Evidence of meeting #37 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was countries.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Jean-François Lafleur
James Appathurai  Deputy Assistant Secretary General, Political Affairs and Security Policy, Special Representative for Caucasus and Central Asia, North Atlantic Treaty Organization

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you.

We've finished our second round. We're going on to our third and final round, which allows each political party to ask another five-minute round of questions.

Mr. Harris.

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to follow up on the question of my colleague, Mr. Brahmi, regarding the tactical nuclear weapons. You referred to interest in getting Russia to reduce its number. According to the figures today from the Federation of American Scientists, there are 28,000 tactical nuclear weapons possessed by both Russia and America. Obviously there are two sides to this equation. How does the other side feature in this? What statements has America made?

The Federation of American Scientists talks about the notion of the unilateral destruction of weapons. How do we get from here to there? These tactical nuclear weapons are essentially battlefield weapons, which are inherently destabilizing and dangerous, obviously. Outside of Russia and America, are there other caches of tactical nuclear weapons? How do we involve both America and Russia and whatever other nations?

12:35 p.m.

Deputy Assistant Secretary General, Political Affairs and Security Policy, Special Representative for Caucasus and Central Asia, North Atlantic Treaty Organization

James Appathurai

I think in essence this is principally an American and Russian discussion. Anything else is relevant and important, but when we're talking about this particular issue in a NATO context or a Euro-Atlantic context, these are the two big players. They're the ones that own them.

The United States is very careful to consult carefully with its NATO allies on the deployment of sub-strategic nuclear weapons. NATO has a role to play in setting the policy for NATO-held—let's put it that way—nuclear weapons in Europe, but we're talking about very small numbers.

The real discussion to be had is between the United States and Russia. President Obama very clearly said, when START II was agreed, that his vision for the next step of the discussion was to discuss these issues. The Americans have made their desire to work in that direction very clear. My own view is that it is for Russia to respond and to respond positively. NATO will be 100% in support of these discussions because all the allies agree that this is the logical next step for all the reasons you mentioned.

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Thank you.

To talk a little more about NATO-UN cooperation, of course, as we know, it's based on a declaration signed in 2008, which talked about liaison and political consultation, but also practical cooperation in managing crises where both organizations are involved. Again, that brings us back to Libya. I noted that United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 talks specifically of the role for the secretary-general in the management of the response to that circumstance.

Could you comment on how that role actually played out, in terms of Mr. Annan's role and NATO? Did that actually work the way it was intended? Were there problems with that? Was Mr. Annan given the respect he required by virtue of the Security Council resolution, and can you say that even though NATO was the operative arm in terms of effecting this that it was still a UN operation as such?

12:35 p.m.

Deputy Assistant Secretary General, Political Affairs and Security Policy, Special Representative for Caucasus and Central Asia, North Atlantic Treaty Organization

James Appathurai

I will first say that because of that declaration in 2008, we do have formal liaison and very deep relations, which never existed before. So we're at a totally different level of trust.

Second, on Libya, we were in discussion with the United Nations every single day and multiple times every day. They knew our plans and we knew their plans. At all levels we were communicating in a fully transparent way. So actually the level of cooperation was precisely what I think you would hope it to be. The two secretaries general, of course, spoke regularly, as well as the assistant secretary general and me and all levels below me, both on the operational and political sides. In the post-conflict phase, the UN has taken a leadership role. It has asked for NATO expertise when it comes to defence transformation, basically helping the Libyans build security.

The Libyans have not asked us. When they do—and I think they're waiting, in essence, for their June elections to be in a better position to ask for international support—whatever NATO does will be under a UN umbrella. It has a team there and we will work under it.

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Again, on the follow-up on Libya, I know there have been suggestions that one of the consequences of the Libyan mission was to open up the field for players such as elements of al-Qaeda to operate openly—or more effectively, rather—in Libya. Are we looking at another situation that may be brewing there that may require intervention?

12:35 p.m.

Deputy Assistant Secretary General, Political Affairs and Security Policy, Special Representative for Caucasus and Central Asia, North Atlantic Treaty Organization

James Appathurai

I don't know the answer to that. NATO doesn't have boots on the ground. We do not monitor Libya's development in a formal way. We do not have assets there. When our mission came to an end, it came to an end. There are many analysts on the ground. You might want to ask UN colleagues, but I don't think I can give a good answer to that.

What is encouraging is the way in which the political development in the run-up to the elections has happened. To my mind, the key will be that the electoral process and the political system provide the various, if you want to use the words, “militias” or “regional groupings” enough assurance that their equities will be taken into account. When they have that they'll be in a better position to give up their weapons, work on a more national basis, etc. This upcoming political process is essential.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

The time has expired.

I just want to follow up quickly on what Mr. Harris has raised. One thing you said in your opening comments was about NATO's role in post-conflict management. We were part of the conflict in Libya. So now, what about the management? You're saying we don't have boots on the ground; we're leaving it to the UN.

Circle the wagons here for me. How do we, as NATO, fulfill our responsibility, as you mentioned, of post-conflict management when we're disengaged?

12:40 p.m.

Deputy Assistant Secretary General, Political Affairs and Security Policy, Special Representative for Caucasus and Central Asia, North Atlantic Treaty Organization

James Appathurai

Absolutely. There are two essential ingredients for NATO to play a role. One is a UN mandate. The second is a request from the Libyan government. Neither of those is there. The Libyan government has not asked for support and the UN has not provided a mandate. When our mandate ended, we left. So we're not in a position to provide it.

Personally, I think NATO has long experience in helping governments transition—through central and eastern Europe, but also now in other parts of the world—to help build security structures that can provide for security in a post-conflict environment.

I think there's a lot to offer, but until we are asked by the Security Council and by the Libyans, we're not in a position to offer it and we won't impose it.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Mr. McKay.

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Thank you, Chair.

I want to go back to our conversation about Turkey. It's a changing role, shall we say, in the Middle East.

You rightly point out that Mr. Erdogan is hugely popular, possibly the new Nasser—I don't really know—and possibly the Ottoman Empire redo.

At this point, Turkey and Israel have moved from being probably the most friendly of Arab and Jewish states to far less friendly, shall we say. That potentially creates some difficulties for NATO's outreach, if you will, into the Arab League and into the Arab nations at large.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on how or if that will complicate NATO's continued relationship with the Middle East.

12:40 p.m.

Deputy Assistant Secretary General, Political Affairs and Security Policy, Special Representative for Caucasus and Central Asia, North Atlantic Treaty Organization

James Appathurai

You hit on an important point. To cut directly to the chase, my own view is that it doesn't complicate our relations with most Arab countries. We have deepening relations with the Arab League, with the African Union. We've had contact with the Organization of the Islamic Conference. That's all working fine. The Arab League passed its own resolution on Libya knowing perfectly well it would be NATO that would carry it out.

In my experience, and this is part of what I do, this is manageable. What is a problem is to have difficult relations between a major ally and an important partner like Israel. It creates complications in our relations with them, and NATO's relations with them as well. So we would certainly like to see an improvement in their relations.

The issue of the boats, the incident that took place in international waters, is of deep concern in Turkey. It's deeply, emotionally held. The Israelis are well aware of this, but my own view is that fundamentally they have to work it out between them. We hope they do, because they are, as I say, an important ally and an important partner. But it is really a bilateral issue on that incident, and I can't see a role that NATO could play.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

But it does speak to the larger issue of Mr. Erdogan's popularity probably—I say “probably”, and I would be interested in your view—being related to the perception by the Arab peoples of Turkey standing up to Israel, which is awkward.

12:45 p.m.

Deputy Assistant Secretary General, Political Affairs and Security Policy, Special Representative for Caucasus and Central Asia, North Atlantic Treaty Organization

James Appathurai

I think what we have to see, from my point of view, is the example that Turkey shows. When I travel through the region, again and again what one hears is—well, not from all parties—“we want to be like them”, or, in other words, proudly Muslim, proudly religious, and secular in the way in which we run our government, modern in the way in which we run our economy, and transparent in the way that our politics take place.

They will not look to a non-Muslim country in the same way. Turkey is not Arab, but it is Muslim, and they are a real example for reformers. We should, as far as I'm concerned, really welcome this, because without that example, many parties will not know what to work towards.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

The irony of the whole thing is that Erdogan is associated with an Islamist party and the previous party was a secular party, and yet....

12:45 p.m.

Deputy Assistant Secretary General, Political Affairs and Security Policy, Special Representative for Caucasus and Central Asia, North Atlantic Treaty Organization

James Appathurai

That may be his strength. His strength is that he is proudly religious and still carrying out a secular government. Nobody in the Arab world can impugn him for that. So I think he has a lot of potential to inspire positive change—not him, but his government. It has a lot of potential.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

My final question is on a different subject entirely. The Americans are clearly reorientating themselves to the Pacific.

This is an Atlantic organization. As the Americans are the primus inter pares, how do you see that, in five-year windows, playing through as America refocuses its attention on China and on Asian issues?

12:45 p.m.

Deputy Assistant Secretary General, Political Affairs and Security Policy, Special Representative for Caucasus and Central Asia, North Atlantic Treaty Organization

James Appathurai

There are three things. One, we think it's a good thing that the United States is also focusing more on Asia. It doesn't mean they're not focusing on Europe. But we should want the United States to continue to play a strong role in Asia in stabilizing it. We cannot afford a situation where the U.S. would withdraw from Asia, because we would all be affected by that. So really, it's a good thing.

The second thing is that NATO has reached out to Asian partners, not in terms of playing a military role there, but in terms of building understanding and trust with countries across Asia, such as South Korea, the Chinese, as I've mentioned, and India. It's a bit rocky with Pakistan right now—

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Everyone's rocky—

12:45 p.m.

Deputy Assistant Secretary General, Political Affairs and Security Policy, Special Representative for Caucasus and Central Asia, North Atlantic Treaty Organization

James Appathurai

—but we are reaching out to them.

Third—and this the secretary general said recently in his speech—we think it's important that the European allies also have a global view, that they're not just focused on their own issues, which are important, and not just focused on their immediate neighbourhood, which is important—and the United States is also focusing on that. But they also need to be a partner for the United States in having a global view. This is something that we are pushing and that the secretary general is pushing as well.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you.

Mr. Alexander, the last round of questions goes to you.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON

Thank you, Chair.

I don't know if there are any plans to make Timbits a shared capability under smart defence, or if there are any Tim Hortons franchises in Chicago, but—

12:45 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

It could be part of the mission requirements for the F-35.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON

But whatever you ate this morning, James, I think it has given you the wisdom and the concision to give us the best overview that I've heard of what NATO is today. I hope that would be the case for many of us around the table. It was really first rate. Thank you for that and for making the effort to get here.

I have three quick questions that really fill in...not the gaps, but they touch on some issues that haven't been raised so far.

Ten years ago or five years ago, you and I would have been sitting around tables like this and spending a lot of time worrying about chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear proliferation, radiological sources, and so forth. Obviously they're still part of the agenda, but it struck me in looking again at the strategic concept that they are not as prominent as they once were. You spend more time talking about cyber missiles, which of course can carry these things but are a threat in themselves and can be a conventional threat, and the continuing concern about terrorism.

Could you comment a little bit on where this stands in NATO's list of priorities in the wake of the strategic concept? Has the global partnership, which Canada has championed under successive Liberal and Conservative governments, helped to reduce the profile of this global set of threats?