Thank you very much.
Evidence of meeting #15 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was war.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #15 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was war.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:35 p.m.
Chair, Defence Studies Program, School of Policy Studies, Queen's University, As an Individual
If you don't do that, just hire diplomats, maybe.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to go through a little exercise for the benefit of the committee, naturally. I would like to know if, with regard to international law, to legality and legitimacy, the United Nations would be at the top of the pyramid. Is that so?
12:35 p.m.
Director, Francophone Research Network on Peace Operations
Well, it depends, because—
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Just a minute, Mr. Coulon. I would like to make a little list and then you can answer.
12:35 p.m.
Director, Francophone Research Network on Peace Operations
There are things that are legal yet are immoral.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
12:35 p.m.
Chair, Defence Studies Program, School of Policy Studies, Queen's University, As an Individual
Can I perhaps respond?
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
No.
Boy, the time is flying, isn't it.
With regards to legality, legitimacy, and international law, I'd like you to give us your opinion on the following: NATO in the Kosovo operation; the European Union, which has taken over from NATO in Bosnia; the African Union, which, in certain conflicts, is currently supported by NATO; the responsibility to protect, which is a new legal approach. Finally, a coalition of volunteer countries, especially in Iraq.
What is the legality and legitimacy of all this? I will probably have to ask you to respond in writing. You will not have enough time to answer this question right now.
12:35 p.m.
Director, Francophone Research Network on Peace Operations
The international system set up an international organization in 1945, the UN, to manage issues of peace and security pursuant to certain criteria as defined in the Charter of the United Nations. As a general rule, the charter encourages the peaceful settlement of conflicts, but article 51, for example, does provide for a state to defend itself. The Security Council can use coercive means against a country, as was the case in Iraq in 1990-1991. The legal infrastructure of our international system is the United Nations.
However, as you know, the UN—especially the Security Council—is a political entity. Decisions that are taken by the Security Council are not always based on law or legality. Therefore, some operations happen to be legal, simply because they were voted on by the Security Council, but are considered illegal by some because they do not respect international law. I think that a lawyer could explain this better than I.
As for NATO's presence in Kosovo, the International Commission of Jurists set up by Sweden has declared that the war was illegal, but that it was also legitimate due to the fact that it had garnered the approval of public opinion worldwide. Legitimacy is a much more political concept; it is not based on law.
As for the European Union and the African Union's intervention in certain conflicts, these organizations usually get the green light from the United Nations Security Council. They are covered. Furthermore, the responsibility to protect is a very complicated issue to discuss. Indeed, there are some very strict criteria to be met before this intervention mechanism can be resorted to, otherwise, it would be applied all the time.
As for the volunteer coalition, you are talking of the coalition in Iraq in 2003. From the United Nations' point of view, it was illegal, but in October 2003, a resolution to support a multinational intervention in Iraq gave this intervention legal standing.
12:40 p.m.
Chair, Defence Studies Program, School of Policy Studies, Queen's University, As an Individual
Okay.
My response is that, first, there is no such thing as the international community. There are lots of nations. When they go to the United Nations, it's a bizarre marketplace where nations trade information or whatever back and forth to suit their national interests. The United Nations isn't sovereign, and any idea that Canada should tie itself, its sovereignty, to decisions taken by the United Nations is a very poor thing.
If I were to suggest to Canadians or members here or anybody else that we should perhaps surrender a lot of our sovereignty in matters of international affairs to the British Empire, or to the Commonwealth, or to the United States, people would say, “Well, boo on you.” But if you say, well, we'll just do whatever the Security Council decides, or not do, people think that's reasonable. I don't understand that, actually.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bryon Wilfert
Thank you.
Madam Gallant will now conclude the last round of questioning.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bland, if, as some suggest, the Canadian Forces should be relegated to blue helmet missions only, what, if any, risks does Canada face?
12:40 p.m.
Chair, Defence Studies Program, School of Policy Studies, Queen's University, As an Individual
I missed part of that; this is if we're relegated only to peacekeeping, to blue helmets?
12:45 p.m.
Chair, Defence Studies Program, School of Policy Studies, Queen's University, As an Individual
What it does is it probably restricts governments into the future to join missions of which we have no advance notice or whatever. It ties the hands of government.
If you say we should only prepare for peacekeeping missions--if you can get somebody to define what that means--and if peacekeeping means small arms weapons, no fighter planes, and so on, then what you're doing is the opposite of what Paul Martin, Sr., said of Canada at the end of the Second World War, that we wanted to play a role in the world and we had the teeth to do it.
A lot of people since then have said that Canada ought to play a role in the world, and we're going to gum them to death, I guess; we don't have any teeth.
The more serious thing is that when people say we should do peacekeeping, does that set the policy for the next government and the next government and the next government? It does, in a way, if the first government--perhaps Pierre Trudeau's government--disarms the armed forces. Then the next government can't do anything, because they don't have the resources.
Canadians should decide what portion of their wealth will be devoted toward international affairs, building capabilities for that, building capabilities to defend Canada first, to defend Canada, with the United States, in North America, and then maintain that level. That's what I would advise, but then, I'm not in your position.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Upon what basis should the choice of missions be determined--that is, if we have the luxury of time and choice?
12:45 p.m.
Chair, Defence Studies Program, School of Policy Studies, Queen's University, As an Individual
I would return to what I said earlier, that we need to understand what our national interest is and then relate the deployment to our national interest, not to something that a so-called international community decides, unless what they decide is in our national interest, which it often is. Then we should make sure we have the capabilities to do it reasonably and with reasonable prudence. Most often, military operations that I've been involved in planning have, at the end of the day, come down to just those things. But it sometimes surprises prime ministers, and maybe even defence ministers, to find out that when they say, “Let's go to Zaire”, we don't have anything to go to Zaire.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
What are your thoughts on NATO's review of its strategic concepts with a view toward the future of the Canadian Forces?
12:45 p.m.
Chair, Defence Studies Program, School of Policy Studies, Queen's University, As an Individual
I think, again, a strategic review should look at two aspects. First, we need an assessment of what kind of world we will live in, what Canada's going to be like, and what Canada's place in the world will be. My political science colleagues do that when they say the world is round and has all kinds of problems.
At the same time, we need to write very strong statements in the white papers and defence statements on the economics of national defence. What we often do, or somebody does, is write very grand statements of Canada's intention in the world that we call defence white papers or foreign policy white papers. Nobody adds up the bill before they issue these papers, so they become meaningless, in effect.
How much is enough in Canada for national defence spending? It's 2% of GDP. It's always that. If GDP is going up, we get a little more in the way of capabilities, maybe, if prices aren't going up. And that's without inflation.
The history of Canada's defence policy--never mind commitments to NATO and NORAD and the UN and everything--is 2% of GDP. So it's like the kid at the store who says, “I have 10¢. What can I get for that?”
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bryon Wilfert
Thank you very much.
I want to thank both of you gentlemen for a very thoughtful and engaging discussion. It will certainly help us in our further deliberations with regard to this issue. On behalf of the committee, thank you again for coming.
Committee members, normally to do committee business we go in camera, but this is a very quick item. With your indulgence I will read it out, and then someone can move it, if they wish. If someone objects, obviously it won't go ahead.
It reads as follows:
That the Chair organize a press conference to announce the presentation of the Committee's report on Arctic sovereignty to the House of Commons on Tuesday, May 11, 2010.