Foreign Affairs Committee on March 2nd, 2011

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I have three questions.

Part of the problem is that this is a UN resolution. In the history of the UN organization, we've seen things such as the UN human rights organization that includes states like Libya. We've just gone through that.

I'm suggesting that if we're going to take this seriously, and as Mr. Obhrai said, we all want to see nuclear disarmament happening, I think the UN has to clean up its house. It's got to be serious about issues like this as well. That's my first question.

The second one is that states like China have also been included in this resolution. China has been very uncooperative when it comes to putting pressure on rogue states like North Korea as well as Iran.

The other thing I wanted to ask you about is that we know Iran has openly stated its intention to liberate a nation like Israel. So how can you expect a nation like Israel...? See, these are the problems, much as we'd like to see that happen.

Those are my questions. Before you answer, I do want to congratulate you on your nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Douglas James Roche]

Thank you very much, sir, for your questions.

On Libya, it was a result of the combined work in the UN, led, I think, by the U.S., that Libya got rid of its nuclear weapons. You mentioned Gadhafi and the problems in Libya right now. We cannot wait until the regions of the world secure stability and peace to perfection before addressing and moving on the paramount problem—

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Could I interject? What I was saying is that Libya was appointed to the human rights tribunal. And when that sort of thing happens, it's hard to take an organization like the UN seriously. I know it's a wonderful organization that does good work, but it needs to clean house in areas like that. That's what I was referring to.

[Douglas James Roche]

I take your point. I'm certainly not defending any mis-actions, or whatever, within the UN, which is a big institution. I'm only saying that we cannot wait until we have perfect peace in the regions before addressing the paramount problem, which is instigating or producing more insecurity in the world.

China is the one state of the P5 that has voted for a nuclear weapons convention at the UN. On the question of cooperation on every subject, we have to deal with the development of the rule of law globally. That's the only way the world and globalization can proceed. And I think China, with respect to its arms and nuclear disarmament, will participate in a way that would enable global negotiations to go forward.

On Iran, nobody wants Iran to get nuclear weapons. But if we're going to stop the Irans of the world from getting nuclear weapons.... I think Mr. Rae pointed out that were they to get one, other Arab leaders would be afraid they would have to start moving down that track also. Therefore, you'd have an outbreak of proliferation in the Middle East. So Iran has to be stopped. But the only real way to stop Iran is to draw it into diplomatic negotiations that would lead to a nuclear weapons convention under law and verification. I think that's the way to go forward.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you, Mr. Roche.

Now we'll go to Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you to our guests for being here today.

It is important to note some history here. I think the history of Canada in this issue is extremely important. I guess I would echo Mr. Rae, who said that there is a unique opportunity for this committee and our Parliament to seize this issue as a non-partisan issue. I think Canadians would like to see that.

The only way we're going to make progress on this issue is to emulate the consensus, as was mentioned, that we saw in the United States. Mr. Shultz, Mr. Perry, Mr. Kissinger, and Mr. Nunn wrote an article together back in January 2007 saying to wake up, that we need to seize this. We need to heed that call. It's really important.

Respectfully, I somewhat disagree with Mr. Obhrai, but I think that's okay. This issue requires us to put our cards on the table and say where we stand on it. I agree with him that many people see this and think there they go again. That is unfortunate. We need to challenge ourselves to not just go along with what's been happening. If what's just happened in the world isn't a clarion call to do something different, I don't know what is.

Do you remember the story of Dr. Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist? If you don't know, you should know what can happen when people export their capabilities to people we don't want them to export them to.

We need to grab this issue, and if we don't, then I think we've failed. This is the foreign affairs committee. DFAIT is responsible for nuclear non-proliferation. We have experts. Our ambassador right now--and Mr. Obhrai knows who I'm talking about--one of the experts on verification in Austria, chaired the UN conference on verification. He's ours. Let's use him.

This is an exquisite opportunity for us to take on the challenge. It doesn't cost money right now. What Mr. Rae said is sensible. We should do that at this committee. We'll talk about it after, but I think this is one issue where we can actually reach across the aisle, as they say.

I look to people like Robert Green. We're talking about someone who has spent his whole time in the military and has embraced this. Not just those who have been in government, but many who have been in the military have seen what has happened and the potential for what can happen. He said that what woke him up was the Falklands War, when he found out that one of the options was to use nuclear weapons. Think about that. Think about what would have happened if nuclear weapons had been used in the Falkland Islands. He also pointed to what happened in the first Gulf War. You'll recall that George Bush senior gave the Israelis the Patriot missiles. One of the concerns at the time was to arm them. They were concerned that the madman, Saddam, had nuclear weapons, but they also knew that Israel had nuclear weapons and what could happen there. Thank God that didn't happen, but that's a real scenario. It doesn't matter what you think of either state, they both had them. What would have happened if they had been used?

I care about the future of my kids. I don't say that ever when it comes to other issues, but on this one I do. This is something we should seize. I'm sorry that I'm pontificating, but it's an occupational hazard.

I would say to Mr. Ware in particular, you mentioned a different approach, and this goes to the concern Mr. Van Kesteren had about the UN. You talked about looking at it from a different perspective, if we were do a PrepCom here in 2012, a regional approach, which I think might be getting at the concerns Mr. Van Kesteren has. What do you mean by that, and how would that work with a PrepCom?

[Alyn Ware]

Thank you for the question.

The Preparatory Commission is looking at a global approach, which is preparing the way for a multilateral diplomatic conference in 2014 on the idea of the negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention.

I had suggested that as well as having multilateral negotiations on the nuclear weapons convention, there will also need to be regional approaches in order to address the security concerns in those regions. It is why parallel initiatives will be required, such as the process for a Middle East zone that's free of weapons of mass destruction. That particular zone would be a way of, one, containing Iran, for example, and two, providing security assurances to Israel, which is so important. The other sites would also need them, but they are the two key players for what is required there.

Similarly, Northeast Asia, North Korea, South Korea, and Japan have particular security concerns that need to be met with a regional approach. Once that happens, they will also be able to join a global approach, but they have specific regional concerns that would need to be met.

The idea of starting this process of multilateral negotiations is not to say this is the one answer and you should rule out some of the other initiatives that are happening regionally. The regional initiatives have to happen, but they will reinforce each other. You'll be much more capable of ensuring that Iran complies with a regional Middle East approach if a multilateral approach is also happening, because they won't be able to use the rationale that we're only looking at them.

It's also particularly true of India. India has rejected the idea of a Southeast Asian nuclear-weapons-free zone. They say it points the finger at them, and what about their neighbour, China, etc.? Having the two together, the regional approach and the multilateral global approach, is very important.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Roche, through your experience as a parliamentarian and as a diplomat, you obviously have a desire to see Canada play a role here. What is your anticipation of the idea of the 2012 conference? What would be a successful number of players? Which countries would you see as being key to invite? The goals might be many, but what are the key goals for that type of conference, if we were to have one here in Ottawa?

[Douglas James Roche]

Thank you very much.

A reference was made earlier in this meeting to the credibility of Canada. I had the honour to serve our country at the United Nations in disarmament discussions in many venues, and I always felt proud, in the sense of representing a country that had a commitment to what I would call the values of development, human rights, human security, and so on.

As a member of NATO, as a member of the NPT with a close relationship with the United States and Great Britain and France, and as a member of numerous other associations, we are instrumentally placed to play a role in getting this nuclear weapons convention off the ground. Other countries that would come to a meeting convened by Canada.... When I was asked whether I had conducted discussions in DFAIT, part of what I was discussing was this very question of who else would come. It's clear that the new agenda countries would all come. Those are Brazil, Ireland, Egypt, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and Sweden. To that, you would also add the leading members of NATO that have called for action in this respect. Those are Germany, Norway, and Belgium. And I could go on. You have other countries in Europe, very distinguished countries, that are calling explicitly for a nuclear weapons convention, and I mention here Switzerland and Austria.

So you would have a range of, as they say in the diplomatic world, good company, countries in good company. I don't like to disparage, and I certainly don't want to disparage any country in the world, but there are a lot of countries in the world to which it wouldn't make much difference. They're fine, but the countries that I have named and associated like-minded countries, I believe, would come. With respect to the P5, the nuclear weapon states, would they come? I don't know, Mr. Dewar. I don't know if they would come to the first one. It might not be so important for them to come to the first meeting. It's only a preparatory meeting. It's sort of getting the thing focused sharply and so on. It's not a question of negotiating at the first meeting. This is not a process that can be done overnight. It's a process that's got to start because of the risks of not starting.

So I would be content and I think the Canadian government should be content with a conference here that had 40 or 50 countries. That would be more than enough, and you know, they've got conference centres around here in the greater Ottawa area. So it's quite doable.

What we are suggesting is an action plan that would be good for Canadians and Parliament and the government. It would not just be good; it would be a politically practical step for Canada to take in reaffirming itself in the world today.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Roche.

I will recognize Mr. Lunney for a very short question and a short answer.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for a stimulating discussion here. I just wanted to throw something out for your feedback. We're looking at a situation right now with Iran, which is defiant. Iran does not want the IAEA in there examining facilities and is bent on producing weapons-grade uranium. We have Russia that has already admitted to providing fissionable material to Iran. Right now Iranian warships have just passed through the Suez Canal and are parked off Syria. And you have Syria that is receiving cruise missiles from Russia.

With regard to the remark by my colleague over here, Mr. Dewar, I think we all would like to see a nuclear-weapons-free world, but in saying that, what happened with Mr. Khan.... Realistically, given the situation we're in right now in the world, the efforts to move towards an agreement in 2012, 2014.... Do we really think that anything we do right now moving in this direction would deter states with the mentality of a Mr. Khan, or states like Iran and Syria, which are building capabilities right now that could cause a disaster before we could blink? Would anything we do make a difference in that scenario?

[Alyn Ware]

I'll make it very short.

Looking at the rationale for countries to go nuclear, we saw that India and Pakistan have already gone nuclear, so they are a huge concern. North Korea has gone nuclear, so they're a huge concern. Iran looks set to follow suit. Were there misguided policies that led India and Pakistan and North Korea to go nuclear? Possibly. Compare that with the approach that was taken with the Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, all of which inherited nuclear weapons and could quite easily have become nuclear weapon states. Very intense, very successful diplomatic initiatives got them to give up the nuclear weapons they possessed.

As I mentioned before, a combination of diplomacy and sanctions can be more successful than just sanctions, particularly on a state that's very powerful and has the possibility of developing its own nuclear arsenal. As we saw with North Korea, the sanctions didn't work. They went with nuclear weapons, but they are very interested in the possibility of a nuclear-weapon-free zone that would have security assurances.

What is Iran calling for? Attention on Israel's nuclear weapons. So they were supportive of a packaged approach that included non-proliferation, that was directed against them, as long as it included Israel's nuclear weapons in the Middle East process for a nuclear-weapon-free zone.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank our witnesses today, Mr. Roche and Mr. Ware. Merci beaucoup.

We're going to suspend for a few minutes. Our next meeting will start in a few minutes. It's committee business and it's in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]