National Defence Committee on Oct. 25th, 2012

[Paul Meyer]

I feel that I did flag in my opening statement the cyber security area. This is an emerging realm. It's one that has not yet been weaponized, but it could very soon become so, and I think it's incumbent on the diplomacy here that has lagged way behind military developments. Here, NATO has begun to look after its own cyber defence, and that's helpful. But I think it also should see in this conflict prevention prism the capacity to start negotiating with the Russians and others about a confidence-building regime, a regime of restraint regarding possible offensive cyber operations. That's an element of emerging challenge that could be usefully taken advantage of.

As well as developing these complex but important crisis management mechanisms, you have the partnering with other states so that those that are contributing in some way to a mission that the alliance has been asked to undertake also feel they have a political voice in these processes.

[Peggy Mason]

I wonder if I can just add another point.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

Briefly, please.

[Peggy Mason]

I would point to the work that NATO is doing on counter-piracy with respect to offshore Somalia, for example. This is a new area for NATO in terms of crisis management. Huge amounts of money are being spent. I would argue this dialogue that I'm talking about with the UN might cause countries like Canada that are participating in that action to look at whether money would be better spent if we really looked at the kind of stabilization, force, and political framework agreement that might be required to stabilize Somalia.

Counter-piracy is a never-ending operation because young men don't have jobs and there's a never-ending supply of them out there engaging in very lucrative and innovative acts of piracy. Yes, it was wonderful that NATO stepped into the breach to help, but it really should be seen as a short-term focus while looking at how we can really get in on a comprehensive solution to the problem of a destabilized Somalia.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

Thank you very much.

We now have Mr. Sopuck. You're next for five minutes.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

You talked about the development of a political framework in Afghanistan, and I presume you meant a democratic political framework. Functioning democracies require functioning institutions, and that's a word I hadn't heard anybody bring up. As Fukuyama writes in his book, The Origins of Political Order, which I'm sure you're very familiar with, the development of institutions takes centuries, and a culture has to change over an immense period of time in order to create the institution that will then create a country that has order, like our country has, like Britain has.

How do you develop a political framework for a country in the absence of functioning institutions, say, within a culture that's a tribal culture?

[Peggy Mason]

Of course, the political framework is there to start the process. Again, in Afghanistan many of these elements are there. There is a huge effort to try to build proper, effective democratic institutions. The missing element in Afghanistan wasn't that there wasn't a political framework in Afghanistan; it was that it wasn't an inclusive political framework. In effect, it privileged one side in a civil war and left out the other side. That has caused extreme problems for the credibility of the government, for example. Many of the Afghan people would say, “Why are the warlords who abused us here, there, and everywhere now the privileged members of government?” It's not only the Taliban that they criticize.

So it's not that there wasn't quite an extensive institution-building effort identified in the political framework for Afghanistan; it was this one aspect of it, which I'm arguing is a critical aspect—an inclusive framework. That wasn't there, and unfortunately that's undermined the whole thing.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I think, however, in less developed countries tribalism is almost innate; tribalism is almost genetically in us. That's why the development of functioning institutions took centuries, because we have to overcome our tribal nature. When you throw in endemic corruption and tribalism, I become less optimistic all the time.

One of my roles in Parliament is as chair of the Canada-Ukraine Parliamentary Friendship Group. That is a European country that, of any country, should have developed into a functioning democracy, and yet it's not even happening there.

When you look at where Afghanistan is, I don't know.... Help me out here.

[Peggy Mason]

You're wise to be very concerned and cautious.

This effort that we're talking about is really, as you have identified, an effort to short-circuit what took a very long time to develop in our own countries. It's an effort at social engineering, let's be blunt.

My argument is that if we're going to do it, we have to bring our best game to the table. That means that we really have to be sure that we, on every side, in NATO, at the UN, are capturing the lessons on what works and what doesn't. Even then there aren't any guarantees, but there's a better chance to maybe make it work, and also to be realistic about how much you can achieve over what period of time.

Afghanistan never got into full stabilization, so it was never able to get on to the next phase. President Karzai had to spend most of his time shoring up alliances, covering his back, because of the ongoing, in effect, civil war. It was the worst case for doing what everyone has to agree is an extraordinarily difficult task.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

You have about 45 seconds.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Again, it's fundamental to policy-making to decide whether it's even possible or not. While I'm a “glass is half full guy” most of the time, when you look at some of these situations—and you think of that poor girl who was shot in Afghanistan for wanting to go to school—I think for the enemies of western civilization, that is a mentality. I don't know how you deal with that in a rational way.

[Paul Meyer]

It was in Pakistan.

All you could say is that's a diverse country. There are secular forces and more reasonable elements there. There's an active lawyers' association. Unfortunately, it's a messy landscape, but I don't think we can throw up our hands. We have to look at ways of identifying who are, in a way, the allies of our liberal democracy, or at least potentially who are working to build up their institutions, and try to aid those local advocates as much as possible.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

That's your time, sir. Thank you very much.

We're back to Ms. Moore.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

My question goes to Ms. Mason.

The committee has learned that, while NATO always turns to the UN for a mandate to conduct expeditionary operations, the alliance does not need a UN mandate to undertake a mission, particularly in defence of an ally. Knowing that, and in that context, what should NATO do when the UN Security Council is paralyzed?

[Paul Meyer]

Do you mean when the Security Council is deadlocked?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Yes, when it is not moving forward on a given issue.

[Peggy Mason]

Thank you for the question.

Your question is a very good one.

It was very interesting, if you consider the past testimony of the NATO representatives on this issue—Deputy Assistant Secretary General James Appathurai, for example. He emphasized how important it was for NATO to have the legitimacy of a UN mandate, and he noted that there was only one occasion where for a short time, because of the blockage—and of course he was talking about Kosovo—military action was taken without a UN mandate, and ultimately there was a retroactive endorsement by the UN, if you will. I would point to that because one of the things NATO has learned through the operations it has been engaged in is how fundamentally important having that UN authorization and legitimacy is.

In our previous discussion we talked about how difficult these actions are. Without UN authorization, they are infinitely more difficult, and that is part of the issue with respect to Syria, I would suggest. It's just so difficult to have the necessary broad legitimacy in your operation—to have, for example, Arab participants in the Libyan operation because it was broadly supported by the international community and had that important UN sanction. That is so fundamental to the success of an operation.

I will say right now that it doesn't mean there might not be some exception in the future where we say, oh, the council is so blocked, and we really believe we have to act even without it. But that should be seen as an extraordinary exception in extraordinary circumstances, because you're making your chances of success that much more difficult.

I don't know if that answers your question or not.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

If I understand correctly, you are saying that NATO has more of an interest in working to help the Security Council out of its deadlock or its paralysis than in deciding to operate without UN backing.

[Paul Meyer]

I would like to clarify something. Under international law, only the Security Council has the right to authorize the use of force. NATO cannot legitimately act alone.

The problem with the Libya mission is that, at the Security Council, Russia and China abstained on the resolution authorizing the use of force. They were disappointed, so to speak, with the way the mission was conducted and with the fact that they lack political control and influence over NATO actions. This is the root of the current problem with Syria. They do not want a repeat of what Moscow and Beijing see as the mistake, the failure in Libya.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

Thank you, Mr. Meyer.

Our next intervenor is Ms. Gallant.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and through you to our witnesses.

First of all, this question is for Mr. Meyer. Given that your organization and you, yourself, promote disarmament, do you see the proposed missile shield through Europe and the U.S., and Australia as well, to detect and intercept launches by Iran as necessary?

[Paul Meyer]

There are elements there. I think at the moment it's not a capability that I would give priority to. Iran doesn't currently have a long-range ballistic missile capability, and I don't think the relative threat perception in Europe would warrant a big effort on this front. Part of the difficulty is that the same system, the Aegis standard ballistic missile system, which is deployed by the U.S. on behalf of NATO at this stage, is one that is in the process of development and expansion. Down the road, some of the missiles that are envisaged for that system have a capacity in terms of velocity that would allow them to intercept a Russian missile. That is really the worry that has led Moscow to object to this. They've asked for legal, written assurances from Washington that this would not be the case, and Washington has demurred on that.

My own sense is that with Iran, the emphasis should be on the current ratcheting up of diplomatic pressure and isolation on Tehran, until such time as it takes some action to reassure the international community about its intentions, particularly regarding its nuclear program. In my mind, that's where we should be focusing our energies, our investment, for the current period.

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

Do you believe that Iran's nuclear capability is solely for peaceful purposes, for medical isotopes and energy?

[Paul Meyer]

I think its direction is still unclear. That is why there's a need to have it cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency. The objective of the sanctions the UN Security Council has passed on Iran is to encourage it to make that cooperation. As authoritative a presence as the director of national intelligence in the United States has indicated that they do not have an indication that Iran is currently engaged in a nuclear weapons development program. But there are clearly doubts about its operations that merit full exposure and cooperation, as long as Iran, as it is, remains a non-proliferation treaty member state.

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

Part of the rationale for a nuclear capability on the part of NATO nations who have it is that by virtue of a highly democratized country with a capability in Europe, the perceived need for a nuclear capability by smaller countries is lessened. They don't feel they have to put money or effort into a program because somebody there will protect them also.

Do you see this as a concrete reason for these NATO countries to be nuclear-capable?