National Defence Committee on Oct. 25th, 2012

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Through you, Mr. Chair, to our witnesses, I was listening to the discussion on nuclear disarmament concerning Iran, and you failed to mention the elephant in the room with regard to nuclear capability or incapability...the building nuclear capability; you and I may disagree on the extent of that, but I think it is the building; they almost admit it is. I guess the elephant in the room is Israel. There is a nation that is beginning to build a nuclear capacity and a nation that has a nuclear capacity, and of course Israel has her friends and her not so friends. That's what I think worries many of us.

Some of us—I'm just talking individually here—would be prepared to sit back and let the international community, through the UN...which is very painstaking, because of all the push-pull. Some of us would be prepared to sit back and wait to see if in actual fact Iran is just looking for power by the atom. But here it says that it wants to wipe another country off the face of the earth; that country has a nuclear capability. What do you do about that in the context of nuclear disarmament in the Middle East?

[Paul Meyer]

It's a good point to put in the broader context. Obviously—

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Actually, it's a very narrow context.

[Paul Meyer]

Broader in a regional context, to the Middle East. Remember, Iraq and Libya had covert nuclear programs at one time. They were cheaters under the NPT. They were exposed and they were dealt with, Libya with some cooperation. Syria has still to justify a very suspicious facility that Israel took out unilaterally in 2007.

So it is important to recall that it's not just Iran that is pushing the envelope on responsible nuclear behaviour under the NPT, and that in turn is a function of the tensions that remain in the Middle East.

I mentioned the NPT. I think it's important to work through that.

One of the decisions of that review conference in 2010 was that this year there should be a conference of all Middle Eastern states to talk about the possibility of a nuclear WMD-free zone in the Middle East. There is a facilitator, a Finnish diplomat, and Finland has offered to host this conference. The calendar is moving. It's supposed to be in Helsinki before the end of the year. It's one in which he's on constant shuttle diplomacy, trying to encourage all the concerned countries to show up. I hope very much that they do, and I think it would be, of course, very embarrassing if either Israel or Iran was the only one not to show up. I think there has to be continued pressure for responsible behaviour.

I mentioned the CTBT a moment ago.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Sorry, what are those acronyms?

[Paul Meyer]

I apologize. It's a professional déformation.

It's the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the nuclear test ban. It's a very important accomplishment, yet not fully in force because of eight states. Three of those states—Israel, Iran, and Egypt—have all signed that treaty, but have not ratified it. It needs ratification to bring it forward.

A great conference-building measure would be to get those states to take a coordinated step for ratification.

Again, I think there are areas where well-intentioned outsiders—and I put Canada in that capacity—can encourage the states of that region to be more responsible, to help them overcome some of their own mistrust, as well as to support the legitimate international organization dedicated to ensuring compliance with the NPT and safeguard agreements of the IAEA.

That's the kind of approach to the Middle East that I would support.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

I think some of that is happening, and Canada supports that, but Canada also says that if you're going to have a dance, you need partners, and right now we don't necessarily have those partners, if you assume that Iran does have a burgeoning nuclear capability.

How many minutes?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

I don't think you have time for another question. You're already two minutes over time.

Thank you for that final comment, Mr. Norlock.

I see we're getting fairly close to our closing time, and rather than trying another round or dividing up the two minutes that are there, I may exercise the chair's prerogative and ask a question of my own.

We've heard about the responsibility to protect, and we've had witnesses before our committee talking about Libya, and you mentioned it here today, Ms. Mason.

I wonder if each of you could give us your views on the concept of responsibility while protecting, which is a new notion presented by the Government of Brazil to the UN Secretary-General in November of 2011 in the aftermath of the Libyan mission, calling for the international community to adhere to fundamental principles, parameters, and procedures when exercising the responsibility to protect. I think that's a new development and a nuance on top of the responsibility to protect doctrine. Would either or both of you have comments on that?

[Paul Meyer]

I think it's of course incumbent on all member states that are contributing to a mission that they conduct themselves in accordance with international legal obligations, including human rights and humanitarian law. It's then necessary, since they always remain under national command, for those national commands to ensure discipline of their personnel, and if anyone is indeed guilty of violations of legal requirements, they are held to account and appropriately disciplined.

I think there have been various statements from the UN recognizing, in the past, that they have had members of UN-authorized missions and mandated missions who have committed criminal acts, therefore the importance of ensuring, for the reputation and future acceptability of UN missions, that the high standards are maintained.

I don't think it's a revelation by Brazil pointing out that there have been difficulties, but I think, at least in terms of its policies, the UN has largely responded to that.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

You don't think it has anything to do with concerns about mission creep or changes in mission and the confusion of different states?

[Paul Meyer]

Personally, I haven't seen the Brazilian text, but my understanding is that to protect while undertaking a mission is a recognition that there is an obligation, obviously, to comply with international and humanitarian law, which limits collateral damage, so-called, and such.

Again, without seeing the specifics, I would just want to say that in terms of awareness of that responsibility, on behalf of the UN, I think it's fairly well developed.

[Peggy Mason]

Perhaps I could just add a couple of comments.

I did have the occasion to hear the Brazilian diplomatic representative make representations to another committee on this, and I think there was also this element, which arises out of the Libya discussion, about whether or not the mandate was strictly adhered to. Of course Paul Meyer has already talked about the fact that Russia and China both had concerns about whether or not the mandate turned into regime change when it clearly was not supposed to be regime change.

I think there is an area, again, where a divided leadership can make it easier to make this kind of argument, or can generate fears in this direction. If it's clearly a UN mandate and a UN command, and it's oversight by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and strategic oversight by the Security Council, one would hope it would be harder to make the argument about the mandate. It's the Security Council's responsibility, in its strategic oversight, to make sure the UN is not straying from its mandate. So that's an area where I think there would be an advantage again, where you don't have this divided leadership.

There's another aspect I'd like to bring in as well, because this is an area where Canada—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

Please do it very quickly because we're running out of time.

[Peggy Mason]

The goal of protecting civilians under imminent threat in the context of a mission is part of many of the mandates of UN missions now, and it's a very challenging area for the military to deal with. It's not combat operations: it's something entirely different, and doctrine has not kept up with this. That's an area where Canada could make a contribution, along with other like-minded.... How do you organize yourself, and what do you do in order to actually protect civilians? What are some principles we can develop here? The UN has gone some way down this road, but I think it would really benefit by NATO members engaging in that doctrinal development.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

Thank you very much.

On that note, we'll have to end.

Thank you very much, Ms. Mason and Mr. Meyer, for your presentations and your presence. It's been very enlightening. They are very complex topics to handle in a short period of time like this.

I believe you both have papers. If you could leave a copy with us, we'll have them translated and shared.

I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

[An hon. member]

I so move.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

The meeting is adjourned.