National Defence Committee on June 6th, 2006

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, Ms. Black is right. This is a very comprehensive document, which this committee should have copies of. If they don't, I would be glad to provide you with my copy to be distributed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We can get them, I understand, Mr. Minister.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Okay.

It's entitled “Building on Success: The London Conference on Afghanistan”. It's based on a gathering of minds that took place at the end of January 2006, at which were set out, in quite explicit detail, 40 goals and achievements that the allies hope to be able to attain within a relatively reasonable period of time, if I can put it that way. There are mechanisms to measure success in these 40 areas. The Afghan government is obviously very much part and parcel of the effort. And I think it's a very useful and informative document as to how the success will be measured and what we can expect in the coming days from our allies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you very much.

It's exactly one hour since you sat down. We appreciate very much the opportunity for you to be here and for us to question you directly on the issues facing our troops in Afghanistan. Thank you very much.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We'll take a two-minute recess and then we'll reconvene.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I call the meeting back to order.

We want to welcome a special guest.

Mr. Schmidt, I want to welcome you. We have a bit of biography on you. It's very impressive. You've been involved in the public service for a long time, as a district councillor and now as a member of parliament, and you've served your country lately on defence issues and national security, so we want to welcome you here.

Your official title is Parliamentary State Secretary to the German Federal Minister of Defence, is that correct?

[Christian Schmidt, Parliamentary State Secretary to the German Federal Minister of Defence, As an Individual]

That's correct, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I think you were here for most of the previous meeting. If you have a presentation to make, we'll try to divide up the time so that each party gets a chance to ask you a question.

[Christian Schmidt]

Mr. Chairman and dear colleagues, thank you very much for the invitation. I want to take part of your precious time on the committee of defence.

As you mentioned, for 15 years I was a member of the committee of defence and national security in the German Bundestag. I have some understanding of what such a committee wants to know and to hear. I felt very familiar with the testifying the foreign secretary had to do, because lots of the questions that have been launched are the same because we are also in Afghanistan on duty, if you may say. As Canada has taken over the responsibility of the south sector, we have taken over responsibility in the north sector, and I think we are facing similar questions about the intensity and the increasing problems coming from the restructuring of the Taliban OMF and, especially in our sector, the drug issue.

The region Badakhshan, which is close to Feyzabad in the north, is one of the most efficient poppy seed production areas, and sometimes our voters are asking us, what are you doing protecting drug production? These drugs that are sold create humanitarian problems, personal problems, health problems, and security problems in our own country. I don't think that one can take such a short line between both issues, but in fact we have to look that there is not an increasing problem of involvement of, let me say, the Afghan official or unofficial political and economic environment at work in the drug trafficking and production.

On the other side, we know that, as the former Secretary of Defence has said, being in Afghanistan is defending our own country in the Hindu Kush. It's a very strange experience for us, especially because our people are not committed to seeing German military abroad, but we had to learn that there's a necessity to commit in the auspices of article 5 of NATO, which was proclaimed on September 12 in Brussels, where we all declared the state of the treaty. So we have a broad maturity and acceptance of our Afghan commitment.

I could continue talking about transformation in the army and about the strategic airlift, but as I don't want to interfere in your internal discussions, I just may state that, including your country, we are happy to have fulfilled our practicability commitments concerning the Strategic Airlift Interim Solution, SALIS, in order that we have now aircraft to organize the Kabul part of strategic airlift. This is an interim solution I can name. We are waiting for the strategic and tactical A-400M change. Actually, we have in use the C-160 Transall, which in terms of age is I think not necessarily younger than the Hercules, which I think first came into use in the forces in 1968 or so. They definitely are older than the pilots who are flying them.

Our problem in transformation is that we are talking about a helicopter. We have a lack of helicopters in the heavy transportation helicopter segment. We have now just changed our Bell UH-1 to the NH-90, just starting this year, but we see that increasingly, in all the operations we are in, we have a request for a lot of helicopters. The Secretary General of NATO sometimes sounds like a beggar, going around with a hat asking, “Do you maybe have one helicopter?”

We had a similar experience with our Congo mission. If you're interested, I will say some words about the European Union Congo mission. We were lucky to get Luxembourg to give us helicopters for medical transportation—civilian helicopters, rented by the Luxembourg government. This shows what has to be done.

Now we have in service the CH-53 Sikorsky, the large one. I think, but I don't know, the Canadian army has the CH-47 Chinook—

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

We used to.

[Christian Schmidt]

—and the Sea King.

We are on the way to transforming our army, and that's a costly issue. We have seen that we need more easily deployable forces and structures. We have underestimated the need for protected transportation capabilities in the mission, especially after the bad experiences we have shared with you with respect to casualties in Afghanistan. We are on our way to deploying the Dingo and some other light protected cars.

We come to the Congo and the European Union and NATO. I think this is a very interesting issue in a year when we are preparing for the summit in Riga, which is in November of this year. The question, which is posed very often, is, what is the purpose of European defence and security policy and European defence and security initiatives? Is there competition between NATO and the European Union?

Maybe there are sometimes different answers to be given from the different capitals of the European Union, but basically we all have consensus now. The new German government and the new German Chancellor are working very hard to come to a consensus to get Europe, as one pillar of NATO, resettled. The honourable Don Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense of a smaller southern neighbouring country of Canada, tended to talk about the old Europe and the new Europe. I think we should work on getting Don Rumsfeld to see there is one Europe. We were very upset about this splitting, and it's not good, because if you are split, there is no possibility of political influence. Only to complain is not politics. I think we will be back, in a sense, as Volker Rühe, the former secretary of defence, said, separable but not separate.

So the European Union's capabilities increase, using in necessity, through the Berlin Plus agreement, NATO assets in a chain of command where NATO is included. In this case the Deputy SACEUR is in a chain of command; or if there are minor middle-sized missions, we will do it on our own, but with some political exchange with NATO. This is the Congo mission, where we try to fill the request of the United Nations in the context of the presidential elections in the Congo. The MONUC mission, which is a 16,000-man mission of the United Nations, will not be sufficient, in the judgment of those involved in the development there, to keep the Congo on the path of reconciliation and somehow political development.

I think we all know that it would be too much to expect a Westminster-style democracy to be settled in the Congo, after all the bloodshed they've had and after all the problems, like nearly having a civil war in a short time. But I think it is necessary to come to these elections as a cornerstone of the future development. So we have committed, in a mission of Germany, France, and several other European countries, to each share one-third of the mission per capita. We will have 780 German troops there, including the headquarters; the French will have 800; and the rest of the 2,200 will be distributed among 15 different European nations. It should show that we are on the way toward acting, and we will be, and are, reliable.

On the European Union and the future of NATO, as we see it, perhaps you will accept a few words on expansion or enlargement of NATO, or the question of how NATO will perform in the next years. We think it's necessary to have a strategic option included in NATO, so we take the NATO response force as a very important tool for keeping the alliance together. We are very happy the Americans are on their way to contribute to the NATO response force, because we don't see that it should be just a European tool and asset.

We think the expansion of NATO capabilities—which now will be discussed at the defence secretary's meeting in Brussels at the end of this week—should lead us to reflect on how we can come to a reverse joint security strategy in NATO. We absolutely promote and assist those asking for a renewed NATO strategy in 2008 or 2009, not only focusing on terrorism and countering terrorism, but focusing on what level of ambition will be asked of NATO as the core of global-wide stability, with a possibility to act very soon and to have regulations...where we can discuss and decide in due time, and do other necessary things.

Regarding bilateral relations, I regret very much that we no longer have practical exchanges, as we had in former times. I was involved in them. I was first elected to Parliament in 1990, and one of my duties in the early 1990s was to struggle to keep the Canadian Forces in Lahr. Obviously I did not succeed. I have a lot of understanding, as unfortunately we have to give up our commitment at Goose Bay, and Shilo is closed. But I think it should not be the end of bilateral relations.

Nevertheless, as partners in NATO, we are somehow in a situation where a lot of other countries look to us, Canada and Germany, if I may say so. I think we can show and have to show a commitment to bilateral cooperation. If there is a possibility of increasing it again, maybe with exchanges or maybe in joint exercises, I really would appreciate this. I know your army is under pressure concerning personnel, and you have so many of your servicemen and servicewomen abroad, as we have.

Also, our army numbers about 255,000 now, and we see that it is somehow not sufficient.

We have gotten the peace dividend and we are thankful to all in the alliance who made it possible for us to share in the peace dividend in the nineties. My office in Berlin is some steps away from the place where 20 years ago anybody would have been shot and killed if they had tried to cross from one side of the street to the other. Sometimes it's good to reflect and ask, was this an idea coming from the heavens?

Maybe the Pope has some responsibility, I must admit; John Paul II has done a lot and has had an impact. But in fact it was Ronald Reagan's speech of 1987 at the Brandenburg Gate, saying, “Mr. Gorbachev, please tear down this wall.” Three years later, they tore down the wall. It was not Gorbachev himself but the people of East Germany. But they could only do this because Gorbachev was there.

We are very thankful to all our allies, and we know they have some of the responsibility for international peace coming to us. This is how we explain to our electorate questions about why we are engaged in Afghanistan, in Congo, or wherever. It is not easy every day, but it must be done every day.

Thank you very much for your attention.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak with you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you very much.

If we go very quickly, we can get one question in from each party; then we'll have to adjourn.

Mr. Khan, would you start?

[Wajid Khan, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you.

Welcome, Mr. Schmidt, and thanks for being here.

I'll ask a question and wait for your answer.

I've observed the Eurocorps with some interest; it's a very interesting concept. I understand there's also a Spanish mechanized division in there.

My question is, can you comment on the difficulty of mastering the complexity of your joint military formations, with units from different countries, with different languages and standard operating procedures, in the EU context? Do you see the Eurocorps as forming the nucleus of any future pan-European force? Lastly, will the EU enlargement create new dividing lines for Europe's militaries?

Talking about strategic airlift, you've mentioned the A400. I understand you've ordered about 60 of them, if I'm correct. It has good capabilities, as you do not need to dismantle equipment; the guns can be mounted on and off. Could you comment on when the deliveries will take place and give an approximate price per unit?

Thank you.

[Christian Schmidt]

The first corps of the Eurocorps was the German-French brigade initiated by Helmut Kohl and François Mitterand to get the nucleus of a somewhat European military structure. If one takes a pragmatic approach—and I prefer the pragmatic approach—we have seen that there was a lot of improvement and good activities. Now the Eurocorps consists of military personnel from five countries: Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, and Germany. We managed not to have only a symbolic unit.

The first time, the German military was not to be deployed anywhere where it was not encouraging for French officers to serve in the Eurocorps brigade, because they knew that this is not for their future and their career. But now Eurocorps is in a successful mission in Bosnia and in Kosovo. And we will have the Eurocorps in Afghanistan.

The pragmatic approach says that there are a lot of different approaches--for example, the consistency of the army. We have a conscript system in Germany. The French have given up and now are paying a lot of money to make the army more attractive to get enough service people. So I think we have to see that this is somehow.... Now there is a deployable headquarters that we will continue to work on, as we have on the European level now with Mr. Solana and his planning cell and the military cell. These are some first steps.

But I don't see that we will have a European army in due time. What we are not prepared to do is the attempt done three years ago. This was the so-called “chocolate summit”.

Just to tell the story about this name, I was in the State Department in Washington and I went with my partner for discussions in her office, and there was a large box of chocolates. I said, could it happen that the Belgians were here? And she said yes. So I said, maybe they asked for the chocolate summit.

Now, the chocolate summit was an idea to bring together the five countries of the Eurocorps into a European political defence entity. I think it is right that this is history and that we are clearly committed to have a joint European position. Eurocorps is one part of it, but there is no attempt to get five armies included as one and separate it from the other European.... We see NATO and the European Union as parts of an integration and not of a disintegration.

Concerning the A400M, I'm sorry, the actual price.... But if you are interested—

[Wajid Khan, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Timeframe of delivery.

[Christian Schmidt]

--I'm sure they will make a good offer.

As for the timeframe, we expect the first to be service in 2010-11.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Good, thank you.

Mr. Bouchard.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Schmidt, welcome and thank you for your presentation.

My question is organizational in nature. Since you're the Parliamentary State Secretary of the Minister of Defence, you no doubt have to share responsibility with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I'd like to know who is in charge of Germany's mission in Afghanistan. Are you the minister responsible? Who is the top German leader in Afghanistan and to whom does he report?

[Christian Schmidt]

That's complicated. In political terms, the Department of Foreign Affairs is responsible for deciding on missions. That falls under its responsibility. However, we are under order. In Cabinet, the government calls on the Parliamentary State Secretary for Foreign Affairs. For the organization of the missions themselves, the Department of Defence is responsible. Sometimes, we wonder whether it wouldn't be better for the entity responsible for the political decision to be responsible for the organization of the mission as well. I've tried to have that idea adopted, and others have tried, but we haven't been successful.

In addition, the Department of Foreign Affairs is also concerned more with the context of economic affairs, police assistance and so on. There are also the military commanders, and we are responsible for them.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

You have time just for a short one.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

You have provincial reconstruction teams. My colleague Mr. Bachand went to Afghanistan and he spoke very positively about those organizations, more particularly in Feyzabad.

Could you comment on that success? It seems it's a good organization and that it's considered a success.

[Christian Schmidt]

Thank you for your question. I know Feyzabad, and I work with the provincial reconstruction team. I should add that I'm president of a non-governmental organization that is in Afghanistan. It was created in response to Soviet pressure in Afghanistan. That is how I've been able to take advantage of the military's work from the outside. I'm trying to understand both sides.

In the past, we've had a lot of cooperation problems between military personnel and the development and humanitarian aid people. We've had situations in which people not wearing uniforms left the street when the military arrived. Now these people work very well and they are very effective. The secret is to have a lot of contacts with the regional Afghan authorities.

I heard your Minister of Foreign Affairs talk about the Canadian experience. There isn't a lot of contact with Afghan officials and authorities. Various countries that have been part of the provincial reconstruction team have had different experiences. I know the results and it must be understood that reconstruction is not a military matter; it's a combination of a number of elements. This shows that there is new thinking about the military. I believe we've been successful and that we've done this in a reasonable manner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

Ms. Black, do you have a short one?