National Defence Committee on May 11th, 2010

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

I don't need my own time allotment. There's no time left, correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Yes, that's why I gave you five minutes. Take what you want.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Okay. I have just one final question then.

From the perspective of an organization that's on the ground in many places around the world, do you have an assessment of what situations are simmering just under the surface that may require the participation of our Canadian Forces at some point in the future?

[Mia Vukojevic]

Yes. The one that scares me a lot is Zimbabwe. I hope not, but the country faces so many problems: the humanitarian crisis; the effects of climate change; the years of subsequent droughts; the cholera problem; the hyper-inflation that they have now stopped, but really, the fundamentals of the economy haven't been resolved; lack of political freedoms; and basically the dictatorship. I've been wondering for the longest time when it's going to blow up. I was really afraid last year after the elections. So that one worries me a lot. If that one happens, it will be an internal conflict, it will not be an external one.

There are concerns about some of the existing missions--for example, the UN mission in Chad, which is there, basically, to protect refugees from Darfur. The Government of Chad wants the UN to leave, and there are constant negotiations and renegotiations. That's a really important one.

But the new ones.... You never know with the former Soviet republics and the areas there. Oxfam doesn't have a big presence there, but you know those areas, the Ossetias, and so on.

That's what I can think of at this point.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

I will give the floor to Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If the first casualty of war is the truth, the second casualty must be language, so when we talk about peacekeeping, and we're looking at post-2011, we're looking at getting political buy-in by the Canadian public. The Canadian public has obviously spoken very much with regard to the present situation in Afghanistan. When we talk about peacekeeping, there is obviously the connotation that there's a peace to keep, which would not be the case in the Congo, and which would not be the case in many of these war-torn places at the present time.

What would be your advice in terms of the way we as policy-makers position this kind of language and approach so that way we would get buy-in? Really, a lot of it is peacemaking, and the work that Oxfam and other organizations do is really as a fundamental supporting role, to assist those on the ground who are either displaced or who are clearly the casualties of conflict. Clearly, Somalia in 1993 was not peacekeeping, it was peacemaking, and yet the impression people had was in fact that it was peacekeeping, as it clearly was in Bosnia.

What advice would you give to assist in that regard? You're not going to get buy-in by the public if they think it's going to be a continuation of the same old, same old.

[Mia Vukojevic]

I think, possibly, talking about protection of civilians in peace operations. Peace operations covers the gamut of it, which I think is fair to be used. But then knowing the Canadian public, and knowing how they react to suffering of people overseas, focus on protection of civilians would be clearly one that I think would have the broad approval of the Canadian public.

So whether a particular situation is peacekeeping because they signed the peace developed for next week or it's peacemaking, military observers, or something, as long as the focus is on protecting civilians rather than keeping one side or the other, especially in these internal conflicts, which are really bad to get through and to understand, and Canadians go whoa, too complicated.

Focusing on protecting civilians, innocent victims, and providing security and protection for them while we provide assistance to them, and the rest of the Government of Canada works on diplomacy and through the United Nations, and there's mediation and so on to resolve the problem I think would be a reasonable proposition to the Canadian public.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that. I think that goes back, again, to the 2005 UN summit. It also maybe deals with some of the capacity-building issues and dealing with poverty and inequality, which Canadians, by and large, seem to be supportive of.

I think the wording is important, because I think the connotations that derive from that really do indicate what we're all about. Since the central tenets of traditional Canadian foreign policy have been human rights--certainly our discussion is on the issue of the right to protection--I welcome those comments. I think they're helpful. Obviously, when we talk about zero tolerance for war crimes, we could do more, as the engineer that has been very much involved in the International Criminal Court. Again, I think these are values that are part of what you have described.

[Mia Vukojevic]

It would resonate with the Canadian public.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I think that's very important.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Mr. Bachand.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Earlier, you talked to us about the New Horizons program. I have here a paper entitled “International peacekeeping missions and civilian protection mandates: Oxfam's experiences.” I'd like to read an excerpt from this paper in which New Horizons happens to be mentioned. The following is stated:

“The UN Secretariat Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Department of Field Support are reaching a critical point in assessing the performance of peacekeeping operations. They are making the necessary institutional improvements to meet future challenges. Under the Secretary General, Alain Le Roy and Susana Malcorra have recently launched a “New Horizons” reform process. It outlines eight key peacekeeping areas that require further attention and improvement. The fifth of these--clarity and consensus on new tasks--proposes steps to build consensus on policy and requirements for both robust peacekeeping and the protection of civilians, which should provide opportunity for much-needed policy development in this area.”

I'd like to hear more from you about the new New Horizons program. Specifically, can you tell us a bit about the eight key peacekeeping areas?

[Mia Vukojevic]

I don't know if I'm an expert on it. Oxfam has been trying to engage the United Nations and the DPKO, actually, in broadening their consultations and engaging with everybody else. I know that recently they had a report issued that outlined options for reform and different kinds of missions they could have, and so on. We're currently looking into it, and we're expecting to provide feedback to them.

I'm not engaged in direct talks with the United Nations. We think it's important. I think it is outlined in their “New Horizons” plan that the protection of civilians should be really important and a core part of their mandate. For us, that's a big one. We want to make sure that if there are new UN peace operations and new doctrines and so on that it clearly includes protection of civilians. Lots of the stuff is technical. Lots of it is about rules of engagement and so on. We're not necessarily the best to provide input on that. But wherever it comes down to civilian protection, humanitarian assistance, a relationship with civilian actors and players, and our experience of what has worked in UN peace operations, we're willing to share.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

If I understand correctly, this work is under way. The New Horizons program has been launched and I would imagine that consultations are taking place. What is the status of the consultation process? Has a timetable been set for producing a report and formulating new peacekeeping policies?

[Mia Vukojevic]

I don't think they have a deadline. I don't think they do. I don't know of one. Knowing the United Nations, it will probably drag on for a couple of years. That's why I said in my presentation that this is a good time to engage. I know that they are having consultations, including consultations with civil society and with the biggest contributing nations. They commissioned a report by academics.

It's a comprehensive process. They are looking into internal procedures, global trends in development, current conflicts, and current operations. Lots of it is specific to military operations. It's a comprehensive review. It's supposed to be on the Brahimi report from 2000. They want to build on that. They see that it has brought some positive changes. It is supposed to be a comprehensive reform of the approach, the policies, and the operational stuff--the way DPKO functions. It is basically a complete overhaul.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I don't want to focus on several countries. Let's consider the case of Afghanistan. What is Oxfam doing in this country, what is its policy on Afghanistan and how many staff members are working there? Do you hire any Afghans as part of your programs, or are all Oxfam staff foreigners?

[Mia Vukojevic]

Mostly Afghans. We have staff. We mostly focus on humanitarian assistance, but we have some development activities. Most of our staff...in general, it's one international to ten locals. In Afghanistan it's even higher. I think we only have three internationals currently, and they engage with the United Nations and the civil-military relations committee and so on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm interested in Canada post-2011, so I don't really want to talk about Afghanistan right now.

You told us about how Canada was effective in Croatia, despite the inadequate mandate. You told us how the reputation of the Canadian military was very positive in this conflict situation and more respected than the local police. So Canada has some international reputation.

What I am intrigued by is the fact that Canada hasn't really participated in UN missions at all in latter years. There have now been, by some measures, 15 or 18 military operations, involving, from what I've seen here, some 84,000 troops. Canada contributes 5,500 of those and contributes about $5 million a year. In other words, we're not really participating in UN missions at all.

Given the fact that Resolution 1265 was passed by the Security Council in 1999, talking about the responsibility to protect civilians, and this work on the New Horizons project, first of all, do you know whether Canada is engaged in this New Horizons concept of trying to rebuild a peacekeeping mission and further develop the protection of civilians mandate that you say is part of all their mandates now? Is this something Canada should be considering getting more involved in after 2011, or should we continue getting involved in American projects or NATO projects outside the UN altogether--in other words, continuing down the road we're going? Or is there a sufficient or do you think there could be a sufficient enough change in the UN approach to peacekeeping to engage Canadians where Canada's effectiveness and reputation can be of significant value?

[Mia Vukojevic]

I'm not sure whether Canada is engaged with the current processes in the UN. I would assume so, but there are different levels you can engage at. So it could be at the level of one person from DFAIT occasionally contributing to discussions where I think Canada could be a leader in the New Horizons process. And I think Canada could contribute to more meaningful change within the process and we could drive the process, as opposed to leaving it to the others.

I do think that with Canada's leadership and engagement, there could be significant enough change in how the UN peace operations are managed. And with all the faults the United Nations has because of universal acceptability and the role they play, I see it as a most appropriate role to engage in. And I think Canada could be leading this process and influencing it to shape it according to its values, priorities, and so on.

Does that answer your question?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Yes. It's in accord with my view, frankly, and I just wanted to see what your expression of that role would be.

So is it because of Canada's unique ability or its reputation or its values?

[Mia Vukojevic]

Its credibility, values--

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

All of that comes with great--

[Mia Vukojevic]

The way it's seen in the world is important, because Canada is still seen as a player that doesn't really have an interest in conflict somewhere else, other than Afghanistan, I would say.

It's not only that Canadians would see the value in Canada engaging in UN peace operations reform and peace operations in general; it's that most of the international community--the nations within the United Nations--would be open to Canada shaping it and contributing to it and changing it. I think Canada has a very distinct profile within the international community.