National Defence Committee on May 25th, 2010

[Dr. Ann Livingstone]

It's always important to link the public with something that is bigger than themselves and to help them understand that what happens in the plains of Afghanistan also has an impact on Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. That's where the role of Parliament, the role of the media, and the role of NGOs such as the PPC and Peacebuild can be very useful in saying the world has changed and now what happens over there is intimately connected to you. One of the things we don't do enough of is really linking to that globalized environment.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

We actually had one of the previous witnesses make a very good connection between Afghanistan and Canada, particularly with the U.S. border and the thickening of the border. I think that was quite a bit of an eye-opener. How do you link that, and how do you get that message across to the public?

Obviously, a lot of the public have had difficulties getting into the U.S. They now have to have passports or other legal documentation to do that.

One of the other things that I was interested in, Ms. Livingstone, was when you talked about the need for joint training and certainly a cost-effective and civilian rapid response force. I'm not sure if you were just talking from a global point of view, or were you talking UN or Canadian?

[Dr. Ann Livingstone]

I'm talking at all levels of this.

Any time you can do a training activity that is scenario-based, that puts military, police, and civilians in the same room and compels them to deal with the issues to solve the problem, whether it's a Canadian group of people, Africans, or whomever else we train, we are very convinced that it is in this interface of scenario-based training that allows them to understand roles, responsibilities, and authority. It should happen at all levels.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I find that is an important piece. Where do we start? Do we start with the UN? Do we start with Canadians? How do we roll that out to the global community?

[Dr. Ann Livingstone]

We can start here. We can do it simultaneously with some of our colleagues in the Secretariat. The Pearson Centre has been involved recently in helping write operational guidance to heads of missions in anticipation of a senior mission leaders course at the UN that prepares future SRSGs and force commanders for their roles and responsibilities. It's also training the African Union that this is how you do planning, this is how you do exit strategies, this is how you do this.

So we have a lot of experience at multiple levels in rolling out this kind of training. It's not one way or the other; it's all.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Lord, do you have any comments on that?

[David Lord]

I think there is a tremendous amount of different opportunities for Canada to be involved. I'd go along with Ann in suggesting starting at home but working through the UN and working through other regional organizations and looking at what their particular needs are. Part of the issue here is the complexity of these operations and the situations. So it's working with others to understand and to be able to apply the right kinds of tools in the right kinds of situations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Wilfert for five minutes.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Ms. Livingstone, you started by saying this isn't my father's world. My father's world was the beaches of Normandy and the Battle of the Falaise Gap and Caen and Holland. That was his world. His world was not peacekeeping. We went through peacekeeping, and now we've directed our military to one major operation, which is Afghanistan.

Although the UN has tried to reform itself in terms of the nature of peacekeeping operations, one is forced to ask the question of whether peacekeeping is realistic given the state of affairs in the world today, the various non-state actors, the role of international terrorism, etc., and given that we are terribly inconsistent in international foreign policy. I mean, we were very tough in the 1980s on South Africa because of apartheid, and yet we are hypocritical on Zimbabwe, and hypocritical on Burma, and dealing with the Chinese.

If we accept the fact that we're totally inconsistent, both us and everybody else, the question goes back to the initial question I asked about the national interest. What is in our interest in order to move forward if in fact the nature of peacekeeping, which I would suggest is really peace enforcement, is the nature of the day? Maybe we are going to go back to our traditional role as a nation, which is what my father's world was.

[Dr. Ann Livingstone]

But one could argue that your father's world and my father's world really doesn't exist in terms of the interstate conflict that drove them to the beaches of Normandy.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

It may not, but the ability as a fighting force to go in with clear objectives is still there.

[Dr. Ann Livingstone]

It is still there, and one can argue that if there was leadership on the Security Council, at the Secretariat, in a devising of mandates that were clear and resourced appropriately, and if there was the political will to have that mandate, then peace enforcement or complex peace operations, or whatever nomenclature you choose, might have a chance at being more successful in those kinds of environments.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

That is predicated on the fact that the United Nations, as it currently exists, needs to be badly reformed, and not simply the Security Council. The national interest clearly plays a role, as we're going to see very shortly, on the situation on the Korean peninsula, where the Chinese will probably do what they traditionally do, and I don't think that is in anyone's interest.

The UN has recognized some of these issues, and they have made some changes in their operations. But essentially, do you see a point where Canada could demand of the UN that if we're going to go in--as the EU did, for example, in Lebanon in 2006--it's going to be under certain conditions? We're going to say we want, this, this, and this, otherwise we don't participate. In other words, do you think we have the leverage, as one of the few that in theory is out there doing this kind of work and that can actually get some results?

[Dr. Ann Livingstone]

I think in the future, precisely that will have to happen. The developed world, if it's going to go back, will put on very strong terms and references for the UN Security Council and Secretariat. It will be if you want A, then you must do B. And then Katy, bar the door for the C34 conversations that will happen, and that will say if you want this, then you're going to have to do that. I think there's an appetite for that, quite frankly.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

That would also mean that if we do believe in the role of multilateralism, Canada has to take a much more aggressive and pronounced role in the United Nations in order to get those players lined up.

[Dr. Ann Livingstone]

I think that's why there's such an interest in Canada having a non-permanent seat on the Security Council.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

It's too bad we passed that over in 1945. We were the only nation to actually be a member of every committee of the United Nations at the time.

I'm a great student--probably out of fashion today--of Hans Morgenthau. Hans Morgenthau talks about world public opinion and about the need, as policy-makers--and maybe we haven't done this in Canada as effectively--of getting the public to understand the nature of our operations in Afghanistan under the UN, if you want to use the term “subcontracted out to NATO”, or what we actually went into in Somalia, which was not peacekeeping. How do we get all of those different aspects you mentioned, from human rights, diaspora, and all those wonderful things, to be able to clearly articulate what we are doing in order to achieve the objectives we supposedly believe in through the UN, which is to create a better international climate?

[David Lord]

I wouldn't put aside peacekeeping so categorically. I think that in certain situations in which there is consent, a peace agreement, and so on, Canada can look at participation in peacekeeping. The key issue is consent or non-consent. If there's non-consent, then it's another ball of wax completely.

That's my 15 seconds.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I'm torn on the issue myself.

[Dr. Ann Livingstone]

I'm equally torn, because I think Canada's presence is important. It's not going to become any less complex, and I don't think there's an easy answer for this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

Mrs. Gallant is next.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

About five years after World War II ended, we saw the conflict arising in Korea. The Russians and the United States were jockeying for influence in the region, and our government of the day decided it was in Canada's national interest to go into that theatre of war.

Now, 57 years after that armistice, some of our troops are getting home from Afghanistan, many of them are still deploying to Afghanistan, and the situation seems to be heating up again.

Recognizing that the best war is that which is avoided altogether, and whether or not it is North Korea or some other country pulling its levers, should the Canadian Parliament and world bodies come to the conclusion that we do need troops in the area, then given everything we've discussed today, including the role of Canada's future military, what do you see as the role for our soldiers in that unthinkable situation that we have to be prepared for?

Could you each divide your time evenly? Thank you.

[David Lord]

I find thinking about war between North and South Korea, or primarily between North and South Korea, is really quite unthinkable. The world has changed so much since 1950 in terms of destructive military capabilities that we can't imagine a similar kind of military event taking place in the Koreas, so I'm one step away from considering the possibility of a Canadian deployment.

I would see all hell breaking loose there, with a tremendous loss of life, and opening up all kinds of potential for other disruption in the region. If I were a military planner, it's not something I would like to be contemplating. At this point I just can't see a role for Canada in the possible scenarios that I can imagine.

[Dr. Ann Livingstone]

I would tend to agree.

I don't think the North and South Korea situation, if it emerges into conflict, is going to be the kind of place where what we call complex peace operations will be valuable in the initial stage. I think there's going to be much more involvement by the large players, particularly China and the United States, and I think they will determine the pathway. I don't think it's a revisiting of the 1950s. I think it's entirely something else. I'm like David; I cannot wrap my mind around what that looks like.

In 1950 there was the “uniting for peace” resolution, which at the General Assembly was fairly easy; this is something else entirely. There's some argument that it may take us back into the timeframe of our fathers' world, in which sovereign states will be much more at play than intrastate conflict: you do have a North and South Korea, and all the other players in the neighbourhood are quite powerful states.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you.

I have no further questions.