Evidence of meeting #58 for National Defence in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was sanctions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:45 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Given that Canada has a special relationship with the United States and a positive relationship with China and is not identified as an enemy by North Korea, do you see pressure points where Canada could advance the agenda toward diplomatic solutions?
2:45 p.m.
President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs
On this one, I think the main role that Canada can play at this point is really very much articulating the need, supporting dialogue—behind the scenes, of course—urging the United States to take up diplomacy without preconditions.
Sadly, we haven't engaged with North Korea for a long time. There was a time when Canada was much more actively engaged and we had diplomats with a great deal of expertise, but that's an expertise that, like so many areas in foreign affairs, has been allowed to atrophy under the previous administration, the previous government. I'm afraid we have to be modest about how much we can do directly. Therefore, it's much more important that we get behind and support, for example, the UN Secretary-General's offer of good offices, and others who have played a key role. I mentioned Angela Merkel. I think that's is the way.
I'm not going to minimize that. That is an important role for Canada to forthrightly.... Minister Freeland did make one statement urging dialogue, but the Prime Minister hasn't done that. I think that in terms of dialogue without preconditions, we could talk privately to the secretary of state, for example, about that.
2:45 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Would there be any role for Canada in lining up other middle powers, others of our allies, in favour of a diplomatic solution, or in other words, of Canada going to others with whom we have good relations and forming a group that would support the Secretary-General?
2:45 p.m.
President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs
Absolutely. There already is. There's a pretty large appetite in the international community for diplomacy to be given a chance. What we have to bear in mind here is that in terms of any other approach there is no effective military response. Any military response is catastrophic. With the level of rhetoric we have, there's really a danger of inadvertent escalation and miscalculation. That's a huge danger, and we need to get that rhetoric down.
If one comes to grips and faces the hard reality, there is no effective military response. I fully agree with earlier comments made by Andrea Berger about the time being past for North Korea to renounce nuclear weapons. She used the term “restraint”. As the Chinese and the Russians have urged, there might be a possibility of measures of restraint, of some form of freezing of the activity.
The final point I would make about the demonstration aspect is that this is classic deterrence. It's North Korea trying to make clear that they have a credible retaliatory capacity. It's very ironic that in fact they're demonstrating the classic deterrence theory as espoused by the nuclear arms states.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Ms. Mason, you indicated that it was your impression that then prime minister Martin's decision to not get involved in BMD was as a result of his feelings of what Canada's participation would be in that. Is that something the former prime minister told you?
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Is that something that somebody within his inner circle told you?
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
2:50 p.m.
President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs
It was by the character of the public debate that took place. It was when—
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
You have nothing other than a perception of a debate, and you've come to this conclusion based on that.
2:50 p.m.
President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs
If one wants to go back—and we can—over the public debate, in circumstances where the American ambassador to Canada had to speak publicly on the issue, there were a number of statements made. The public debate got to the point where individuals like me were arguing that the United States would not provide this guarantee, and there was no statement forthcoming from the United States.
The onus—
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Okay, but you don't know that to be fact. This is an assumption you've made based on information that you received.
Ms. Berger, if I heard you correctly, you indicated that you believe the opportunity for diplomacy is over.
2:50 p.m.
Senior Research Associate, Middlebury Institute of International Studies, As an Individual
No, not at all. As a matter of fact, I think it's extremely important that diplomacy be one of the strands of policy that we align other things with, such as sanctions. If your objective is to try to get North Korea to negotiate restraint, you need to have a negotiating table present for the North Koreans to see as an off-ramp there.
I do think it's extremely important. I also think it's especially important for crisis management purposes. If we think back to the Cold War where the United States had deterrence relationships with other nuclear-armed adversaries—and indeed, it still does—it had channels of dialogue with all those countries and had a good understanding at a fairly high level of how their leadership made decisions, who had the ear of various leaders, what their calculations were, what their vital interests were, and—
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Your comment was more about the possibility, now that I think I understand it better, of North Korea's actually ending its nuclear interest—the proliferation. That's what you're saying is over. You don't think it's realistic for that to happen.
2:50 p.m.
Senior Research Associate, Middlebury Institute of International Studies, As an Individual
I don't think denuclearization is a feasible objective in the medium term. The longer term is an open question. Also, that assessment does not account for such things as the possibility of North Korean state collapse, in which case denuclearization would become a possibility.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Thank you.
Going back to you, Ms. Mason, I'm curious. You seem to subscribe to a philosophy or an ideology that the only option is diplomacy. It's diplomacy at all costs. You also illustrated where the North Koreans have drawn the line in the sand: they've said that the public will eat grass before giving up. They've made very clear what their position is.
What should our position be in terms of our interest in diplomacy? At what point do we say that we've tried diplomacy, it's not working, and now we need another option? What is our threshold?
2:50 p.m.
President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs
The starting point for me is not diplomacy at all costs. The starting point for me is to ask what the options are. What are we trying to achieve and what are the means of achieving it?
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I apologize for misrepresenting you. I'm sorry, but can you get to answering my question?
2:50 p.m.
President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs
There aren't other options. This is the problem. A military engagement would be catastrophic for the—
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Your suggestion, then, is that we just engage in diplomacy over and over, even if we're being attacked and there are—
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
What is your threshold? That's what I'm getting at.
