Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
My name is Ferry de Kerckhove. I am the executive vice-president of the Conference of Defence Associations and the co-author, with my great colleague George Petrolekas, of that institute document I carried on my shoulder coming in. Hence, I have a bit of sweat and am falling apart. That was issued on February 20 on the occasion of the Ottawa Conference on Defence and Security.
I wish to add that George and I have had very diversified careers and various experience in more than 75 countries. I've had 38 years in the foreign service, including some 20 years in nations abroad that do not qualify as Club Med destinations—Iran, Russia, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Egypt, among others.
I will provide a brief overview of Canada on the international stage. My co-author will focus more specifically on Canada's defence requirements, and also whatever his imagination, very fertile, will produce for you.
I would like to start with a few broad trends we identified in the international system that have very significant implications for Canada.
One is a growing realization that unipolarity is coming to an end and is accompanied by a profoundly counterintuitive partial retrenchment on the part of the United States, except possibly in its cautious rebalancing towards Asia.
Second is a pervasive atmosphere of quasi-neoisolation in the west, with an even more pronounced desire to avoid any further engagement overseas.
Third is a dearth of leadership and absence of strategies. The Ukraine is but one example of the latter even more than the former.
Another is that China will to continue to incrementally test international resolve.
Another is an increased pressure to deal with cybersecurity, but with an unclear perspective on how to go about it. I think Revenue Canada is aware of that.
As well, Ukraine notwithstanding, there is an increasing risk of NATO becoming a two-tiered and somewhat regional alliance, threatening solidarity of the alliance.
The backtracking we are seeing on all commitments is causing greater insecurity. Here are just a few examples of it, but there are many others.
The west has experienced a series of serious failures in its recent commitments or attempts to manage crises. This is true for Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, despite the protests against those decisions. None of the countries or regions where the interventions and diplomatic efforts took place have come out in a better state than before the involvement. Perhaps that is difficult to admit, given the human lives that were sacrificed and the money that was spent, but the reality is indisputable.
Iraq is slowly but surely returning to a dictatorship, not to mention that it is the country with the most terrorist acts in the world.
The post-Karzai era in Afghanistan does not inspire confidence in terms of its future stability. It remains to be seen whether the new president will even agree to sign an agreement with the United States to allow American forces to remain in the country.
The situation in Libya is a disaster, which could end up breaking up the country.
Syria is hell on earth and the Arab Spring has led to even more instability in the region. No real, substantial and lasting progress will be seen for at least a decade.
Sadly, Egypt seems to be backsliding from its progress toward democracy and inclusion, even if the next man in power is strong and can bring a degree of stability, which will unfortunately be undermined by terrorist acts.
In Africa, the commendable referendum and peaceful separation of South Sudan from its neighbour to the north was followed by conflict in South Sudan and in the neighbouring Central African Republic.
The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is at a stalemate, despite John Kerry's efforts to free the United States from the mess in that region in order to be able to focus on Asia.
China, which, from every point of view, should be a partner of choice, is seen at best as a potential threat, despite its unifying trade ties around the world. That being said, China is not making things easier with its behaviour, particularly in the South China Sea and the East China Sea.
The domestic political deadlock in the United States is adding to the indecision of the U.S. executive branch, thereby diminishing American power in the eyes of many countries. We can see that Japan is already worried about the indolence of the Obama administration with respect to Ukraine.
Europe is a great and tremendous economic power, but remains a political dwarf.
As we can see in Ukraine, Putin's Russia is taking advantage of western weakness and is correcting Nikita Khrouchtchev's 1954 mistake with a power grab, without shedding a drop of blood. A new version of the cold war is being created, and the whole thing is far from being over.
North Korea continues to be dangerous and unpredictable. And if the agreement being negotiated with Iran is signed, we would not feel any less anxious about it, far from it. In addition, there is always the risk of an Israeli strike.
In the meantime, multilateral institutions are being ignored and weakened while threats without borders are spreading all over the world: climate change, pollution, resource depletion, and so on.
So where is Canada in all this, and is it even a player?
Well, despite the appearance of an energetic pursuit of clearly defined foreign policy objectives, the government has failed to articulate a broad vision for Canada on the international stage, and as a consequence, Canada's credibility in the world has suffered.
In the post-Afghanistan amnesia, there is an ad hoc and often adversarial approach to international issues, particularly toward multilateral diplomacy, which often makes Canada a non-player in times of crisis, yet, as we have just seen, there is no shortage of crises, and each one of these would or might call for an engagement on the part of Canada. The government, in the Speech from the Throne, puts the security of Israel as a top priority and hammers unendingly the slogan “We don't go along to get along”, which seems to be slightly out of touch with most of the real issues of the world. Deploring and condemning is not a substitute for policies.
We contend that absent an articulated vision of its role in the world and the provision of the right means to achieve it, Canada risks doing little and mattering less in world affairs, which might compromise fundamental interests. As George will demonstrate, absent a better financial structure, the Canadian Armed Forces risks becoming limited to continental defence with reduced, if not non-existent, expeditionary capacity.
Canada has major security interests internationally, starting with its unique relationship with the United States in continental perimeter defence and ballistic missiles, which I addressed two months ago at a Senate hearing, and cybersecurity, etc. Canada has a stake in the fight against drugs in Latin America. It has a crucial interest in stability in the Asia-Pacific region, as its trade with the region is expanding, and a broad interest in peace and development in the Middle East and North Africa beyond the security of Israel.
The same applies to Africa as a whole, inasmuch as multilateral efforts to limit crises in various regions of Africa are consonant with Canada’s growing investment in that continent.
This government has never undertaken a full foreign policy that includes trade and development, nor a defence review pursued across government in order to present a unified vision of Canada’s role in the world and of its means to exercise it if it wishes to face its multi-faceted challenges.
What all this means, very simply, is that a real whole-of-government approach is required to ensure a seamless analysis of the risks faced by Canada, the extent to which our interests are affected, the response or range of possible responses required, and the options and capabilities available to allow our political masters to take the best possible decisions in the circumstances.
Thank you.