National Defence Committee on June 16th, 2009

[RAdm Nils Wang]

Not much. We don't have very much in this area. We are, I think, relying on intelligence from partners and therefore we don't have big radar systems of our own on Greenland. We don't have that.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

Now I will give the floor to Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Goddag, Admiral. Mange tak for joining us today.

Carrying on with the equipment questions from before, I understand the Royal Danish Navy has recently disbanded its submarine program and concentrated more on Arctic offshore patrol ships.

Can you comment on the rationale behind this change in equipment?

[RAdm Nils Wang]

The submarine question has nothing to do with the Arctic. It was a political decision that was taken because we had too much structure and too little money. In order to receive that balance, you had to cut away some structure, and the choice was made by the politicians to get rid of the submarines. There was no real operational analysis behind that. It was a political discussion item and it went away.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I won't ask you your sailor's reaction to that.

You talked about some search and rescue capabilities in the Arctic. Could you describe for us some of the Danish search and rescue capabilities in the Arctic, either air- or sea-based, and how you might cooperate--or have you cooperated?--with the Canadian Forces in those activities?

[RAdm Nils Wang]

Our national response in the search and rescue area is basically that we normally have an Arctic patrol frigate and two to three Arctic patrol vessels stationed on Greenland 24/7. The Arctic patrol frigate has a helicopter. Of course, the commercial helicopters that are part of the Greenlandic commercial infrastructure also have a hoist capability so that they can also be used for search and rescue missions. Apart from that, we rely on indigenous vessels, merchant traffic, and whatever.

It is really not much, if you look at the area. That is also why I point out that cooperation is needed. I think it's the same situation in all the other polar countries in that there aren't enough search and rescue tools in order to cover that area, at least not if it becomes more and more accessible and the activity increases. Right now, for example, we've seen an almost explosive increase in tourism with regard to cruise liners. My nightmare is a cruise liner with 3,000 passengers capsizing in the inner leads of Greenland. You would almost not be able to do anything about it unless you have a similar cruise liner just beside it to take on the passengers.

In that respect, our operational command on Greenland has contact with the shipping industry and with the IMO. I also know that the Danish government is pushing to have some international rules of good behaviour in the cruise industry, to have them operate in pairs, because it's almost impossible to divest yourself from that dilemma. But if the five countries are able to agree to pool their resources and maybe exercise once in a while so there will be a common understanding on procedures.... Of course, it is easier for NATO members to do such things than it may be for non-NATO members, but it's basically indicating the need for exercises.

We have been exercising with Canada. The last time we had a search and rescue exercise it was outside Ilulissat, where the declaration was signed when we had the summit of the North Atlantic Coast Guard Forum while I was the chairman last September.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

You talked about the Ilulissat Declaration and so on. Are we abiding by the spirit of that declaration, in your view?

[RAdm Nils Wang]

Could you repeat that, sir? I didn't catch the question.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Are we abiding by the spirit of the Ilulissat Declaration? Do you view positively what has transpired since then or not?

[RAdm Nils Wang]

It's my impression that everybody has adhered to what they have agreed upon in the Ilulissat Declaration. Even though it's a piece of paper that was signed by some countries, and everybody can run from it if they want to, I think when a paper like that is signed on a foreign minister level it has the effect that it is adhered to. It is my impression that the country is adhering to it.

I was encouraged when I saw the Russian ambassador in Copenhagen actually mention the declaration as something that Russia would positively pursue. I don't think the Russian ambassador in Copenhagen would write anything unless it was coordinated back home.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Is the Northwest Passage of commercial value to Danish business or international trade interests directly?

[RAdm Nils Wang]

I think so, given the fact that 10% of all world trade is controlled by Danish industry. Danish-owned ships are 10% of the world's fleet. Statistically, every tenth ship that goes through that passage in the future will be a Danish-controlled ship.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I wasn't aware of that.

We talked about the five-nation approach with Canada, Russia, Denmark, Norway, and the U.S. There's a possibility of other nations who have interests or want to pursue interests in that area. What's your view on how we might deal with them if somebody gets overly aggressive in pursuit of those interests and possibly aren't signatories to the agreements we may have? What are our limits?

[RAdm Nils Wang]

I can only have a personal opinion on your question.

The answer to your question is basically that the more interest we all have in getting the UN engaged in this as an issue of interest to mankind, so to speak...because it is a huge area. It is a huge question, and there are a lot of interests at stake that are not limited to the five polar nations. I think the fact that the UN is engaged in the process of dividing the area is the first step in the right direction. If countries get overly aggressive in that area, it must be handled the way such things are handled normally, and that will start with a protest in the Security Council, won't it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Wilfert, for five minutes.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Admiral, you say that within 15 to 20 years the Arctic ice cap could be gone, that you could travel between Yokohama, Japan, and Rotterdam and the trip would be reduced by about 40%. Could you enlighten the committee as to what the impetus for Denmark was, as one of the leading proponents in dealing with climate change and strategic security interests? We see that both Great Britain and the United States are well advanced in that regard. Can you give us some of the impetus for Denmark and some of the key components of your strategy in dealing with climate change and the Arctic?

[RAdm Nils Wang]

If I start with the Arctic, I think I will start on my home turf, in the sense that I think we are very engaged in the Arctic question because of Greenland. Greenland is part of the Danish kingdom. Therefore I suspect the Danish government and foreign ministry have a natural role to play in that particular question.

My country's engagement in the climate question, I think, is predominantly driven by idealism in a way. Of course there's hard-core economic interest also, in the sense that we have some of the leading industries when it comes to wind energy, for example, windmills and things like that, and therefore there is the whole idea of using alternative energy. Right now I think 25% of Danish consumption is covered by either wind or solar energy, and we have a leading edge in this matter anyway in many respects. Therefore it probably is very tempting to also try to drive this through the rest of the world. The right person to ask that question to would be the Minister of Climate in Denmark.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

In terms of infrastructure, we see the Russians developing these 12 submarines that they are able to use in the Arctic. We see an aggressive approach by Russia and others in terms of the drive for resources. Do you believe NATO is in a position to respond effectively to those challenges, and what type of infrastructure should we be looking at in terms of both surveillance and being able to signal sovereignty, whether it's Denmark or Canada, in terms of our claims in the north?

[RAdm Nils Wang]

Again, it's a highly political question. I could give you a list of equipment that you need to invest in, as politicians, if you want to have proper surveillance. I don't think you want to see that list.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I'd be interested.

[RAdm Nils Wang]

I think there are two ways of approaching this. There is the cooperation and the dialogue-seeking way, where you can try to convince others this is the only way to go if you want to do this cheaply and smart. Then there is the alternative, which is to start an arms race, with all that follows. I don't think you'd need to go further back than the Cold War to find out how many resources went into that game. Whether it's one way or the other to pursue, it's up to you political masters in the various countries.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be sharing my time with Monsieur Blaney.

It's nice to meet you, Admiral, even if it is not in person. I understand that you're a formidable expert on the north, and we're really delighted we could have you here.

I have a couple of questions for you.

You talked about peaceful cooperation in the north, and that's obviously the best way to go, particularly in the Arctic. However, of course, we've heard that Russia and to an extent Norway have released some aggressive Arctic policies, and I'm wondering, since they're both rearming, how would you and Denmark propose to deal with this?

[RAdm Nils Wang]

As I mentioned, my politicians are right now discussing the next five-year defence agreement, and there is nothing on the table right now that indicates that Denmark will start to arm itself for a significant greater presence in the Arctic. My country's position on that will be to try to go the dialogue way, basically.

I don't know what you mean about Norway, because as far as I know, Norway does not have anything in its military inventory, nor will it get anything in its military inventory, that puts it in a more aggressive posture in the Arctic than it had before. It has a navy with frigates, as you have and we have. Of course, if you start to use your frigates in the Arctic area--and that requires at least no ice as long as they are traditional frigates--you could argue that you have a more aggressive posture.

However, I am not aware that Norway is acquiring stuff that can justify believing it will have a more aggressive posture in the Arctic. I don't recall that I have seen any statements from Norway, except that it is always concerned about its neighbourship with Russia. I don't think it has mentioned anything about starting an increased armament regarding the Arctic.

That is basically all I can say.