and police personnel has made milestones.
Despite all these changes, many challenges remain. The repression of women is still prevalent. Women are prevented from participation in public life, are forced into marriages and are denied basic education. Numerous schools for girls have been burned down, and little girls have even been poisoned to death for daring to go to school.
I will give you a brief fact box on women: 85 per cent of Afghan women remain illiterate; 30 per cent of girls have access to education in Afghanistan, but few of them complete the first six years of primary schooling; one in every three Afghan women experience physical, psychological or sexual violence; 70 per cent to 80 per cent of women face forced marriages; and despite some improvements in provision of assistance at childbirth, Afghanistan has the second-highest maternity mortality rate in the world. Over the last two years, more than 2,000 cases of violence have been reported from 26 of 34 provinces. The number of cases of women committing suicide has increased hugely due to domestic violence, abuse and disappointment with the justice system.
Violence against women is widespread, deeply rooted and acute. Critics say it is rooted in the Afghan culture, customs, attitudes and practices. Conservative political and religious forces play a role in restricting women's rights. Afghan women have limited freedom to escape the norms and traditions that dictate a subservient status for females. Impunity, weak law enforcement and corruption continue to undermine women's rights and the judicial system.
As for assistance from overseas by the international community, the fall of the Taliban brought global attention to the plight of Afghan women. Everyone from overzealous ultra feminist Western groups to charity-oriented do-gooders rushed to ameliorate the condition of women. However, even with a sizeable amount of aid and scores of consultants and projects, palpable changes remain elusive.
Some critics find fault in the approach taken by many of the foreign organizations. Critics say that many programs are rooted in a Western world view and have not taken into account the social and cultural realities of an Islamic and post-conflict society. As such, they have sought to impose foreign values that cannot be absorbed and, consequently, cannot bring effective change. Others have taken an overly culturally sensitive approach, which has assumed a static view of Afghan society and has underestimated the abilities and aspirations of Afghan women.
Under the social, political and cultural norms that pervade Afghanistan and a highly conservative sharia-based society, which need not necessarily be interpreted as extremism, successful intervention to advance women's position might well require a low-profile approach with massive investments in women's programming, without alarming the conservative and religious forces. Experts suggest that some of the West's Afghan policies, including the use of words such as ``emancipation of women'' have served to inflame conservative elements in Afghan society — anger on which the Taliban has capitalized.
Women's rights awareness-raising programs financed by many Western donors raise an alarm in the conservative elements that then double their efforts to drag women to subservient positions. Such training programs are not of much use in any case when women, made aware of their rights, can hardly exercise their rights or even lobby for their rights in the absence of support from their families, society or the justice system.
Instead, women's empowerment can be achieved in an imperceptible fashion through massive investments in four areas. These are my recommendations: community-based education; access to health; income opportunities; and justice. The participation of women in the government-driven reconciliation process is essential so that women's rights are not bartered for peace.
To elaborate, I propose a national program for women combining four components. The first is a community-based village school for girls, starting with talks with the village mullahs. The second component is bringing health services to the doorsteps of girls and women, especially neonatal, midwifery and postnatal services.
Education and health serve as instruments for women to empower themselves without any blame being put on the West for imposing their values on Afghan culture through awareness-raising programs. Education helps to promote a natural process of raising consciousness and awareness of basic rights. Healthy women are more capable of participating in the development process of their communities.
The third component is home-based, income-generating opportunities through micro-credit programs that would not raise societal eyebrows but would help women to earn confidence and give them positions of dignity in the family and, ultimately, in society. The fourth component is access to justice for women and law enforcement for bringing to justice the perpetrators of crime and violence against women.
I propose investments, like that of the Marshall Plan, for planning and financing an Afghan-led national program solely for women, combining the four components of education, health, income and justice, to be funded through a multi-donor trust fund mechanism. A National Action Plan for Women of Afghanistan exists, but it is hardly operational, as per the Afghan government's recent progress report, 100 Days after Kabul Conference, which records only a 22 per cent rate of progress in implementing the plan. Gender is often argued to be a cross-cutting theme for programming on any sector or priority, and gender mainstreaming is the mantra of the donors. However, this prized strategy of gender mainstreaming has produced few benefits for women to date. It is time to develop a national program from which women could draw direct benefits rather than being sidelined with the excuse of integrating gender issues in all programming efforts, which is not done in practice.
Canada should take the initiative in helping the Afghan government to develop a focused national women's program, with the components mentioned above, and take up a major share of the financing, along with other donors. Savings made with the end of our combat mission could be used for financing a national program for women on a priority basis. Portions of the existing national action plan for women that contribute to these components should be included in the national program.
Finally, the importance of women participating in and shaping a political dialogue geared towards a lasting and meaningful peace was a central theme in the period after the signing of the Bonn Agreement in December 2001. Not only has this promise been neglected, but women have hardly been consulted in the discussions on the national reconciliation plans with the Taliban.
Afghan women say that while they want peace, they are concerned that the agreements reached with the Taliban could threaten any hard-won gains for women, albeit limited, over the past seven years. Women want a just peace process and ask that they should be considered as participants in the process for the establishment of peace and stability and not be treated as bystanders and mere victims of circumstances.
Canada must take leadership in endorsing this demand, but I propose also that Canada's continued aid presence in Afghanistan be contingent upon the reconciliation process fully protecting the constitutional rights of the Afghan women, not only in theory but in practice.
Senator Jaffer: Professor, thank you very much for your presentation. You certainly have given us a lot to work with. I appreciate that.
You talked about education and health being at the village level and about income-generating micro-credit and also about access to justice and not having impunity. Certainly you have given us ideas about what we can suggest.
I have questions for you on the Marshall Plan.
Ms. Banerjee: I call it the Marshall Plan.
Senator Jaffer: I believe we all know what you mean.
Who would disburse the funds on the Marshall Plan?
Ms. Banerjee: Recently I wrote an article in the Policy Options journal. There is a problem in Afghanistan. We want to hand over responsibilities. The international community eventually must get out of Afghanistan. No country can be developed by foreigners. However, at this time, because of a trust deficit, because of not only Canadian but also generally the international community's concerns about corruption, we are contracting out programs to our own private sector agencies or NGOs, although NGOs are very much required. Mainly I would consider private sector agencies. When we do this, the Afghan government is not practising the development of programs or how to be accountable. The spirit of accountability is not being engendered in them. If they do not practice, this excuse that they are corrupt can go on forever, or they do not have the capacity.
For the development of capacity and of a spirit of accountability, we need to work with the Afghans in developing national programs. They in fact have 22 national programs. They have developed the concepts. However, they do not have the capacity to develop them fully, and particularly on accountability they need our assistance.
Therefore, I propose that the international community, through multilateral trust funds, plan programs together with the government, and the government implements them. The funding goes through the trust fund to the Afghan government's budget process. However, accountability needs to be ensured by deciding, with an agreement with the Afghan government, as to what they will produce or deliver every quarter or every six months. Every quarter you cannot have outcome results, but there could be deliverables, direct outputs. If they do not deliver the outputs or outcomes that have been planned together, then the next tranche of disbursement will not be released.
That is one of the best ways. The Afghan government probably will not like it very much, but this is a better process because it would enable us to pass our money through the Afghan government's budget process and give them a sense of accountability. They have to do this.
Senator Jaffer: I understand that we have committed — I may be wrong on this fact — that by 2014, 50 per cent of the monies will go through the Afghan budget process and 80 per cent will be according to the priorities that the Afghan government sets. Is that the kind of formula you are looking at?
Ms. Banerjee: Yes. Honestly speaking, I forget now. I think they said within two years, or was it 2014? I cannot remember exactly. That was the London communiqué and the Kabul Conference communiqué that said that 50 per cent should go through the Afghan government's budget process. I do not see it happening very fast. By 2014, it is possible, but we need to start working on that.
In order that I can also address your concerns or Canadians' concerns about corruption, if it goes through a trust fund, normally an organization like the World Bank is responsible for accountability. In the beginning of this decade, 2003 to 2006, a large percentage of our funding was going through these trust funds and going through the budget process. However, because of the Manley commission recommendation, we withdrew our funds from the national programs, and we are now focusing in Kandahar only, almost 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the funds, and we have cut down on the national programs.
In my view, that was not the right thing to do because you really cannot do things for people in the country. In my 30 years of experience with CIDA, I have never seen a country that has developed where donors are really doing things for them.
I went to Bangladesh about nine years after Bangladesh was born, and at that time Bangladesh was about 98 per cent dependent on donor funds, and now it is only 4 per cent. However, our strategy in Bangladesh was such that we did our own programming, but at the same time we invested in capacity building of the government. Together with food aid, we provided them with technical assistance to develop their capacity to do research on high-yielding varieties of seeds, and today Bangladesh is self-sufficient in food.
Bangladesh is actually a success story. Anywhere in the world you would go, you would not find that development takes place if foreigners and private sector agencies from those countries are delivering services.
Senator Jaffer: Do you think we have the right approach when our CIDA minister is saying you have to bid for contracts?
Ms. Banerjee: Probably you are referring to the most recent thing about the NGOs. NGOs had a program facility that existed since the 1970s. Now the minister is saying that the NGOs have to bid for contracts. She says that CIDA would work with the government in the development of programs that would be tendered out. I really do not know how that will work out. However, I also think that unsolicited proposals are quite important for NGOs because CARE, Oxfam and some of the smaller NGOs do very good work. They also are working in direct contract with the Government of Afghanistan. In those areas, they are delivering extremely well.
Apparently they deliver better when they are contracted directly by the Government of Afghanistan, and the Government of Afghanistan has control over their activities and also gets reporting. They perform better then as compared to our government giving direct funds.
This contracting, this bidding for contracts, will be a contract between our government and the NGOs. It is not really direct contracting by the Afghan government.
Senator Jaffer: You do not think that will be effective?
Ms. Banerjee: It will work out. NGOs are very upset. Some of them discussed this with me.
Our partnership program is unique in the world. I started my life with the partnership program in CIDA, and it was an innovative vice-president who started the partnership program. Nowhere in the world did they have the partnership program that funds NGOs, professional associations of doctors, nurses — even the Canadian Labour Congress used to be funded — and universities and colleges of Canada, et cetera. It is a very unique program, which the other countries later adopted, and Scandinavian countries have developed the program very well.
I think it would be unfortunate if we lost the spirit of the partnership program.
Senator Brazeau: At the beginning of the presentation, you mentioned that according to Islamic scholars, Islam prescribed that men and women have equal rights, such as inheritance, the right to vote, the right to work and the right to choose their own partners in marriage. Yet the critics out there are saying that Westerners are trying to impose their values on the Afghan people regarding the rights of Afghan women. Obviously, many of those critics are the ones who do not support or believe in Afghan women's rights.
First, in your experience, how do Afghan women view Canada's role, especially with the protection and promotion of their rights, whatever that looks like, what we have done to date and whatever that could look like in the future?
Second, how do we overcome the barriers and challenges and the mentality of those who oppose Afghan women's rights?
Ms. Banerjee: I think I mentioned this in my prepared presentation, that these rights awareness programs are not very much liked by the Afghans; I have noted that. This is correct even with educated young people. The rights awareness is not very much supported, and we do a lot of those kinds of programs.
That is why I proposed that if you can do something, if you can have the same results of educating women, getting them justice, getting them the health and income, imperceptibly and without having a backlash, it will be gradual but it will be successful. I can give you a small example from my Bangladesh days again —
There is not much point at this time, particularly when the Taliban insurgency really has strengthened so much and security has become one of the major problems; probably it is a better idea not to raise issues that will get people's backs up. I do not think we should stop, however. We should have community-based village schools.
I was listening to Mr. Jamal's presentation and the questions and answers. The Government of Afghanistan realizes, particularly in health and education, that it does not have the capacity to deliver directly. The Afghan government likes to get the assistance from the NGOs. Actually, these are the two sectors where the government has been most successful in delivering, along with rural development through the National Solidarity Programme, which is a national program through a multilateral trust fund.
The NGOs told me that the first thing to do is to go to the mosque and discuss with the mullah that they want to have a small school in one of the village elders' houses — not even outside, you do not need a building. The boundaries and the issues of buildings and bathrooms probably do not arise. A village elder agrees to give a room.
It takes time for the mullah to be convinced. As a funny aside, one of the mullahs apparently said, ``I am very concerned that with education, my daughter will start writing love letters, and I do not like that.'' An NGO told me this. They discussed this issue and why education was important, and the mullah eventually agreed.
It does take time, but eventually this can be done. This is why I am not in favour of building big schools, which become very visible and become targets of attacks. I would prefer having village schools.
What the NGOs do is take a high school graduate from the village itself, and they train that person very quickly. I am not saying it is quality training, but you have to start somewhere. They train for a year and then they start a primary school.
I visited some of these schools, and I have talked to the girls. Some of the girls, because they missed out on education during the Taliban period, are teenagers and are attending primary schools. I have talked to them; I went to one of the schools before the election in 2004. I asked them, if they had the right to vote, what kind of person they would vote for. The girls said that their first priority for a person is one who would give them education and that helped them to give their children education.
It is very important. Imagine a small village school. The room is not even half the size of this room; it is a very small room. The students sit on the floor, and this young girl has been teaching. However, how education has created a consciousness in the young girls' minds impressed me very much.
When you go to Afghanistan next time, senators, I would advise you to ask to visit some of these village community schools.
Senator Kochhar: Thank you, Ms. Banerjee, for a knowledgeable, in-depth presentation. I am trying to understand how the Canadian government can help to better educate the women in Afghanistan.
There is much difference between the Islamic religion and the culture of Afghanistan. There is the old culture, and then there is a new culture developed by mullahs.
Regarding the fact box you gave with about seven or eight bullet points on page 1 of your presentation, are these due to the Islamic religion, or is that because of the culture of Afghanistan — of the new or old culture? That is my first question.
Second, you talked about the national program. The whole Afghan society is so fragmented that the way I read it or understand it, the national government really does not have that much control over the different parts of Afghanistan. It is the regional chiefs and the generals and mullahs who control their education.
How would a national program help in a very fragmented system, and how much money would reach those regions, given that so much money never reaches anyplace except the politicians themselves?
What exactly do you think we should do so that we can effect some real, meaningful change in that society?
Ms. Banerjee: First, the problems outlined in my fact box comments have developed over the years. Originally, Islam was not like that. I have talked to female Muslim lawyers who say that the Quran never asked women to cover their heads or to not be educated. That is not found anywhere in the Quran. These things have developed more as a culture. During the Taliban years, they became very deeply rooted. It will take time to get that out. This is why I say that it would be better to come out in a low-profile fashion for education rather than in a very high-profile fashion.
I truly think there is a myth to the fragmentation. I have talked to many people. It is difficult for me to go outside of Kabul because of the insecure situation. I have no protection because I go alone. However, I have talked to guards, drivers, storekeepers, and lower-level and mid-level civil servants who do not think that the country is that fragmented.
No one I have spoken to wants to go back to the Taliban days. In fact, I talked to the former rural development minister who told me that the tribal leaders have lost a lot of their influence. Certainly the war lords reign, but the tribal leaders do not have the kind of influence they used to have.
The fragmentation is due mainly to the strengthening of the Taliban insurgency. The government does not have adequate control over various areas. At the same time, it has not lost completely the support of the people. I would say that people in Afghanistan are not against foreign troops, but they do not like their overriding values and night raids. They want foreign troops to stay because they are concerned that the oppressive regime of the Taliban would return.
I will use the example of the National Solidarity Programme, in which the NGOs were used widely. They went down to the villages to the grassroots level to raise community awareness about how to participate in community development processes. NGOs work like that in many countries. There are international and local NGOs working on that. CARE does work on that as well. The NGOs go to villages to raise the awareness of both women and men. When they consider the groups to be ready, they inform the central government. The central government receives funding from a multi-donor trust fund. We used to fund the program in the amount of about $30 million per year. The communities that are considered ready elect a community development council through a secret ballot. The program is based on an Indonesian program, but it is very much influenced by the Indian system.
The Chair: May I ask: Do women vote at this level?
Ms. Banerjee: They used to create a women's council and a men's council. They voted, formed the councils, and $61,000 in a block grant would be sent from the central government, which was financed by the donors, to the community development councils.
They would sit together then and decide on the priorities of the communities and what they would do with the small amount of $61,000. I have sat on the floor with village council men and women. I never covered my head. They told me that it was beyond their dream that the government would let them have funding for determining their own priorities and a participatory process. They were all for the government and said that if they built a school with their own funds and labour, they would never let the Taliban touch it. It is true that none of the schools built by these community development councils has been burned or torn down, because the communities protect them.
You need to get the government to earn the confidence and loyalty of the people. This is what they got from this. The fragmentation can be prevented if you connect government to the people and have their presence in the development.
Unfortunately, there are 34 provinces, and there is not enough money for the National Solidarity Programme, although we cut down hugely. We give them $5 million per year now — hardly anything. In my view, it can be done.
Senator Oliver: I commend you for an excellent presentation. I found it to be clear, persuasive, logical and based upon the realities of the country and what is on the ground. I liked your four components, but I have a couple of questions to test whether the fourth one is realistic about access to justice for women and law enforcement for bringing to justice the perpetrators of crime and violence against women.
I know a little about the justice system. Earlier in your paper you said that despite some changes in Afghanistan, the repression of women is still very much a reality; and you gave two examples. You said that numerous schools for girls have been burned down, and little girls have been poisoned to death for daring to go to school.
You want to have access to justice for women to go against the perpetrators. You have told us that the perpetrators of many sex crimes and other crimes against women and girls are the fathers and brothers in the home. How will you get justice if the perpetrators are family members?
Ms. Banerjee: With family members, it is difficult.
Senator Oliver: Is this a realistic component?
Ms. Banerjee: I think it is realistic. The justice system is not working. Justice reforms have not been carried out. A justice reform program was developed but never implemented. The justice system is extremely corrupt. Even if they are caught, the perpetrators of crime get off scot-free.
Senator Oliver: Often the perpetrators are the fathers and the brothers — the men in the family.
Ms. Banerjee: In many cases they are. That is one of the most difficult things.
Senator Oliver: Is your fourth component realistic?
Ms. Banerjee: We have to make it realistic. That is what I am saying. Impunity needs to be removed, and justice reforms must be done.
Yes, relatives are often the perpetrators. You know of the case in Canada where the father, brother and even the mother were involved. Our justice system is different. We have a justice system that can take care of it. What you are asking, I suppose, is how this could be possible when the justice system is not working out. That is the most difficult point in my presentation and in my view. However, I think that that needs to be taken care of. We cannot leave that out.
Senator Oliver: It is on your wish list.
Ms. Banerjee: It is on my wish list, yes. Canada could put conditions on our aid, saying that perpetrators of crime, whether or not family, must be brought to justice, and the justice system must be reformed. There are some efforts at a mobile justice system also. I understand it is still not working out very well.
I do not think the international community has been strong enough in Afghanistan in transparently discussing some of the problems. Corruption does not develop in a day; it has been on the go for a while. We hardly ever raised it in the past. I attend many meetings. Women's issues are hardly ever discussed. In the last Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board meeting, our ambassador did raise the issues of women, but that kind of passes by, and we need to be stronger. Particularly, the justice system is one of the most backward systems in Afghanistan, and perhaps we should make our aid conditional upon improving justice.
The Chair: I want to continue on the justice theme.
I cannot help but remember, Senator Oliver, that it has taken Canada a great deal of time to develop the justice system that says there is rape within marriage and that it is a criminal offence and so on. Afghanistan, here you go, good luck.
There are many justice systems. There are at least three or so in Afghanistan. What you are talking about is the secular justice system of courts, right? You are talking about police involvement in apprehending.
Ms. Banerjee: It is a secular justice system, yes. In India they still have sharia law for the Muslim population, but it is a just system. If there are criminal actions, then it is taken care of.
The Chair: You said 80 per cent of women are in forced marriages. How would we deal with something as complex as that in terms of justice?
Ms. Banerjee: A solution for that would have to be a decree for preventing child marriages and forced marriages. Some of the girls are married at 12 or 13 years old. This is one of the reasons the maternal mortality rate is so high; their uterus and ovaries are not even developed when they are bearing babies, and often these are the ones who die.
There must be decrees. Forced marriage is not in the sharia law. There is a rape law, I understand. I must say one thing. I am not a complete authority on Islamic laws. I have read, and for my work what is required I do. If there are lawyers here, then I think probably they could have better solutions, but I think there need to be decrees for preventing forced marriages. In India, for instance, and here as well, minor girls cannot be married.
We must be realistic. In India, where democracy has been working for years, and it is the most populous democracy, you know that the dowry system is banned — it is unlawful — yet the President of India declared the other day that dowry deaths are increasing. Women are committing suicide because they are being threatened because of the dowry.
If countries as advanced as India are having problems, it will take years before you can have these things ameliorated or the justice system working. However, my hope is that when women get educated they will get a consciousness, and they will be able to lobby for their rights.
At this time I find that women who are in positions and who can negotiate with the government are not doing so because they are afraid of losing their positions. This is true in many developing countries; it happens everywhere. Always educated, urban, elite women take the lead, and reforms are not really progressing. In Afghanistan this is happening. I will not mention any names, because they are very close friends of mine as well, but they did not even say much against the sharia law. It will take a long time.
The Chair: We have five minutes left. Senator Jaffer and Senator Zimmer would like to ask questions, and I would like to add to it. You can answer all of the questions together.
If you controlled all of CIDA's money for Afghanistan, what two things would you spend it on?
Senator Zimmer: I have two quick questions. We have had a lot of debate about how long we should stay in. I was in Afghanistan with the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence two years ago. Three of the key elements were education, health care and income opportunities. We saw the income opportunities in the development of a bakery for men and an embroidery shop for women, and they were building their own road. The questions then, which have been debated a lot, are how long do we stay, when do we pull out, and when we pull out, should we come back and monitor. One thing is the violence and the corruption of the police force. Do we come back and monitor that?
In your opinion, how long should we stay, and how often should we return?
Ms. Banerjee: How often should we return?
Senator Jaffer: Much of what you have said is about training. I do not know the complete details, but I understand our government is looking at training the armed forces and the police. What other training would you recommend that we recommend to our government be included in the training they will do until 2014?
Ms. Banerjee: Are you talking about our troops?
Senator Jaffer: It could be CIDA.
Ms. Banerjee: It could be CIDA, okay.
The troops can train the army and the police, but I assume that the strategy is not training. Training is not working out very well because the police remain corrupt. We do not have a clue as to how many units of the army can work independently without the support of the foreign troops. We do not get that information in our government's reports.
I must say, I find American reports more transparent than our reports. Our reports are very quantitative, that we have trained so many people. That is not exactly the issue. The issue is how effectively they have been trained. With the police, it does not look like it has been very effective, and it is not known how many army units are independent.
Although I think army and police training should continue, with Canada they should look at their strategy and have more concrete measures of assessing the success of the training program for the police and the army as well.
With regard to what else they should do, it is important that the Afghan government's institutions that are supposed to deliver the basic services do not have the capacity to do that. They do not have the capacity to deliver health services, education services or justice. Therefore, capacity building for delivering services by the Afghan government institutions is extremely important.
We have done part of that, but there is a problem in Afghanistan with technical assistance. It is difficult to recruit. It is not only Canada; it is throughout the world, the international community. They have difficulty recruiting people to stay in Afghanistan for longer-term periods, because of insecurity. Therefore, the type of technical assistance that we send to Afghanistan is not very good quality. This is one of the reasons we are failing to develop the capacity.
Training is very much required. From there, I will move to the question about the monitoring and evaluation. The kind of training they need is how to plan a development program. They have concepts for 22 national programs. I do not know how they will develop the programs; they cannot. They have to be trained in how to develop a program. They have to be trained in the management, in accountability and in how to monitor and evaluate the results.
Immediately after I left CIDA, I volunteered with a small NGO. They paid my travel fare but I did not charge them any fees. In CIDA, I had experience in performance management for the Asia branch; I had been doing the training.
People say you cannot impose Western concepts into Afghanistan. I used the same training material, with translations in Pashto and Bari. I did not do it, but they themselves did that. I used the material to train, and it has worked wonderfully. There is a team in the ministry of finance that is able now to train the line ministry people in planning and management, project design monitoring and evaluation. I think that job is very important.
As for how long we stay, the development presence should be for a long time. In Bangladesh, we started in 1971 and we are still there — not as strong a presence as we used to have, but we are still there. I think India decided not to take any aid from us. In Thailand, we eventually exited. We take a long time to exit from places, I must say.
In Afghanistan, the development presence would require a long time. However, I think the combat troops should stop after the agreed time. I do not know; the parliamentary resolution is there, and I do not want to recommend against a parliamentary resolution. The training should remain, and development assistance should continue. For the latter, I would say for a very long time — up to 2020, maybe.
Senator Zimmer: May I ask a 10-second question?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Zimmer: You will probably throw your glass at me, but I must ask you this. I recently got engaged. My fiancée is very much into fashion. Where did you buy that beautiful jacket?
Ms. Banerjee: This is an Afghan jacket.
The Chair: Our next witnesses are from CARE Canada.
Kevin McCort, President and Chief Executive Officer, CARE Canada: Honourable senators, I want to thank you for inviting me here to speak to you about how Canada can and should be the leader in supporting and empowering Afghan women as we consider the future role of Canada in Afghanistan.
I hope you have all had a chance to see the report CARE Canada released in October with recommendations for how Canada can play that leadership role. If not, I have brought some copies. The primary author of the report, CARE's expert on women's issues in Afghanistan, and a Canadian, Jennifer Rowell, could not be here to answer your questions as she has returned to Kabul. However, if any of you would like an opportunity to speak with her, please feel free to contact me.
So that you are aware of our background and level of expertise, I will tell you that as of 2011, CARE will have been working in Afghanistan for 50 years. We were there during the Taliban years. The only time we did not have a direct presence was during the Soviet invasion and occupation, when we moved our office across the border to Peshawar in Pakistan and continued with direct programs with Afghan partner organizations from there.
We are the largest partner in the largest coalition providing education for Afghan children, particularly girls. With support from CIDA, we have had programs working with vulnerable Afghan widows providing food, livestock and vocational training; teaching them about rights; and organizing them into advocacy associations so they can fight for those rights. We also do maternal health programming.
I would like to briefly address the question: Why women? According to the United Nations' Human Development Index, Afghanistan currently stands at 181 out of the 182 countries analyzed through that method. According to the Gender-Related Development Index, which measures disparity between men and women in basic human development, Afghanistan currently has the lowest recorded GDI rating in the world, ranking 155 out of 155 countries. Afghanistan is currently tied with Sierra Leone in having the second-highest maternal mortality rate in the world.
Afghan women have made some significant gains since 2001. A record number of women ran in the recent Afghan parliamentary elections, despite the threats and risks. In 2001, a little more than 100,000 children were going to primary school in all of Afghanistan, and very few of them were girls. Today there are over seven million children in school, and one third of them are girls. However, we are at risk of losing all those gains if we do not work now to preserve them.
It is simply the right thing to do. Real development is not possible without gender equity. Human security is not possible without gender equity. Beyond this, these are dangerous times. Afghan women are scared. They fear what might be ahead. They are willing to stand their ground, but they need strong supporters in their corner.
Why should Canada take on this role? Canada is strongly positioned to become a leader. There is a vacancy, and Canada has both the credibility and the structure to fill it. Canada is already ahead of most of the other donor nations in terms of gender programming and in speaking out publicly in defence of Afghan women's rights, such as opposing the Shia family law.
Focusing on women will not only reinforce Canada's character as one of the world's defenders of human rights and justice but also will actually strengthen that standing in the eyes of the world.
Focusing on women is also a cost-effective way to have maximum impact. This policy focus does not have to mean increasing the development budget for Afghanistan or redirecting the military budget to support the new focus. What CARE Canada is suggesting is simply scaling up some of the successful work Canada is already doing or supporting, and examining and adjusting some of the other programs to make them more effective. It would mean being the added value, in equity programming specifically but also in other priority areas that Canada is interested in supporting.
What does Canada need to focus on to be the leader in empowering Afghan women? In the area of development, everyone is focusing on availability of services, but limited attention is being put on women's access to those services. The report outlines several options on how this might be done. Some key areas Canada can invest in are maternal health and secondary education. Canada has recently committed $2.85 billion to maternal and child health over the next five years. As already stated, Afghanistan has one of the worst maternal and child health situations in the world. On education, there has been considerable work and considerable success in increasing girls' access to primary education. However, once girls complete primary school, there are few opportunities for them to continue their education if they wish.
In the area of rule of law, we know that human security is impossible in the absence of rule of law. Canada can still be involved in the overall matter of human security even after Canadian troops pull out by focusing its attention on preparing the ground in which real human security must find a foundation. The report describes options on how this might be done. One specific suggestion is improving the training for Afghan police in the area of community policing and women's rights. Currently, Afghan police get eight weeks of training. Over seven weeks of this is counter- insurgency policing. Less than four days is spent on community policing, and only half an hour is devoted to the specific issues surrounding women's rights.
With respect to peace and reconciliation, NATO recently declared that the presence of a handful of women in the High Peace Council is a ``sure sign of progress.'' It may be welcome, but progress has to be measured by results, not just presence. Canada can be the one that pushes for the right safeguards for women's rights and participation to be put into place. No one else is doing it. Canada can support women's groups to be their own leaders and then follow their lead. Civil society needs backers if it is to take on the tough issues. They do not need more training courses on how to be leaders. They need resources and support to engage in monitoring, report generation, advocacy, and so on.
Canada can deliver messages from women in forums they are unable to access. This means three things: consult, represent and deliver. Develop a consultation calendar with women on key issues. Be the player consistently able to say how women are feeling and what they are thinking on issues that matter. Negotiate their space at the table at every occasion, or speak on their behalf where they are unable to speak; literally, as we are trying to do with this report, carry to the table a message prepared by the women's groups and ask for time to read it out loud. Finally, to the degree possible, Canada's own policy positions should be driven by the results of these consultations.
I would like to close by addressing a few pervasive myths and challenges regarding women and women's rights in Afghanistan.
First and foremost, advocating for Afghan women's rights is not imposing Western values. In all major agreements and strategic plans since Bonn, the Afghan government has committed itself to gender equity and has asserted Afghan ownership of these principles. The Afghan constitution guarantees these rights. It now requires the support, and often the push, to turn its commitments into living principles.
Second, Afghan culture is not the barrier everyone thinks it is. Too much gets lumped under the label ``culture,'' but if you break it down, analysis might reveal that ``culture'' is actually a matter of distance or cost or ignorance. Many Afghan fathers are not sending their daughters to school not because they do not believe in educating girls but because the school is too far or lacks women teachers or is too expensive. Where culture is indeed a factor, engagement directly with men, or partnering with moderate mullahs, has proven to be effective. CARE has proven successes working with women and their communities on education, health and livelihoods for women. The report details options for how this can be done.
As for challenges, much attention is placed on integrating gender across bureaucracies, but real change is not possible without political will at the senior levels of Afghan government. Civil society must be given the capacity to monitor and report on abuses and to challenge the culture of impunity at the highest level. This is one of the most important duties of civil society anywhere in the world, and Canada's full effort should go into supporting this task in Afghanistan.
Another challenge relates to reporting success to the Canadian public. Among the reasons why ``softer'' issues of access are less invested in, or socio-cultural barriers are rarely addressed, is because donor governments feel they need to prove impact through concrete numbers to their taxpayers. We build schools and hospitals because they are easy to count and report to the public, while failing to address the various barriers that prevent women and girls from using those facilities. The fact that you cannot see tangible results from working on issues of access or socio-cultural barriers is also a myth. Our maternal and neonatal support programming attests to this. We have proven dramatic improvements in maternal health when basic information is passed to household decision makers. These are hard facts — attributable, genuine improvements in people's lives backed up with concrete statistics and often attainable for the fraction of investment of facility construction.
Finally there is the issue of time. We are at a critical crossroads with the peace and reconciliation happening. We have to act now.
I am happy to take any questions you may have. I am joined by Kieran Green, who was in Afghanistan in August and September and helped to prepare the report that was circulated a few minutes ago.
The Chair: I would like to ask the first question on this round. We see all of these statistics about girls' education, the degree of violence against women and the arranged marriages. However, the thesis is generally held — and I hold it too — that unless women are involved, educated and healthy, society will crumble; so we have to do it.
Even though Afghanistan is signatory to some international covenants, why should I believe that they have any intention of doing anything about it?
Mr. McCort: I will answer from a couple of perspectives. One is on the very tough and related issue of female genital mutilation. We have made substantive and real progress in eliminating this practice in parts of Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia. Through a patient methodology of understanding and identifying that, like many of the issues we talk about that are holding back women's progress in Afghanistan, there is no religious or authentic base for the discrimination that women face, such as female genital cutting and child marriage. You can establish with leaders in communities that these are cultural traditions. If they are cultural traditions, they have been built up over time and can be un-built over time. This is the premise we start with. Enough people want to see an end to these practices, and we start with them. We work with the communities that want to see an end to such practices, and we use them as our ambassadors.
The Chair: Are these villagers?
Mr. McCort: Yes. For issues such as female genital cutting and mutilation, we often start with the women.
The Chair: Can we stick to Afghanistan?
Mr. McCort: Yes. The model of starting with community members is appropriate and relevant. The basis of our programming is consulting with communities about the problems they are trying to overcome. They talk about being poor and unhealthy. We ask what is causing the problems. They often realize the barriers and that they are poor and unhealthy because women do not have access to water and the girls are not in school. They begin to realize that addressing the problems of women can solve the problems they have identified. It is a long and patient process, but it works.
The Chair: After CARE presented in the House of Commons, there was a fair bit of buzz around at least some of the women in Parliament. At page 5, in the second paragraph, you say to negotiate women's space at every table at every occasion or speak on their behalf. This statement was quite shocking to a number of parliamentarians. Perhaps you could explain what you meant.
Mr. McCort: Are you asking about speaking on their behalf?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. McCort: We often find that people will come to us and say, ``We are not invited to Bonn or to Ottawa. Can you please take our messages for us?'' Community groups and our partners ask us to take messages on their behalf. When we say ``speak on their behalf,'' it is because they have told us what they want relayed and have asked us to be their voice, their mouthpiece and their advocate.
Kieran Green, Communications Manager, CARE Canada: If I may build on what we were suggesting that Canada can do, there are active women's organizations, women's NGOs and advocacy groups in Afghanistan. Any time that Canada plans to go to Bonn, to peace talks, to a donors' meeting or to any such meetings, we send our representatives out to these groups beforehand and ask whether they have something they want said to the international community. We ask them to write it down. As we said in the presentation, when the Canadian representative sits down at the table, he or she can say, ``Madam chair, I have brought a prepared statement from these women's groups in Afghanistan. I would like five minutes to read it.''
It is not a case of Canada putting words in their mouths or claiming to represent them. It is a case of Canada delivering their words to the international fora.
The Chair: Do I assume in this example that Afghanistan is not present or that the members speaking for Afghanistan would not relate these messages?
Mr. Green: It is likely all of the above, given the different situations and circumstances.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for your presentation and report, which I found very useful.
Which areas were you present in?
Mr. McCort: I was in the areas south of Kabul in Ghazni, Logar and Paktya, as well as areas to the west and north.
Senator Jaffer: Did you run schools as well?
Mr. McCort: Yes. With CIDA support, we did a number of girls' education programs in girls' schools.
Senator Jaffer: Your report talks about building culturally sensitive gender education facilities. This afternoon, all our presentations have been about girls' education. You were in the area for a very long time. What three things does Canada need to do to ensure that girls are educated?
Mr. McCort: The first thing to do is talk to community members about their education requirements and ensure, as Ms. Banerjee said earlier, that the community supports the creation of a school. Having local champions is the first step.
Second, ensure that the facility is physically suitable for gender concerns and has toilets with walls and is constructed in ways that are appropriate so that the community supports sending their girls to that school.
Third, the facility has to have people with the ability to impart an education. It does not have to be spectacular, but it has to be worth sending children there. When a family changes a girls' day from collecting firewood, gathering water or looking after livestock, it has to know that what she will learn at school is helping that family. The results matter.
Senator Jaffer: Most of the presentations today have been about primary school and early education. What would you say for girls to continue with their education? The challenge will be there. They will have to go far away, possibly to boarding schools. How do you deal with those challenges?
Mr. McCort: It is a big challenge partly highlighted by the fact that after several years of putting more and more girls in school, we see an increased demand for secondary education.
Did you look specifically at secondary education? The challenges are common all around the world, and you have identified them as cost and distance. In Afghanistan, it is even more pronounced. Our approach is always to start where it is possible, to start in the communities where we can deliver secondary education. We do not begin in the furthest, most remote community because it creates too many barriers. We tend to start where there is opportunity that we can meet and work out from there.
Senator Jaffer: I understand that Minister Oda will ask for a bidding process for groups like yours to continue your work in the region. Are you able to comment on how successful that would be?
Mr. McCort: I can talk about CIDA at length. CARE is one of CIDA's largest partners. We engage with CIDA in every channel, in partnership branch, through the bilateral and multilateral branches, through unsolicited proposals, requests for proposals and juried competitions in 32 countries in all theme areas. I am fine with the request for proposals. I have no problem with that as a method. We respect CIDA's willingness.
The Minister of International Cooperation, Bev Oda, and the president of CIDA, Margaret Biggs, have said to me on different occasions that when we are using Canadian taxpayers' money, they want to be able to answer the question: Is this the best use of this money?
They have often said they can say for certain it is a good use, but they cannot say it is the best use unless they have had some kind of competition where organizations present their ideas and then they have a process of choosing the best ones. I am fully in favour of that because it is in our interests that the Canadian public see that their aid dollars are going to the best possible uses. If it means us putting our best ideas on the table and going through a process where CIDA identifies the priorities and selects the ones it feels are the best, I am okay with that.
Senator Jaffer: There is talk about us providing a training role to 2014. What would you want included in the training? You have tremendous experience in the region. What specific things would you want our government to look at training? I do not know whether they will train the armed forces or the police force; I am not sure of the details. You may have not have the answer today, but you could provide it to the clerk.
Mr. McCort: One recommendation in the report and that Jennifer Rowell spoke passionately about when she was here was in the area of police training. The view in Afghanistan is that Canada, the RCMP in particular, has a good reputation in Afghanistan, that its ability to do police training is strong. However, I would add the recommendation that the training focus much more on community policing and, specifically, with modules and components created for addressing the rights and needs of women.
Senator Jaffer: So gender training and investigations.
Mr. McCort: Everything, yes.
Senator Oliver: I think you two were in the room when I was asking questions of the previous witness about justice and the rule of law. I have looked at your report that you handed out, at page 31 where you deal with the rule of law. The ultimate question I want to ask you is what specific things do you recommend Canada can do to raise the awareness, understanding and comprehension of what the rule of law means so that it can become part of life in Afghanistan today.
The first sentence on page 31 of your report says, ``The rule of law is a culture as well as a practice, a `habit' formed by those accountable and those held to account, and permeates deep into local communities.''
Later on, you talk about some of the abuses women face that go unreported and unchallenged. Those responsible for forcing illegal marriages or withholding economic rights are not being prosecuted, and when they are, court rulings are often influenced by bribes or patronage, which are not at the disposal of the majority of women and which are sanctioned through silence by a culture of impunity.
It sounds to me, based on your report, that there is a long way to go before the rule of law is going to become a habit, a practice, a reality in that country.
Canada's foreign policy is based upon the fact that we like to do business with and cooperate with countries who respect the rule of law and human rights and equality. Where are we going in Afghanistan, given our public policies and foreign policies?
Mr. McCort: For us, the critical way to address it is starting at the grassroots, as low as possible. We do not start at the top; we start at the bottom. What I mean by that is really working to develop both supply and demand of justice.
We take the same model in health care and in education. By supply and demand I mean often working with citizens so that they are aware of their rights and they know what they can expect and what they can demand. Simultaneously, it is working with those people who are obligated to serve that population so that they understand their obligations to community members. Also, ultimately a monitoring process is needed that helps support both sides — those who are demanding justice and those who are providing it — to understand that if they work more effectively together, their community is better served and development comes to that community. However, it is a long process.
Beyond the theory, some of the specific things we do include ensuring that in police stations there are women to whom women can report the crimes; ensuring that there are confidential consultation spaces; and ensuring that there are ways people can start to engage with the justice system, which at the moment is very unfriendly and unwelcoming.
You can start to identify outreach opportunities where community policing is happening in the community as opposed to only in the police station. There are specific things you can do to try to make justice less alien and more community-based.
Senator Oliver: Are you doing any of that now?
Mr. Green: I do not believe there are any CARE projects specifically targeted at that. However, we do work in partnership with some women's advocacy groups and women's lawyers groups and provide them with support in seeking justice and in addressing these issues.
On a larger scale, that is something that Canada can do to help address this whole rule-of-law issue and, as well, this whole broader issue of monitoring. That applies not only to the rule of law but to all these other issues.
Canada does not have to be the monitor. We do not have to be the one standing over the shoulder of the Afghan government, saying that is not right. Ms. Banerjee referred to these women's lawyers groups in Afghanistan. These groups exist, but they are starved for resources. They can be watchdogs and monitors if they have support from us.
That does not mean more training sessions on how to be a leader; they have had that. If they have financial and other support resources to do reports, monitoring and watchdog activities, Afghans can be their own watchdogs and change the culture themselves.
Senator Oliver: You were not here when the first witness this afternoon gave evidence. He was talking about NGOs, and he said the people of Afghanistan do not trust NGOs; he said NGOs are seen as money-making tools for corrupt elites. Could you comment?
Mr. McCort: Probably the most relevant comment is that our security and safety in Afghanistan depends on the trust and protection of the communities where we work. Without that, we are not safe.
We have hundreds of staff in Afghanistan. In the last 20 years that I have been with CARE, we have had one kidnapping of our staff, and that was due to bad luck more than anything else.
I would say that from our own perspective, and many NGOs like us, safety and security depends on acceptance and protection of the communities where we work. Therefore, by and large, that statement is not true. You cannot work if you have that kind of sentiment against you. It is critical for us that we ensure that that sentiment remains untrue.
Mr. Green: If I could add to the story of the kidnapping, which shows the level of trust, when that worker was kidnapped, over 1,000 Afghan women took to the streets of Kabul protesting and demanding her return.
The Chair: Are most of these workers Afghani?
Mr. McCort: Yes.
Mr. Green: Yes.
Senator Oliver: So you are respected on the ground for the work that you do as an NGO?
Mr. Green: Yes.
Mr. McCort: I would say we are not alone. Many other organizations enjoy similar levels of respect and protection of the communities within which they work.
Senator Oliver: That is important to know. Thank you.
Senator Brazeau: Given your vast experience working on the ground in Afghanistan, and given that much of the work you do is based on a model of supply and demand, and given that the purpose of this study is to look at Canada's potential role post-2011 in the protection and promotion of Afghan women's rights, based on the demand from Afghan women, what should and can Canada do to address this issue and to feed into our study?
Mr. McCort: I would highlight the demand from Afghan women for safe motherhood and maternal and child survival. The statistics are quite shocking when you look at the rates in some of the remote areas compared to even more serviced parts of Afghanistan. Women and families are saying there is a huge demand, and Canada has a tremendous opportunity to address that.
We have a long-standing tradition of supporting basic education for girls. I think there is a tremendous demand for that in Afghanistan as well. We know the statistics on return on investment for those kinds of investments are quite remarkable.
With regard to economic opportunity, you asked earlier about the two things that you would do if you were to support. I would say you really would have to focus on three things. Our whole premise of working is that as an organization we address the human condition, the social position and the enabling environment. It is only in addressing those three areas can you actually have sustainable change.
Our organization would submit that in Afghanistan there is an almost insatiable demand for the kind of basic, grassroots development work that Canada has been supporting for years and that we do. We have ample expertise in Canada amongst Canadian organizations that can address that.
Senator Brazeau: How would you do it to tackle and address the socio-economic conditions?
Mr. McCort: One of the most successful methods we have is working with Afghan partners. We have a largely Afghan staff, but they multiply their work through Afghan partners. I will take the vocational training program supported by CIDA and implemented with CARE and the World University Service of Canada. We have identified economic needs in communities, identified opportunities for women to be engaged, and worked with a number of Afghan NGOs that actually deliver the training.
We work with women who are identified by the program as widows, destitute women, and heads of households, and we identify with them what kind of economic opportunity they want to pursue, and we train them and then support them as they exit the program. The program has a very high graduation rate and a very low return rate. Therefore it is entirely possible. I have visited women and have sat in their homes as they have shown me how their individual lives have benefited from these programs. It is the combination of extensive Afghan staff and Afghan NGOs on top of that that enables us to get into many parts of the country at a fairly low cost.
Senator Brazeau: Is there a successful engagement of Afghan women in the work you do, then?
Mr. McCort: Yes. The primary focus of our work in Afghanistan is women.
The Chair: Could you tell me what percentage of women in Afghanistan are widows now?
Mr. McCort: I do not know the percentages. We had high numbers in the early 1990s, as we were dealing with the aftermath of the Soviet period. The focus of our programming through the late 1990s and into the early 2000s was dealing with widows and destitute women in particular, but I do not know their percentage of the overall population.
The Chair: It must still be a huge factor to have these single women with children with no income supports.
Mr. McCort: Yes.
Senator Jaffer: You obviously have built schools in village areas or helped to build schools. In an earlier presentation a witness said we have to make sure we work with the imams and the fathers to make sure that they are on board, and we must not — I hope I am saying this correctly and not misquoting — too much emphasize their rights in the Western way but instead work on what is acceptable in that region. What is your approach?
Mr. McCort: It really is based on starting conversations with community members about what problems they want to overcome. It starts with that basic question of what is working well in your community, what is not working well, what do you want to achieve, what do you want to have as your legacy as community leaders or as members. We then step back and ask what is impeding progress. Very often they will identify that they are poor and they do not have jobs. They will identify that they are hungry during certain parts of the year. They have significant periods of seasonal shortages. Often they will identify that they are worried about their personal security or their family's security, and then we start to identify what they can do to deal with that.
More often than not, about three quarters of our programs find that the solutions are dealing with issues that predominantly affect women. Often one reason children are ill is because there is not information or willingness or confidence to engage with the local health practitioners. People do not have enough time to create an income because they are spending too much time gathering water and fuel. You can deal with access to services and have a profound and quick impact on a family's well-being.
We do a lot of work in savings and loans. It is actually pre-micro-finance, as a foundation of economic development. In many communities we have seen tangible progress towards a moderately better life. We by no means try to present either that we have all of the answers or that there are circumstances that we control. We are very modest in saying that there are many things we do not control, but when you are talking with communities about where to start, the process always starts with consultation about what their priorities are and then breaking down and identifying clear, tangible actions they can do.
Often we identify what they can do with their own resources. We bring in external resources as and when necessary, but we do not start with the premise that external resources are coming. We start with the premise that you have needs and resources, let us see what we can do with what you have, and if we can supplement that with external resources, then we go there second. We do not start with the external money at the beginning. That is the methodology that underlies much of our work.
Senator Jaffer: You have them leave what is needed in the community?
Mr. McCort: Yes.
The Chair: Senator Zimmer and I both sat on the Defence Committee at one time and we heard this story, which I will briefly tell you, but my question is really around the transfer of the knowledge you have of how to work successfully, how you can permeate it into other Canadian institutions.
The story Senator Zimmer and I heard was that Canadian army engineers decided to be helpful when they saw some women walking up and down a hill carrying pails of water. They decided to build a mechanical railway or some kind of line to take water up. They consulted about whether that would be a good idea. They consulted with the mullahs and everyone said that would be great. They built this thing and then went back a couple of months later to see how it was. It was smashed. The answer was that the engineers did not talk to the women. They took the only way for the women to get out of their homes and away from them. They would rather carry buckets of water.
I could not believe the story. I thought everyone knew this in the aid business since Barbara Ward did all her stuff in the 1960s, but I guess not. How can you transfer your knowledge to the Canadian army and other such institutions?
Mr. McCort: We offer it many times. I have addressed the staff college in Toronto. I have been to Trenton and to Petawawa on a number of occasions. We find that they are willing to talk to us and eager to hear what we have to say, but there is such a turnover that I could have briefing military people as my full-time job. Now we are running into people who have actually been through it a couple of times, but for the first few years the turnover was quite extensive, and we found that was an impediment to having that knowledge firmly embedded as people did not have time to stay.
The Chair: Did you ever have an opportunity to speak to the senior officers about gender training within the army, so they would be sensitized to ask these questions about women's work beyond the community of male leaders?
Mr. McCort: It would have been a theme within our work, but we did not have a specific education campaign on that.
It is important to note though that while almost every international NGO is saying now that it is important to put women at the centre, it has really only become the mainstream idea in the last couple of years. For a long time that was viewed largely as a niche area, but it has finally become, in our community at least, mainstream, and it is slowly getting out, even broader.
The Chair: It would have been nice had people listened to the YWCAs and other such organizations a hundred of years ago.
Thank you, gentlemen, for coming. Thank you, senators.
(The committee adjourned.)