National Defence Committee on Sept. 25th, 2018

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Professor Meharg, it's good to see you again. Thank you for being with us.

I want to stay in the same vein as the discussion you just had with Mr. Garrison. You talked about the hierarchy of needs and the pyramid and the risk of mismatch between political aims and realities on the ground.

To what extent is that a fact of our not reading the sustainable development goals closely enough alongside peacekeeping objectives? In other words, are we too stovepiped between peacekeeping and the other aims of the UN, either organizationally or in the way we think about things?

[Dr. Sarah Jane Meharg]

The answer is yes, we are too stovepiped. But even in academia, those stovepipes exist, so the research that is being conducted does limit the cross-fertilization between defence and development. Then we have those who, let's just say, hold a humanitarian world view, and they get quite upset when military defence and security structure is somehow in that humanitarian space and offering humanitarian-type activities. There is a sense of territoriality that often gets in the way and enforces those stovepipes between groups.

There's definitely a disconnect between what could be happening. This is when I talk about the tools that are emerging in the 21st century. Some of these innovative conflict mechanisms will be situation rooms that include not only development, diplomacy and defence, but also the private sector. The private sector has a huge role to play here and it's often not brought into the tent. It needs to be. That's often where the innovative thinking is occurring.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Is it fair to say that, from your perspective, the committee could add value by identifying those obstacles in its report and pointing them out?

[Dr. Sarah Jane Meharg]

Yes.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you very much. That's helpful.

I'm going to be really political in my next question. The committee's going to go to New York at the end of October to have discussions with UN officials. The biggest emerging player in peacekeeping is China. China is doing a lot on the peacekeeping side in various geographic theatres.

To what extent is it important that what you're imparting to us as a message in how to think about peacekeeping is shared by all the key players, not just those on the Security Council but also those involved in peacekeeping operations through the UN, so that we're getting onto one page in terms of what needs to be done aside from national geographic interests?

[Dr. Sarah Jane Meharg]

My first statement is a question. Is there one page to be on? Every country brings its own strategic interests related to the activities, related to the capabilities and to their interventions. Canada chooses to be part of the UN for particular issues related to our national identity, our history and heritage, our ability to have produced something called the responsibility to protect, and our interest in a global commons.

China shares many of those tenets, but the strategic intent for being involved is different. It's not necessarily all doom and gloom. Some pundits suggest that it's to take over the world. The Chinese are in Africa doing these incredible projects in development, building roads and soccer stadiums, and whatever the communities want, they're getting. You could look at it as China's coming on board with becoming part of the global commons and what to expect from its allies, its counterparts and its partnerships in order to develop its capacities to be part of that global commons.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

A thorough understanding of China's interests and geopolitical positioning with respect to peacekeeping would be essential to effective Canadian foreign policy through peacekeeping.

[Dr. Sarah Jane Meharg]

Possibly, and likewise Russia's.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you very much for that.

I want to take a couple of minutes to ask you about your current research area. You're researching economic acceleration, and I'd like you to give the committee an appreciation of the importance of economics in the context of a conflict zone or immediate post-conflict reconstruction, both at the micro level and at the broader national and even international levels.

Trade tends to persist in conflict. In fact, conflicts are often exacerbated by trade relationships that have formed and that people aren't willing to back away from. How important is economics as a discipline for a committee like this to understand peacekeeping well?

[Dr. Sarah Jane Meharg]

Economic development has been proven to be the one factor that gets warring communities online again to be part of a wider remit. Economic development used to be touted as if you got a man working after conflict you would actually have less conflict recidivism. The number of male youths who were employed in post-conflict Côte d’Ivoire was actually concomitant with the peaceful, durable society we're looking for. The importance of economic development at the micro level is critical to peacekeeping and creating the environment for peaceful outcomes.

It's also a driver for communities, countries and nations. Take Bosnia, for example, a country that was part of a wider economic network in the former Yugoslavia before falling into conflict as the former Yugoslavia broke apart. One of the carrots that kept some of these countries going long term in the Dayton peace accords was the possibility of joining the European Union and the economic organizations that would be part of their futures. From that macro perspective, it can be used as a carrot to have countries, or at least entities within a broken-up country, factions, be part of the international community, the global commons.

From an intervention perspective, if we could have more people who understand economic development beyond trade, people who have actually owned businesses and who understand the benefit of honest work and the benefit of women-owned businesses in post-conflict communities and how money can trickle down and help, it would be a huge force multiplier, as we say.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

MP Fisher.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much for being here, Professor. When I look back to the start of our study on peacekeeping, I wish you had been the first person through the door, because what you gave us, in my opinion, is peacekeeping 101. Nevertheless, you're coming in at an opportune time—at the end.

I was trying to scribble down a lot of the things you said because you said a lot of really neat things. You said peace operations is the tool box and peacekeeping is the tool inside the tool box. I thought that was really clever.

I've thought about this several times. What should our report be called? Everyone talks about the changing face of peacekeeping. Everyone talks about how the public perception of what peacekeeping was is drastically different from what peacekeeping is today. You said we should broaden our perception of what peacekeeping is and then you said that meaning matters.

What would you call our report? We're calling our report “Canada's Contributions to International Peacekeeping”. Should we keep the name or toss it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

That's a great question.

[Dr. Sarah Jane Meharg]

Hopefully this doesn't matter as much to you as the other content.

You're putting me on the spot. It depends if you want the public to read it. If you do, you should have “peacekeeping” in the title because peacekeeping means something. Having a title that includes “is it dead or alive?” or something horrible like that is also not a good idea. We've seen these missteps happen with think tanks around the country over the past 10 years.

For a catch-all title, you're on track.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Is it still peacekeeping enough to keep calling it peacekeeping?

[Dr. Sarah Jane Meharg]

Again, the different factions have different understandings of what that word means. It's a loaded term.

I personally know almost every single person who has come here to speak with you. I either teach with them or, for example, Greg Mitchell and I worked together for years. I know these people really well. They are very committed to the outcome of peacekeeping—not necessarily the mechanism itself.

It's the outcome of it. To create a durable peace in a world in which everything is going to heck in a handbasket, it's important that we maintain the mechanisms, the training and the mentorship. Canada is looked at to provide the thinking on these topics. The people who have been here before are called frequently by other country representatives to answer, “What do we do in this sense or in this case?” You have an incredible group of experts in Canada.

I don't know what to call your report. I'm sorry.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I think I have some direction on that. Thank you.

In your book, you claim that civilians are at risk when the military is involved in both combat and humanitarian operations at the same time. You didn't mention that or speak to that in your opening remarks.

Could you drill down into that a little, as far as it relates to Canada's role in UN peacekeeping operations?

[Dr. Sarah Jane Meharg]

In a conflict environment, we often talk about “post-conflict”. We say that peacekeeping forces are going in post-conflict. It's one of the mechanisms that happens after conflict. Let's call it conflict management.

We often deploy into conflict situations. The situations go down to lower levels of conflict, then they peak again and they go down again. Civilians who are receiving aid and assistance in a conflict environment are getting those basic needs met at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, either through humanitarian efforts, non-governmental organizations or international organizations that are deploying those resources to the people.

Then sometimes militaries go in. Sometimes it's considered disaster response, but it's still humanitarian aid. It's part of the reform of the situation. Defence actors can also be distributing similar types of programs and projects, sometimes aligned with NGOs and sometimes not. The civilians themselves can be compromised in their own personal human security if they receive the help of a uniformed faction, versus receiving the help of a so-called neutral impartial actor like an NGO.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

MP Martel, the floor is yours.

[Richard Martel]

I have just one question.

Are there any situations in which you would recommend pulling our troops out of theatre?

[Dr. Sarah Jane Meharg]

Yes.

One of the main issues Canadian Forces have had in the past is when the field commander is not capable of protecting the people under his or her command. I believe we have addressed this problem. The people who were testifying just prior to my testimony this afternoon would be better able to answer that question. If the people in a mission area are undefended and decision-making is not happening at the pace required to save lives, that is when people should be brought out of theatre.

[Richard Martel]

Thank you.

I want to share my time.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank you, Professor, for your expert witness testimony today.

I just want to make sure I'm clear on this. You were asked about what you think is going to be the mission success for the Mali mission. You don't think there's going to be a high level of success there because of the current situation on the ground and the way our Canadian operation is resourced at this point in time, or is the overall mission not properly resourced?

[Dr. Sarah Jane Meharg]

It is the overall mission.

If we look at the evidence from empirical research where social scientists have gone into peacekeeping missions to identify what works and what doesn't work, the research suggests that if peacekeepers are outside of the so-called wire, the mission mandates are often reached in a way that is not possible if the peacekeepers are contained behind the wire.

That means that if they do not go out into the community, if they do not go and talk to leadership and engage the civilian population, if they stay inside the compound so to speak, the peace can't take hold in the same way. Oftentimes, missions last a lot longer when there's a really insecure environment and the peacekeepers are held in behind the wire.