National Defence Committee on Oct. 25th, 2012

[Paul Meyer]

Not for the longer term. Again, the alliance says it wants to put the conditions in place for a nuclear-weapons-free world, in accordance with the NPT obligations that all the NATO member states have signed up to. I think that's a positive statement. What I'd like to see is more energy and action towards achieving it.

Frankly, from a purely military perspective, the best outcome for NATO, and the west more broadly, would be if tomorrow you could eliminate all nuclear weapons, because NATO and the west enjoy a massive superiority in conventional military power that would be even more dominant if there were no weapons of mass destruction out there as a potential deterrent.

So both from, you might say, a hard-nosed strategic benefit perspective as well as from the political obligation of achieving our goal of nuclear disarmament, I think more could be done there.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

Thank you. Your time is up, Ms. Gallant.

Now we go to our next intervenor on the same side of the fence, or the same side of the room, at least, Mr. Strahl.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I would allow Ms. Gallant to continue with her questioning.

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

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

That's perfectly acceptable.

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

The UN is certainly watching the situation in Mali very closely. You've suggested at length—and this question is for Ms. Mason—that NATO participate in blue helmet missions, and that had this been the case and applied in the Afghanistan conflict, the outcome would have been very different.

What role or mission type do you see NATO filling in Mali?

[Peggy Mason]

Again, I have to make one qualification, because I don't want to suggest there's any magic solution to any of this stuff. My argument with respect to how Afghanistan might have turned out is that we might have had a better chance, we might be in a better place now than we are after all this time and effort, if we had heeded some of the lessons from UN peace operations. I certainly do not wish to suggest that there's some kind of magic solution to these very difficult situations.

With respect to Mali, it's a stabilization situation. It's a negotiation, and the UN is looking at what can they do. There's this very serious problem now of big weapons capability out there in the hands of very problematic elements, who are destabilizing the country, which has its own internal problems, but it had been stabilized, and then the subregion as well. So it would be a matter for the UN, and the country itself, in terms of identifying what help it needs. If it identifies that it wants external help in stabilizing the situation, and if the external help that it thinks it needs includes a military component, then there might be either a look at NATO offering forces in the context of a UN-led mission or, as I talk about in my paper but didn't get to, and which Paul Meyer talked about, there might be capabilities, there might be specific equipment, there might be an airlift, there might be other elements that NATO, with its advanced capabilities, could provide to help.

There's no one answer. It's really in the context of the UN working with Mali and the subregion to see what might be required and possible to stabilize, to get those weapons under control, and then how can NATO contribute to that, either as NATO or as individual member states.

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

I'll go back to Mr. Meyer.

What do you see as NATO's role in cyber security?

[Paul Meyer]

I mentioned, initially, of course, to get your own house in order, ensure that you have good cyber defences for the NATO system and for the systems of member states, and be in the position to assist them if they come under attack.

Last year there was a NATO cyber defence doctrine, a policy, that was promulgated, and that's largely where it is. That's good as far as it goes. I'd like to see it go farther, though. What I was suggesting is to begin looking at the diplomatic context for developing some norms of what is sometimes referred to as responsible state behaviour in cyberspace, to recognize that there's a potential offensive military use that probably should be prohibited or strictly regulated, given the unique nature and dependency of humanity on a secure and operating cyber....

Here's an example. We talked about conflict prevention. It's an emerging issue. It's open to early treatment. I think this would be an excellent initiative for NATO to take, to expand beyond, as I say, just it's own cyber defence.

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

Mr. Chairman, the witness mentioned that NATO member countries could be of assistance if one came under attack. Now the key point in NATO is article 5. If a country is under attack, it's deemed to be an attack on all. At what point should article 5 be invoked should there be a cyber attack? And how would this assistance materialize?

[Paul Meyer]

Up to now, NATO has been reluctant to declare any cyber attack as the equivalent to an armed attack, which is what triggers article 5. So in the case of Estonia, you'll see it did not invoke article 5. That said, there's article 4 on consultation, and that was utilized. In the cyber defence doctrine that I just referred to, you will see that basically it says that if a member state feels the need for assistance as a result of a cyber attack, it can make a request and NATO will try to assist.

That's how it is being handled today. I think that's a reasonable approach within the alliance.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

Thank you, Mr. Meyer.

Our next questioner is another guest, Monsieur Larose.

Welcome to our committee. You have five minutes.

We have you on the list, Madame St-Denis. You are next after Monsieur Larose. Welcome to our committee too.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.

My question goes to Mr. Meyer. Thank you for joining us today.

Could you please describe for us some of the strengths and weaknesses of the current nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation treaties?

[Paul Meyer]

Yes. There are a number of challenges before the international community in terms of non-proliferation, arms control, and disarmament, and part of that is of course to realize what the non-proliferation treaty, which is the most widely adhered to extant international security accord, with 189 states parties and only four states outside that regime.... The treaty calls for nuclear disarmament and for non-proliferation, and it calls for the peaceful use of atomic energy. There has been some progress in all those areas, but clearly a lot more could be done.

I think one area that has been mentioned and is part of the last review conference of the NPT in 2010 is a consensus document that has a number of action plans. One of those was to reduce the operational status of nuclear forces. As many of you will know, even over a generation after the end of the Cold War there are still almost a thousand deployed strategic forces in both Russia and the United States on so-called “hair trigger alert”. I think the danger of that posture is something that needs to be addressed, particularly given the radically improved strategic situation and political relationship. That was one area that the states have signed up for but for which, frankly, action is not forthcoming.

Another area that Canada has been active on is the so-called Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. Fissile material is the stuff you make nuclear weapons out of, so it's kind of a no-brainer that if you really want to achieve nuclear disarmament, one of the first things you will want to do is turn off the tap of the production.That has been an agreed goal of the international community for almost 50 years, and again, it was part of the NPT outcomes. Unfortunately, the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, which was to negotiate this treaty, hasn't been able to agree on a program of work since 1998, and we're now in a situation where countries are rightly saying that if the CD can't deliver, let's look at other ways. Canada is the traditional lead on a resolution, which is now before the General Assembly as we speak, that suggests setting up a group of governmental experts to help develop the content of this treaty.

I think it could even be more operational than that, but here's another example of something that is recognized as a priority and yet for years we haven't been able to deliver. The comprehensive test ban treaty is another. Again, eight countries are preventing it from entering formally into force. I'd like to see those countries do the right thing and bring that treaty.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

How much time do I have left?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

You have another minute and a half.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

The next question follows on from what you have just mentioned. I find it very interesting. After the end of the Cold War, you might say these things have been forgotten. But the threat is even greater.

What role could Canada play inside NATO in terms of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation?

[Paul Meyer]

I think we could try to regain some of the leadership role we had at the time within the alliance on these matters.

I refer to the importance of the consultative mechanisms. That's one of the jewels of the alliance, but again, they're only as good as you use them. There was a time when Canada was much more active in trying to challenge and push the alliance to have more progressive approaches to some of these issues.

I think there needs to be a revival of that mechanism. There's some very ambiguous wording at the end of the Chicago Summit statement that sort of suggests that we had better do more here, but I'm not aware of anything concrete having come.

The other is, don't be cavalierly unique here too. There are like-minded allies. Canada also needs to engage with those so that you have a greater clout within the alliance, which is, as you know, 28 states working on a consensus basis. You need to have friends on these matters.

I think there are many countries that would like to see more activity: joining up, partnering with the likes of Germany and The Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, and others to ensure the alliance remains credible and is seen as a positive force, not a drag on progress in arms control and disarmament.

I think those are the kinds of priorities I would advocate for Canada.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

Thank you.

Madame St. Denis, you have five minutes.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you.

It is a pleasure to take part in this meeting of your committee, though I am just passing through and my knowledge of these issues is somewhat limited.

I am going to ask just one question about Libya. The committee has learned that the new government in Libya has not asked NATO for any post-conflict assistance. Which organizations generally play that role? Should NATO have any on-going responsibilities towards Libya, in your view?

[Peggy Mason]

With respect to Libya, there was the Security Council resolution establishing a UN mission to try to carry forward and stabilize the situation in Libya and help foster the kinds of democratic institutions we were talking about earlier. It's a very comprehensive resolution under the UN lead. This is a mission that is led by the UN, so the military elements are under the authority of the UN head of mission. That means that if NATO is going to help, it would have to be individual NATO countries submitting forces, which I think would be extremely helpful. But also one would hope that there is a dialogue back and forth, because there are exchanges officers between NATO and the UN discussing whether it's NATO itself or individual NATO countries, whether or not there's equipment, whether or not there are specialized capacities that could help. It would be that kind of dialogue.

But because this is a UN blue helmet mission, the only way that NATO forces.... They don't need a request; NATO forces do not need a request to NATO to offer help to the UN, but that would be the way they would have to do it.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I will stop there. That is enough.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

Thank you very much, and thank you for joining us today.

The next person on our list is Mr. Norlock. You can take your space again. You have five minutes.

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

Well, I'd be lost in space.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

We wouldn't want to see you lost in space.