Merci beaucoup, monsieur le président.
Thank you to the members of the committee for inviting me to appear before you.
Peacebuild/Paix durable is a network of about 70 Canadian organizations and individuals involved in a range of activities related to peace and conflict situations. Today I am appearing in my personal capacity and not representing views of the network.
My initial comments will focus on criteria for Canadian engagement in responding to violent conflict or the threat of violent conflict, but I would be happy to discuss in the question period, if there is interest and if time permits, other issues.
In looking at Canadian engagement in peace operations post-2011, I think we definitely need some explicit criteria that are as comprehensive as possible for engagement, and a process—bureaucratic, parliamentary, and public—for debating and applying those criteria to specific cases. I'd suggest, however, that criteria shouldn't be limited to possible involvement in peace operations but applied to determining the nature and scope of any major engagement by Canada in support of international peace and security, whether that involves support for conflict prevention to avert violent conflict, resolution of a hot conflict, or substantial involvement in a post-conflict situation.
Some basic categories for looking at any involvement would be, first, relevance to Canadian interests and values; second, what resources and capacities Canada could bring to bear on the situation; and third, the risks of engaging or not engaging.
In the first category, I personally would put humanitarian and human rights considerations at the top of the list. Would engagement serve to protect human life or prevent war crimes, possibly even genocide? Would engagement contribute to protecting or establishing the rule of law? Would it help democratic practice and attitudes to develop? Would it protect or strengthen gender equality, minority rights, or individual human rights?
In addition to these value issues, there is a set of issues related to national interests. These include how important the situation is to Canadian trade, whether there are strong diaspora links, shared language, or cultural links.
Our interests also include how much of a threat to international security the situation is or could become and how much of a direct threat the situation could be to Canada's national security or that of our friends and allies.
Another part of this equation is determining what Canada can bring to the situation. Do we have the resources and capabilities to engage in the state or region in question? Do we have a positive and constructive history in and some in-depth understanding of the situation? What are others, including the United Nations, Canada's allies, regional organizations and states, international NGOs, and others doing to respond? And are we likely to fill a crucial need?
How receptive will the local population and political leaders be to Canadian involvement? Are there adequate international or bilateral coordination mechanisms already in play?
Thirdly, there should be a determination of risk to Canadian lives from either taking action or inaction, and of the risks to local people of action or inaction. Other possible risks include internal or external spoilers—states or armed groups with a potential for negatively altering the dynamics of the situation—and whether waste or misuse of Canadian resources can be prevented.
Last but not least, it should be determined whether there is a realistic chance of success, of meeting clearly articulated objectives. Coming up with adequate, usable criteria for engagement would be a good first step. Effective application of criteria presents another set of issues that I'd be happy to talk further about in the question period.
Thanks.