National Defence Committee on Oct. 25th, 2012

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

If you can do that in 30 seconds or so, that would be great.

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

I guess I'm going to have to Star Trek for another question.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

You have 30 seconds, so you can....

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

I want to talk about the disarmament in space, and about the fact that, yes, we can have the big players. We have 60 nations currently engaged in space for a myriad of reasons, whether it be defence, security, or communications.

I'm wondering to what extent, from a weaponization perspective, should NATO have a role with respect to securing outer space.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

I have to ask you to make it succinct, Mr. Meyer.

[Paul Meyer]

Yes. I think NATO consultations on how to safeguard the current benign environment of outer space are very much an appropriate political task for the alliance.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

Thank you, sir.

Our next questioner is Mr. Kellway, for five minutes.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you to our witnesses, thank you very much, both of you, for your very interesting presentations today.

Ms. Mason, you were about to talk about your proposal, I think, before Mr. McKay cut you off with his poetic flourish about the curse of time. I'd like to hear a little more about that proposal, about Canada sponsoring a dialogue at the UN about the use of force. I don't know whether your proposal is incomplete, but would you like to finish that?

I'd like to hear what you anticipate would emerge from such a dialogue.

[Peggy Mason]

Thank you very much.

There's been quite a vigorous ongoing process on the UN side examining lessons learned from UN-led missions, so blue helmet missions. There's a lot of good work going on there. But the UN, as an organization, cannot be seen to be standing in judgment over NATO-led operations, so there isn't the same kind of broad examination. Individual NATO countries are looking at their experience in Afghanistan, for example, but there isn't that rigorous looking at some of the key issues that have arisen, which has been very problematic in the UN context.

In particular, it's this issue of the limits of the use of force. No matter how robust your military capability is, the aim of a stabilization mission, whether UN or NATO, is not to end up going to war with the parties; it's to stabilize the situation. What are the limits of the use of force? How many have to be inside the tent to make it work versus isolating the spoilers? The UN has gone quite a long way in that discussion with respect to its mission, but I think it's fundamental that we bring in all of the hard-fought NATO experience on this. That requires Canada to sponsor it.

Now there are other elements, too. The second element to look at would be the challenges of divided missions, where the political and military leadership is separate, as in a NATO-led mission and a UN mission, versus an integrated mission, which is the UN model. Look at that, and if it is a bridge too far to get many NATO countries to re-engage under UN leadership, can we look at ways that we can minimize the problems of the divided leadership?

Canada, talking to other NATO countries, and then sponsoring this dialogue in the UN.... The UN would have to be involved, and there are mechanisms to do this.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

So you anticipate, then, that we will come to a conclusion about the limits of the use of force, and presumably in a more creative or constructive way. Do we start talking about this broader inclusive and credible political framework you've mentioned? Does that exist on a drawing board in the UN presently, in your mind? Can you lay it out a bit for us in a very short period of time?

[Peggy Mason]

In a nutshell, it depends on every single mission. There are, in fact, now on the table at least a couple of very comprehensive proposals—it's late in the day—for bringing, for starting, for making a major effort for the first time to develop a comprehensive political framework for Afghanistan. The latest one would be the International Crisis Group's very comprehensive recommendations with respect to a UN-led process, which would involve all of the troop contributors to ISAF and the others to develop.... You have to negotiate the framework.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Is the political framework specific to each set of circumstances?

[Peggy Mason]

Yes.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

The political framework you're talking about is not housed in the UN, in terms of structures, authorities, relationships. It's specific to a conflict or some sort of crisis.

[Peggy Mason]

The UN has the general understanding of the elements that are required, but essentially by “political framework” I mean ideally, in the best case, we're talking about a peace agreement that's been negotiated and then you can implement it. That is the best case. Okay, we don't have a peace agreement, but do we have a peace process? Are all the parties that need to be in the peace process there? Are most of them there? Are enough of them there? That's the political framework. Are all the key regional players there?

The issue over and over and over again with Afghanistan was the role of Pakistan, but lecturing and hectoring and threatening Pakistan to stop playing a negative role and start playing a positive role could really only be achieved in the context of a comprehensive peace process that met Pakistan's needs. That's the kind of thing that needs to be discussed. Really, the UN is the one that has the expertise to lead on this, but others have very valuable input to give from their experiences in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kellway. Your time has now expired.

Next is Mr. Harris.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

I'm a guest at today's committee meeting, and unfortunately we didn't have the text from either of you, so I'm having to remember some of the things you said. Maybe being a newcomer is a benefit because I'm hearing some things that really I have to ask about. They may sound a little simplistic.

Ms. Mason, you talked about an effective political framework being in place, or created somehow prior to a military action. I'm thinking that in so many of the countries we're talking about, where they're led by murderous forces like the Taliban, dictators who have lived only by the gun and for the gun for the sake of power...it sounds to me like somewhat of a pipe dream to think that the UN, which incidentally gives so many stages to someone like the dictator of Iran, and in my opinion has lost a lot of credibility by doing that, certainly among the western nations.... It sounds like something of a pipe dream to believe that creating an effective political structure, as you put it, could actually happen prior to a military action.

How can you justify the statement that perhaps it could have worked in Afghanistan? Even the thought of getting that together in Afghanistan, given the circumstances there...it seems unbelievable that we could have had something like that.

[Peggy Mason]

Thank you so much for the question.

In fact, of course, hindsight is always a wonderful thing; everything is so much clearer in hindsight, and I'm very conscious of that.

First of all, we have to distinguish between a military action and a stabilization action or a crisis management action. So the very first actions that were taken in Afghanistan, which were clearly to rout out the Taliban, are not what we're talking about in terms of post that activity, the stabilization effort, which NATO ultimately came to lead.

In fact, in that context, the international community did try to put in place a political framework. It started with the Bonn agreement and it became the London agreement. There was a very wide framework. The problem was it left out a key actor, the Taliban, and the Pashtuns, to a large extent, who were the single biggest ethnic group in Afghanistan. In hindsight, many have said, and in fact Brahimi said it at the time, that the best time to negotiate that agreement was when the Taliban were incredibly weak and almost decimated.

If there had been an inclusive political framework then, things might be very different now, but because there wasn't one, ultimately the military action was not sufficient to stabilize the situation. And everyone knows the situation we're in with Afghanistan now.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

If I can just make a point, my point was that organizations like the Taliban, no matter at what strength they are, really have no mind for any type of an effective political framework or structure that had any sense of democracy where the people actually had a voice. That isn't how they've operated over the many decades or centuries that they've been in power or seeking power in Afghanistan.

How could they be expected to magically be willing to participate in setting up an effective political structure? It doesn't seem possible. It's just not them. It never has been. They've indicated it never will be. They want complete power, and control by force, which is the only thing that they've clearly demonstrated they know. Anyone who stands in their way will be killed.

How can you get that politicized?

[Peggy Mason]

Of course, they don't go back for centuries. They're a creature of the arming of the mujahedeen and the training in the madrasas, when encountering the Soviets when they were in Afghanistan.

To bring it down to the hard realities, we didn't negotiate with the Taliban when they were at their weakest. This was after the American military action in the wake of September 11, which Canada participated in with certain forces. We didn't put a political framework in with them then when they were at their weakest. Now we—maybe not Canada, but the United States and others, certainly the U.S.—are engaged in negotiating with them when they're much stronger. In the end you have to negotiate. My argument is we would have been much better off if we'd been aware at the outset of how important that was. That was the best scenario for negotiating. Now we're probably in the worst scenario. But those negotiations are taking place because there has to be an end to the war, and the war cannot end by military means, as has been demonstrated so dramatically over what's now the longest war the United States has been engaged in.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

Thank you, Ms. Mason.

Our next intervenor is Mr. Choquette, another guest to our committee.

Welcome, sir.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for coming to testify before us, ladies and gentlemen.

My questions go to Ms. Mason.

First, I would like to say that I totally agree with you. At some stage, we have to negotiate, of course. We would be better off starting right away if we are going to possibly reach negotiated political solutions. Certainly, the armed option should be the last one. In that respect, I think there should be a lot more blue helmets from Canada. We had them before and the country was proud of them.

To what extent does NATO's new strategic concept incorporate the lessons the organization has learned in the last decade?

[Peggy Mason]

I will answer in English, if I may.

That gives me an opportunity to speak on the nuclear side for just a second. In my written remarks I associated myself completely with Ernie Regehr's comments on nuclear disarmament. I certainly agree with Paul Meyer and what he said. In other words, one of the things about the strategic concept that I find very encouraging is that it really reduces the role of nuclear weapons.

It also recognizes—and I welcome this recognition in the strategic concept—the importance of conflict prevention and what needs to be done after. A reference was made earlier about what's happening in Libya. There is, of course, a very comprehensive UN mission now in Libya trying to handle the huge post-conflict nation-building effort. I wish there were capable military forces from NATO countries as part of that mission. I hope I didn't sound too negative in my comments.

I think NATO has learned extremely valuable lessons with respect to what is required for crisis management and for conflict prevention and conflict resolution. But there are still some big lessons to learn. I focused in particular on this lesson about the primacy of the peace process, however difficult it may be. I agree with Mr. Harris that this is not an easy task. None of this is easy. That's why we have to bring our best game to the table if we're going to be able to do this. That means we need the best militaries, but it also means we need the best political framework, and the UN has the preeminent expertise there. Of course, NATO can play in and assist with that.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I agree with you.

To what extent are NATO's rules and structures put to the test because of the nature of current conflicts, modern ones? In other words, what will be NATO's biggest challenges in the future?

[Peggy Mason]

Perhaps while I'm collecting myself you can answer.