The World Economic Forum has just recently published its annual rankings of countries in terms of gender equality and gender participation. In preparing the rankings it obtains comparable data from every country, ranks the countries from best to worst, scores each in terms of inequality, and compares each to the average score for all countries in terms of inequality. It makes interesting and for Canada discouraging reading. Canada for all its wealth, believe in equality, and highly developed civil institutions, does not do very well.

Country rankings, in order from one to ten, are Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, South Africa, Denmark, Ireland, Philippines and Lesotho. Canada ranks an embarrassing 25th. Five of the countries which out-rank Canada are lower income developing countries- including countries like Lesotho and South Africa, which as indicated are in the top 10. So much for Canada’s ability to capitalize on its progressive views and high level of economic development to become a truly modern country. Clearly it takes more than an advanced developed economy to achieve equality.

The rankings are also broken down by sub-categories of participation and inequality. Our ranking compared to other countries in terms of income equality is 28th, pay for equal work 21st, labour force participation 22nd, enrollment in high school 87th, healthy life expectancy 67th, and women in ministerial positions in government 69th. These results are embarrassing and disturbing. How is that Canada is so far behind so much of the world when it comes to equality for women?

The Economic Forum understand what all of this means, stating: “From a values and social justice perspective, empowering women and providing them with equal rights and opportunities for fulfilling their potential is long overdue. From a business, economic and competitiveness viewpoint, targeting gender parity is a necessary condition for progress”. This is not coming from some bleeding heart social NGO. The World Economic Forum is the top big business organization in the world. It is the world equivalent of the BC Business Council in BC and the Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) representing the CEOs of Canada’s leading enterprises. It is not known for radical positions. And of course gender equality is no longer radical anywhere else except Canada. Can anyone imagine the C.D. Howe Institute, another Canadian pillar of business thought, even contemplating producing a report like this? The worthies there probably believe that lower pay, employment and opportunities generally for women are simply the result of the market at work, proving in fact that women are less capable, productive and deservng.

How is it that Canada remains so far behind the rest of the world on gender issues? The reasons are not hard to find. We still have a third world child care policy, no federal women’s equality agenda, weak employment laws, and continuing cuts to women’s programs that do exist. Neither the public nor private sectors here take promotion of women seriously. Our corporations still have a cowboy frontier mind set, valuing manly aggressiveness and macho behavior in the work place and the boardroom. Women are still treated as second class by our political parties. The BC Campbell government, always happy to claim it is progressive and forward looking, has virtually abandoned any semblance of support for action on women’s equality. Most other provinces are no better. And of course Harper is still holds 19th century views on women. For more on all of this go to http://www.policycentre.ca/2009/09/06/failing-women-at-work-unfair.

In 1998, Canada had a per capita GDP of $39,300 (US). The average for the Northern hemisphere was $17,950, and for the Southern hemisphere $6,835. We are by no means a poor country unable to afford basic programs and commitments. The time has long passed to put this off any longer. Shame on us. Shame on our leaders.

According to the BBC, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has questioned Pakistan’s failure to capture senior al-Qaeda leaders.

It reports that Mrs Clinton said in an interview with journalists in Lahore she found it “hard to believe” nobody in the government knew where they were.

Mrs Clinton has been in Pakistan for two days trying to strengthen ties with the government, shore up the fight against militants and tackle rising anti-US feelings among the Pakistani people, says the BBC.

The BBC goes on to say that in an interview with the journalists she was asked why Pakistan was seen as the centre of terrorism and why other nations could not do more in the fight against it. We often say, ‘yes, there needs to be more focus on finding these leaders’ said US Ambassador Anne Patterson, it said.

Mrs Clinton said: “The world has an interest in seeing the capture and killing of the people who are the masterminds of this terrorist syndicate. As far as we know, they are in Pakistan.”

“Al-Qaeda has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002… I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to”, the BBC quotes her as saying.

Well Mrs. Clinton you are right. And you do know the answer. Good for you for finally setting out the facts. But tell us the whole truth. You and the Pakistani military and intelligence know more than you say. You know – and I know – that the key Taliban leaders, including Mullah Omar, safely reside on the outskirts of Quetta, a provincial capital in Pakistan down the highway from Kandahar across the border to the north. If you can’t figure it out give me a call. It is not that hard to find where they are. Just ask a Quetta taxi driver. It requires only a motorized vehicle to go to their homes on the outskirts of the city.

The Taliban presence in Quetta has been confirmed by members of the Taliban itself. In early 2007, CBC reported that Mohammad Hanif, 26, a Taliban spokesman arrested by Afghan security forces near the border with Pakistan, said when he was questioned by Afghan intelligence service agents that Omar is in Pakistan. A video CD of his interrogation was given to reporters.

“He lives in Quetta,” Hanif said on the video, referring to Omar. “He is protected by ISI, (the Pakistan Intelligence Service)” Hanif said in a quiet voice, referring to the acronym of the Pakistani spy agency.

Quetta, by the way, is not some inaccessible mountain tribal town. Airbus flights provide regular service in and out. The highway is a good usable transportation link to the rest of Pakistan.

The fact is the Taliban leaders are coddled by the Pakistan security forces, who are linked by all kinds of nefarious arrangements to the Taliban and al Qaeda forces. Why continue this silly dance? Why do our soldiers keep getting killed while world leaders play these silly word games? Why not deal with them? Some things are not that hard. This is one of them.

Sadly this is not a failure of the elected government of Pakistan, at least not directly. It has its origins with the army dictator Mushraff. The Pakistan army and intelligence services are riddled with al Qaeda and Taliban supporters and commanders. They are the biggest threat to a democratic and stable government in Pakistan, the Afghanistan undertaking and the fight against terrorism. One hopes that the US army and the CIA are not implicated, thus in part explaining the inaction. Regardless, it is time this problem was dealt with honestly. It is time to clear away all of the sleazy deals and clandestine arrangements. Perhaps Hillary Clinton has started that process. We’ll see.

A US State Department employee, Mr. David Hoh, has resigned, stating in a letter that he has “lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan”.  This has caused quite a stir, getting the attention even of the White House.  However, it is not clear that the White House is hearing the real message.

He said that the insurgency in some parts of Afghanistan arrived only after the US troops did.

Mr Hoh’s position is that the US should be cutting combat troops; providing more support for Pakistan; developing better US communication and propaganda skills to match those of al-Qaeda; and putting more pressure on Afghan President Hamid Karzai to clean up government corruption. 

“We want to have some kind of governance there, and we have some obligation for it not to be a bloodbath,” Mr Hoh said.

Mr. Hoh is absolutely right.  These are the kinds of things that I have been pushing for some time. They are just as relevant to Canada as to the United States.  Unfortunately this advice is falling mostly on the deaf ears of the keepers of conventional wisdoms.

The current combat strategy with the Taliban is the 21^st century equivalent of the US cavalry chasing after the Sioux in the Northwest US frontier.  Nothing was achieved except the needless loss of courageous lives.  In the end the only solution was a settlement.  However, there the comparison ends.  In Afghanistan, in the face of attack the insurgents disappear into the wilderness, just like the Sioux, but they always return, planting bombs and explosives that kill the western forces when they travel back over the same territory.  Peace in the Northwest US only came after treaties were agreed to, followed by the occupation of and the moving of settlers onto the disputed lands.  In Afghanistan that is not an option. 

Only the Afghan people can provide the necessary basis for security, development and good governance.  The hot pursuit of the Taliban by the Canadian, US and British forces in Kandahar and neighbouring provinces, followed only by the return of the soldiers to their safe barracks, is a mad-cap strategy.  So too is the creation of safe “model villages”.  The hearts, minds and confidence of  the people of Aghanistan generally will never be secured this way.  Without that, nothing is gained.

The answers are just as Mr. Hoh suggests.  Listen up, Canada.  The hot pursuit out of secure bases in the south must come to an end.  The insurgent Taliban forces must be ousted from their basis of operation in Pakistan, and any shift of these bases to Afghanistan must be squelched early.  Otherwise the Taliban forces should be left alone unless it is to repel actual attacks on bases or civilian population centres.  The highly successful propaganda and information campaigns of the Taliban and al Queda must be met with equally persuasive responses. Taliban supporters not committed to armed struggle should be won over. A huge injection of aid must be mobilized to build infrastructure and housing, to generate and distribute gas and electricity, to provide health services, and to feed the people, with the jobs going to Afghanis not westerners.  The amounts spent on security for aid projects could then be drastically reduced, with the amounts saved spent on the projects.  The well developed trading, commercial and small business skills of the people must be embraced and markets and trade must be supported to support growth in economic activity.  Jobs have to be created for the huge unemployed and thus poor labour force.  Jobs from aid and economic development are the answer.

Just as physical and trade infrastucture is needed, so too is there a need to build effective government institutions.  Trained and honest police and conflict resolution processes must be supported and rewarded.  Corruption and government by intimidation must stop.  It has been a huge mistake to leave Karzai to pursue his corrupt and violent ways.  Warlords in government are unacceptable, as are large scale drug dealers.  If these continue the west should leave. The west must also be unequivocal in its demand that the November 7 election be free and fair.

Some think none of these things are possible.  If that is true, then it is time for Canada and its partners to leave. Not one more Canadian life should be lost in pursuit of the current losing strategy.

The White House has said a decision on a new strategy for Afghanistan will be made in the coming weeks.  Some like Dick Cheney say the process is taking too long, and all that is needed is more troops.  That is the wrong choice.  The President should take all the time it takes to get it right.  A new strategy is possible. A large majority of the Afghan people want the western presence to continue, doing the kind of things I suggest.  Poll after poll shows this to be true, as does any kind of contact with ordinary Afghanis. 

This is important because the people’s continued support is the most important condition of success and the most important contributor to success.  The rest is simply about strategy, money and commitment. 

It is time that Canada, the US and other countries stopped pretending that the current approach is working.  They need to stop listening to the old failed advice of the established politicians and academic and government advisors, and look to those like Mr. Hoh who have it right. The Afghan project can still succeed, but a whole new strategy and approach is needed. Prime Ministers and Presidents need to open their minds to new advice, to take the unusual risk that goes with change.  They have do pursue a different approach.  Otherwise, failure is certain, with consequences that will not be pretty for anyone.