Foreign Affairs Committee on March 2nd, 2009

[Peter Harder]

I'll give you another example: Iran. The Americans aren't present; we have been. And that is a classic way in which Canada quietly can be another source of view on what's going on.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll go to Mr. Patry.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Harder and Mr. Taylor. You both mentioned, specifically Mr. Harder, at the very beginning, the issue of change on a global scale both in terms of population and GDP. The pace of change has been astounding. This is quite new to me; I had not really thought of this issue.

I would, however, like to hear your comments on the recent statement made by Prime Minister Harper this week to the effect that the war against the Taliban cannot be won and that military forces should mainly work on development in Afghanistan.

How do you view this statement and what effect could this have on NATO? Do you think that there should be an international conference held in that region of the world, which would have to involve Pakistan, India, China, Iran and Russia, all the major players?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Patry.

Mr. Harder.

[Peter Harder]

You'll recall that in my opening comments I said that Canadian foreign policy should be realist. I think the Prime Minister's comments with respect to Afghanistan are very realistic. They reflect the literature, they reflect President Obama's comments, and they remind us of what Mr. Taylor described, the strategy behind the intervention.

All I would say is that you cannot talk about Afghanistan without talking about the region, and that's principally Pakistan. I would refer to Secretary Gates' comments of a couple of days ago, when he said that Pakistan was the key and most volatile element to the solution, and that we have to be modest about what we are seeking to achieve, but we should be vigilant. Remember, there were more than sixty countries that signed the London Conference declaration for Afghanistan's rebuilding. We have to be quite modest in how we describe what has been accomplished, and perhaps even about what can be accomplished. No insurgency has ended without some degree of accommodation across the lines. But it is absolutely important that the accommodation in Afghanistan take place, because the Afghanistan people, on both sides, want it. We cannot impose the bridge. We have to have a security situation that allows those policy choices to be advanced within Afghanistan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Harder.

Mr. Patry, you still have a minute left.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I would like to know what our witnesses think of the Arctic, a subject which is commonly discussed these days. How do you see things evolving in this area?

[Peter Harder]

Well, that's a very good question, and one that--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All in less than 40 seconds.

[Peter Harder]

Let me say that it is one of the dimensions of our foreign policy that is uniquely legitimate for Canada--not exclusively Canada, but it brings together across that circumpolar region a very interesting set of countries that can deal with environmental, economic, ecological, and strategic issues, not to mention the way in which our populations--the Inuit in particular--live and are represented across that circumpolar region. I think there is a lot of opportunity and scope for a Canadian volet in the Arctic. In fact, I would suggest that might be something that we want to use our G8 presidency to articulate, because it gives a timely matching of the Law of the Sea commitments with respect to the mapping of the Arctic, around which there has been a lot of hyperbole, with Russia's mapping and Canada's being behind and all of that sort of stuff.

It's one of the ironic areas where Russia recognizes our approach to the Northwest Passage as being an internal waterway, and the Americans don't. It's an interesting set of issues around which I think there could be quite an interesting dimension to our foreign policy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Harder.

Mr. Lunney.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to pick up on the discussion about nuclear disarmament and the somewhat optimistic view we heard Mr. Taylor put forward.

But I want to ask this question about Russia. You mentioned that the threat seems to be less from state and more from non-state players today, and that's probably an accurate remark. But coming back to Russia's role today, some would say it's somewhat provocative. Some would say they're becoming increasingly isolationist and bellicose, with continuing challenges to our air space recently.

I think you mentioned, Mr. Harder, something that perhaps many Canadians aren't aware of, about dismantling fissionable material in Russia. Some people might wonder about the wisdom of our spending money trying to deactivate some of their fissionable material from the old Soviet era while they're building new submarines and a modern fleet.

Russia has admitted to transferring fissionable material to Iran. Earlier, Mr. Taylor remarked on the report that Iran had abandoned nuclear ambitions somewhere around 2003. It might have looked like that for a season, but there may be reason to think that's not accurate today. I'm wondering if you're feeling as optimistic as Mr. Taylor about those prospects, and whether we ought to be quite concerned about what's going on in Iran.

So that's the first question. Do you share that optimism, and how should Canada respond to Iran? How does the world deal with Iran in light of what happened in Iraq, which was a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Israel dealt with that threat unilaterally and was condemned for it.

I have another question that goes completely in another direction.

[Peter Harder]

I think 9/11 reminded us all that Hobbes is back. The pessimistic nature of humankind perhaps is something we had lost sight of.

But I would say let's be a realist with respect to Iran. I think you could argue that some of the statements made in the west have made it easier for Ahmadinejad to hold power. They're about to go into a presidential election, and there may be a surprise in that election. While I guess we shouldn't pronounce on what we wish, clearly there is a huge challenge that the Government of Iran is facing from its domestic audience. Its economic agenda has been a disaster. It has very high youth unemployment and the like. I mention that just so we don't act in a way that allows a government to basically galvanize public support by campaigning against the United States or the evil west.

I've been quite impressed by how President Obama has articulated his approach to Iran, which is a willingness to have direct discussions, but he has also very clearly set out some policy parameters of what is expected in that relationship.

So I'm not optimistic or pessimistic; I'm a realist that this is going to take an awful lot of patience, diplomacy, and working forward. But I don't know what our other options are, because a military intervention in Iran would be a disaster for the region.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Harder.

Mr. Taylor.

[James H. Taylor]

I have a clarification, Mr. Chair. The judgment that Iran had abandoned a weapons program is a quite recent national intelligence assessment of the entire American intelligence community. There have been more recent statements--some by senior American Defense officials of the new administration, some by State Department officials--that are not entirely coherent, but they seem to amount to a judgment that Iran now has a supply of low-enriched uranium that is more than sufficient to produce bombs. But that does not mean they've built them yet.

So I think the administration is probably counting on there being a period when the kind of intelligent activity Peter Harder has described may produce a successful result. Maybe it won't; who knows? But there is apparently a window of opportunity for negotiation that continues in relation to Iran.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor.

We'll move to Madame Deschamps.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, gentlemen.

To you both I would say that your extensive experience is impressive. I feel a little overwhelmed with everything you are telling us today. Mr. Harder, you said earlier that you had worked under five prime ministers of Canada. You have probably experienced and witnessed various trends, different influences and tendencies to which those eras have been subject. I am referring, among other things, to the overall consequences of globalization, both domestically and abroad. There were George W. Bush's two terms in office, the economic crisis that is currently being felt around the world, and we have also seen the election in the United States of a man who generates hope and who is being scrutinized by the international community.

Earlier in your speech, you referred—and you'll tell me if I'm misquoting you—to the failure of Canada's current foreign affairs policy. You might have indicated—and if you didn't, I will give you this opportunity to do so—that it is possible, at present, to implement various mechanisms to reinforce this foreign policy. We have discussed many subjects and facets: economy, finance, defence, Afghanistan, Iran, closer ties between Canada and the U.S., but there is still something, in my opinion, that we mustn't lose sight of either, meaning everything related to environment and trade. We talked a little bit about that.

I would like to hear your comments on this.

[Peter Harder]

One of the consequences of globalization is that we have a longer list of issues that need to have the discipline and perspective of professional diplomats engaged in them. Environment is one, and it's not just climate change. Over the years we've had experience in cross-border environmental issues. The way in which acid rain was dealt with is a good example of diplomacy and sectoral knowledge being leveraged in Canada's interest. The Arctic has an environmental dimension.

My concern is that we need to have the integrating capacity of Canada's interests involving the sector or department that is affected--Environment, or the Department of Natural Resources--but we need to have an integrated perspective that brings diplomacy to bear, and coordination and leverage as well. I'm not saying this isn't present; I'm simply saying we probably need to spend more time and effort on ensuring coherence across a range of what some would construe as a domestic agenda that really has an international dimension.

The new ones are environment and health. Heath includes infectious disease; increasing the coordination of vaccine and health research on a global basis; and the whole R and D agenda, which may not be entirely embraced globally. But there is an opportunity for Canada to leverage its university and research infrastructure in the interests of Canada's foreign policy, if I can put it that way. That might even be research on environmental issues that are uniquely ours--oil sands; heavy oil, and the like; and certainly northern environmental issues, going back to Dr. Patry's comment about the Arctic.

So I am very much of the view that we need more mechanisms to include diplomats and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in what is articulated as a Canadian policy issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Harder.

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to welcome both Peter and Ambassador Taylor.

Between you, you have a tremendous amount of experience in diplomacy and where Canada is going, as both of you were heavily involved in Canadian diplomacy in Foreign Affairs.

The question I have is on the global bigger picture perspective and, from your experience, what has happened in the past. Would you say there has been a general loss of influence by the U.S. in world affairs, or would you say that currently you are seeing more opportunities being presented? Based on your experience of what is happening in the U.S. and with NATO allies in the western world, what do you think is happening around the world?

[Peter Harder]

I think it's the wrong question. I'll answer it, but it's the wrong question, because it assumes a static pie of power. Let's face it, is Parliament as powerful as it once was, or political parties?

One, we are living in a more complex society, in which power is diffused. What's a national economy? In an era where power is more diffused and there is less institutional deference to authority, it's not a surprise that this would reflect itself in global power.

Two, historically, I think the post-war period will be judged as a rather unique 40 years in which very few number of countries could pretend that they ran the world, because power wasn't as equally distributed, or at least not as equally distributed as it is today and it will become.

I'm not at all in the camp of the United States having lost influence, the United States being on decline, or the west being on decline. I'm of the view that we are seeing an alteration of global political power that will have consequence for us and the United States, etc. That shouldn't be viewed in an alarmist way or in a nostalgic recall of the past. There's so much that one could point to that is actually good. We are seeing economic growth in the developing world at a rate and in a dimension that we hadn't anticipated 15 or 20 years ago. We are seeing the growth of transparency and institution-building in a number of countries that we had talked about wishing for. Now we see it.

I think institutions will have to adapt, and global power will certainly be more diffused. That is a call for greater leadership in certain countries, of which the United States will be top on my list for seeking global leadership on global solutions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Taylor, were you going to answer that? Go ahead.

[James H. Taylor]

If there's time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have a few minutes.