Good morning, everybody. I would like to thank the committee for inviting me and Oxfam to come to talk to you today.
As you know, Oxfam has many years of experience in working in conflict situations alongside international peace operations and missions, as well as alongside the Canadian military in conflict and in disasters. Just some of the examples are Sri Lanka post-tsunami, for disasters; Pakistan, after the earthquake in 2005; Haiti now; but also the big conflicts in the Balkans, and so on.
I currently work as the manager of humanitarian programs for Oxfam Canada. I have 20 years of experience in humanitarian work. I started doing it in the country I originally came from, Croatia, where I witnessed the work of the Canadian military in 1992-93 to 1995.
I hope my presence here will be valuable to the topic you're looking into, but I think it's important that I state that my presentation and my opinions are coming from a particular perspective, which is the perspective of a humanitarian development organization and the issues we are looking into. My presentation, and probably the answers I'll be able to give to your questions, will be closely related to my experiences.
In the introductory statement, I would like to address basically two issues, which are provision of humanitarian assistance by military in general and by the Canadian military, and protection of civilians in conflict.
It will not come as a surprise to you that Oxfam Canada as a humanitarian NGO believes that the military, including the Canadian military, should have a limited role in provision of humanitarian assistance outside Canada.
We believe the Canadian military should be engaging in providing humanitarian assistance only as a matter of last resort, and that's because that's how it is defined in international humanitarian law, because of differences in the missions that militaries have, because of cost efficiency—because there are huge differences in how costly humanitarian assistance provided by military organizations is— effectiveness, understanding of local culture, and so on.
I will not stay longer on any of these. If you have questions about them, I'm happy to provide examples and elaborate.
I think Canadian military should be engaging in providing humanitarian assistance by using its unique capability strategically. When I say this, I mean such things as that, instead of providing parcels to displaced people, the Canadian military has capacities that no other civilian organization has, such as heavy lifting, infrastructure repairs, logistical capacities, and so on; that provision of humanitarian assistance by Canadian military should be done with clear humanitarian direction and in coordination with other humanitarian actors, rather than on its own; and that it should be time-limited. As soon as civilian actors, primarily and preferably the local government, are able to provide humanitarian assistance, the Canadian military should reduce its engagement. This should also stand the case for international humanitarian agencies, of course.
As I said, I think Canada should develop its logistical lift, search and rescue, and similar capacities to supplement capacities of Canadian NGOs and other Canadian government departments and in such a way maximize Canada's contribution to humanitarian efforts around the world in the most cost-efficient and effective way.
On protection, as a humanitarian organization Oxfam believes that all civilian men and women caught in humanitarian crises, regardless whether it is a conflict or humanitarian disaster, should be assured both assistance and protection. Those are two axes of humanitarianism globally: assistance and protection regardless of who they are, regardless of their political belief, what side they are on in conflict, and so on—as long as they're civilians.
Protection of civilians, however, has been an area that has been eluding the diplomatic missions, the international community in general, UN peacekeeping missions, humanitarian organizations—everybody. We have not performed really well in terms of providing protection of civilians historically.
To this day, while assistance is being provided now with reasonable speed and quality, protection is still a major issue. Just look at the Democratic Republic of Congo, camps in Darfur, Haiti, and so on.
Traditional peacekeeping operations, for example, up until the late nineties didn't even have protection of civilians in their mandate. Only starting in 1999 have most of them had protection of civilians as a part of their mandate. But even when they do, there are all sorts of caveats to it in terms of what they can do and the different terms they use to limit it and restrict it.
The traditional peacekeeping missions with a UN mandate are still highly improvised, basically tools for conflict management. We do it when we don't know what else to do and when it seems as though it may work. But then we don't provide sufficient resources, tools, and skills for people who are doing peacekeeping operations, and then—especially for them—in terms of protecting civilians in those operations.
The UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations has made efforts to improve, to provide better tools, more clarity, sufficient resources, etc. While progress has been made, there is still a long way to go. Ultimately, United Nations peacekeeping operations still represent a uniquely legitimate international mechanism for protection of all civilians in a polarized world. While they're not perfect, Oxfam believes they're still the best we have.
We believe that UN peace operations that focus on the protection of civilians should be considered as an option for engagement of the Canadian military after 2011, and I would like to stress “United Nations peace operations” in that regard.
Peacekeeping can still be a vital tool, one among many, alongside diplomacy, pressure, sanctions, assistance, and so on, for making sure that civilians are safe in conflict. To be effective in this, Canadian soldiers will need to be sent to the right places at the right time with the right missions and the right tools, and they'll have to work closely with humanitarians and local communities, each bringing its distinct competencies.
As UN peace operations require further rethinking and reinvestment, and the UN is currently undergoing the process of doing so—I'm not sure whether you're aware of the “New Horizon” project that the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations is undertaking—the Government of Canada should engage with this process to ensure that the system has improved by the end of 2011.
We believe that with Canada's history in peacekeeping and its reputation internationally as an impartial and credible player in all sorts of conflict, Canada can influence the current process whereby the United Nations is trying to reform the way they do peacekeeping operations and make them more effective, more efficient, more strategic, and so on, so that the Canadian military can then be engaged with fewer failed operations.
We believe that the focus on protection of civilians will enable the Canadian military to focus on its distinct competencies and get away from competing with humanitarian agencies in distributing food and water. Rather, it will complement what civilian agencies are able to do in terms of protection of civilians—but that's very limited—and it could be playing on its strengths in that regard.
I would just like to end by saying that my first contact with the Canadian military was in September 1993 in Croatia, in Medak Pocket. I'm not sure how many of you know of that operation. I went in there as an interpreter for the European Union, to where Canadians, in spite of the terrible mission given to them by the United Nations—a lack of resources, inappropriate tools, an inappropriate decision-making mechanism and everything, were able to do the right thing and try to protect civilians.
These are the kinds of examples in which I think we can make a huge difference.
Thank you.
I think I'm on the wrong channel. I'm hearing French from it; I apologize—also for not speaking French. I take being an immigrant and a new Canadian as an excuse. I'm working on it.