Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
I am pleased to have the opportunity today to provide you with my insight on Canada's role in NATO, specifically our two operations in Latvia and Ukraine. I will also provide you with some thoughts on how these military operations may position Canada to work toward a diplomatic settlement of the conflict in Ukraine.
The Canadian Armed Forces today are actively engaged with two operations supporting NATO missions along its eastern flank. First, Canada has taken a lead role in the establishment of a battalion-sized battle group in Latvia known as Operation Reassurance as part of NATO's enhanced forward presence to deter Russian use of force against NATO territory, which is an article 5 commitment. Operation Reassurance also includes air force commitments of six fighter jets—a six-pack—to provide air protection along NATO's eastern and southern flanks, as well as our naval frigate committed to tasks in the Mediterranean and Black seas. Canada is one of four NATO countries to take such a prominent role. The other three battalion groups in this deterrence initiative are led by the U.K. in Estonia, Germany in Lithuania, and the U.S. in Poland. This has placed Canada's commitment squarely on the politico military map.
Canada's second operation is a NATO out-of-area training and capacity-building mission in Ukraine. While not a member of NATO and therefore not subject to article 5 provisions of defence and deterrence, Ukraine is a long-standing NATO partner under the auspices of the partnership for peace, or PfP. Within the mandate of Operation Unifier, the Canadian Armed Forces' mission is to assist in modernizing and reforming the Ukrainian military. This operation is keyed to the larger NATO and European Union aim of assisting Ukraine with its declared policy of reform and battle against the Russian-supported rebel uprising in the eastern Donbass. With such a substantive military commitment on Canada's part to NATO, it is appropriate to reflect on why NATO is important to Canadian foreign and defence interests, that is, why NATO and why it matters.
According to NATO'S first secretary general, Lord Ismay, NATO was formed in 1949 to “keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”. Remarkably, by the end of the Cold War in 1991, the Soviet Union version of “the Russians” ceased to be a threat; the Americans had fully stayed the course in their defence engagement of the North Atlantic area, and Germany had unified and become a leading and fully integrated member of NATO and the European Union. This successful outcome did not, however, obviate the requirement for the alliance, nor of Canada's commitment. Rather, a transition period followed the Cold War that involved the expansion of the alliance through co-operation with former members of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. At the same time, Russia, as the successor state to the Soviet Union, felt that its interests in the post-Cold War period had been betrayed and resumed a more aggressive use of military force to reinforce its foreign and domestic interests.
Canadian diplomats were keenly aware in the formation of NATO in 1949 that a key tenet of Canadian defence policy since Confederation had been that Canadian interests are best served as part of a coalition. Originally, as part of the British Empire, Canadian expeditionary forces served in the Nile Expedition, the Boer War and the First World War. In the Second World War, they were part of the British Commonwealth. With the emergence of the Cold War, Canadian interests were served by promoting a North Atlantic coalition which, importantly, mitigated the historical American predilection for isolationism.
Canadian interests, however, went further than provisions for military defence within a North Atlantic coalition. Rather, Canadian diplomats pushed aggressively for article 2 of the Washington Treaty that established NATO. Known as the “Canadian article”, its purpose was to define NATO as more than a defence alliance by including a reference to economic co-operation. While article 2 did not lead to much in and of itself, Canadian interests of economic association and integration within the North Atlantic were echoed in then Prime Minister Trudeau's third option of the 1970s and finally, the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA, in 2016, under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Canadian miliary forces initially deployed to Europe as part of Canada's commitment at the outbreak of the Korean War. Simultaneously, Canadian Forces fought with the UN coalition in Korea and deployed to Europe as part of NATO's deterrent. The European commitment remained generally steadfast throughout the Cold War. Adjustments and reductions were made under Pierre Trudeau, who was skeptical of the need to sustain a Canadian military presence in West Germany. Chancellor Helmut Schmidt leveraged an appeal to Trudeau to keep the Canadian presence, playing on Trudeau's economic third option with the famous quip, “no tanks, no trade”, and Canadian troops remained.
As the Cold War ended, the Canadian military deployments became focused on coalition peacekeeping and then peace support missions. Other than a small, logistical component remaining in Germany in Geilenkirchen, the Canadian Forces consolidated around their permanent bases in Canada.
Canadian policy interests dictated that the Canadian Armed Forces remain engaged in the reform and transformation of post-Cold War eastern and southeastern Europe. NATO established a Partnership for Peace in 1994 with the former members of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. Canada's contribution to this mission was made under the auspices of DND's military training assistance program, MTAP, and subsequently renamed the military training co-operation program, MTCP.
Under the auspices of the MTCP, the Canadian Armed Forces worked alongside NATO allies to promote defence reform and governance with the partner countries. Canadian values were built into these training co-operations and capacity-building efforts. The partner countries differed in the speed and intensity of their transformation and reform. Some chose the path of integration with NATO, while others remained as partners. For example, the Baltic states, including Latvia, eventually became NATO members whereas others—