Evidence of meeting #70 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 states.
A recording is available from Parliament.
November 20th, 2017 / 4 p.m.
Conservative
David Yurdiga Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for participating in our study, which is a very important study.
My first question goes to Mr. Sedra.
In the context of the rising threat of Russia, we see Turkey has decided to purchase the Russia S-400 missile defence system. To me it seems that would be a detrimental factor for allied cohesion. Do you see this as a problem that can be overcome or is this always going to be something on the back burner?
4 p.m.
President, Canadian International Council, As an Individual
I think that's a good question. It raises another issue that, in a way, is an elephant in the room. NATO has often prided itself as being a club of liberal democracies, but the reality is that many member states are not as liberal and not as democratic as they were even five years ago. Turkey's an example. You could also talk about recent developments in Hungary, Poland, and elsewhere.
What does this do to cohesion within the alliance? I'm concerned. I think this is something we are going to see emerge more over time. It's going to cause rifts within the alliance and will require leadership from, you would hope, the United States. It's played that role in the past. Whether it can play that role going forward is a big question, or whether countries like Canada and some of our European allies can step up and play that leadership role.
That being said, I do strongly believe—and I mentioned this at the beginning of my remarks—that there's always been differences of opinion within NATO, and that's one of the benefits of having an alliance like this. You had Greece and Turkey sitting at the table not long after they were in open conflict with each other and it helped to contain conflict. I think some of the differences we're seeing, some of the reversals in democracy that we're seeing in many of these countries, could be a reason to keep NATO together, to push back against that. But it is something that's a concern.
4 p.m.
Conservative
David Yurdiga Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Thank you.
Sarah Meharg, NATO and the United Nations share a commitment to maintaining international peace and security. Can you comment on the framework for NATO-UN co-operation, and the evolution of NATO-UN co-operation in the field?
4 p.m.
Adjunct Professor, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
I can speak to some of the field realities better than I can to the headquarter realities.
Picking up on a point that Mark made, NATO is there to provide the kinetic operational capability that the UN cannot muster efficiently or effectively, but from a field perspective, we've gone through a transition and a transformation over the past 20 years on something that emerged as hybrid operations. We moved into all sorts of different kinds of joint activities, joined-up activities, the comprehensive approach.
The UN and NATO forces were all using these types of modalities to work together, and when I speak to the importance of routines and relationships to how Canada sees itself, delving into those field realities where, again, perhaps Canada is working shoulder to shoulder with the Hungarians and the Bulgarians and the Poles and the U.S., we build those relationships that create the problem-solving mechanism required to get things done. Without the relationships there and without the routines we've been practising, exercising, and simulating over the past 25 to 30 years with our NATO commitment, we really fail to get things done in the field.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Yurdiga Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Thank you.
The second part of my question follows that same line of thinking. You mentioned post-war reconstruction in your presentation, and I assume many phases are involved. What is the biggest challenge in stabilizing the region, and what should NATO's and the UN's involvement be in this complicated process?
4:05 p.m.
Adjunct Professor, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
Could you specify a particular place?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Adjunct Professor, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
Reconstruction has also transformed over the past 15 years. What we know about reconstruction and stabilization is that often there has been no suspension of hostilities, but we have the defence sector, the development sector, and the diplomatic sector, as well as the non-state sector, the humanitarians and the NGOs, all working together to try to make change in a recipient population while bombs are still dropping and bullets are still being fired.
We have a problem on our hands, and the UN is much better at managing what happens after a ceasefire. They are preset to understand how to recover, reconstitute, and stand up a society again. NATO is not functional in those capacities in the same respect, so there's really a good way for those two groups to work together, as Mark said, with the kinetic capability at the front end, although NATO does get involved in relief after disasters and offering humanitarian aid in some shapes and forms.
It seems there is a good merging of the capabilities, but we just have to think through.... Actually I find Canada is more able to contribute to NATO. It just seems that there are more mechanisms in place for us to contribute easily and effectively than there are for us to contribute through the UN mechanism.
That's something to consider while you're pulling the report together. It just seems that we have developed more lines through NATO, through communication and interoperability that way, which we can probably see more results from if we focus more on them.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Yurdiga Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
I have 30 seconds left, so this will be a quick one.
With the actions in eastern Ukraine and what we see on the eastern flank, and the growing instability in the Middle East, and so on, what should NATO's priority be at this point? We're all over the place but what is the biggest concern for NATO members?
4:05 p.m.
President, Canadian International Council, As an Individual
That's a good question.
One of the things is that it's hard, of course, to see a NATO mission in Ukraine, given the proximity to Russia and the existing tensions. I think also NATO has to be very careful in how it would see an intervention in the Middle East. I'll just say very briefly it was involved in Iraq, for instance, but specifically on a training mission. NATO was involved in Afghanistan in a more multi-faceted, integrated mission.
Clearly, when it comes to Ukraine, I don't think it's workable. I think there are options to support, for instance reconstruction in Syria and Iraq, but I think it would probably be targeting security sector reform, which is what I talked about earlier.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to both our witnesses for being here today.
I'm going to start with Dr. Meharg, I guess largely because I'm a recovering academic. I'm very interested in your theory of how we find value in NATO. I just want to try it out to see if I understand it. According to your theory, we see ourselves as an important player in NATO. We see ourselves as a leader in NATO. The way we value that would be by continuing to find opportunities to lead, and by repeating those leadership activities. Is that a good understanding?
4:10 p.m.
Adjunct Professor, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
Yes, and not just in leadership but at the different and multi-layered mechanisms that are NATO—but you got it.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
In terms of what we're doing right now, Canada's taken a leadership role in Latvia. Certainly we've tried to take a leadership role in the area of women, peace, and security. Are there other areas in which you see opportunities for Canada to lead at NATO?
4:10 p.m.
Adjunct Professor, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
I want to suggest that Canada become more involved in the multinational experimentation process. We contributed a lot of effort and a lot of intellectual horsepower. Really, it was a Canadian Forces experimentation process, but Canada led it. I think it was called MNE 5, multinational experiment five—or it may have been four that we led here.
There's a process involved that allows us to add the innovation and the intellect and to problem-solve as only Canadians can. Oftentimes that tap of resources and assets has turned off for us. Sometimes it trickles and sometimes it flows, but we have to think through that when we are in operational commands or in leadership positions. Leading at the multinational experimentation process level allows us to give that innovation contribution that is sometimes absent from other levels and mechanisms within NATO.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
That's great. Thanks.
Dr. Sedra, I think your fourth point—I guess I would call it maintaining relevance—was about NATO's working to reduce nuclear stockpiles and taking other measures.
My first question to you would be this. Do you believe it would be a contradiction for a NATO member to sign the nuclear prohibition treaty?
4:10 p.m.
President, Canadian International Council, As an Individual
I don't necessarily think it would be a contradiction. When I was talking about a reduction of nuclear stockpiles, I wasn't necessarily talking about full prohibition or relinquishing or destroying all nuclear weapons. It's looking at strengthening the global regime, for instance to prevent states like North Korea, Iran, and others from acquiring nuclear weapons, but at the same time working with major states like Russia and the United States to reduce their stockpiles.
I don't necessarily see it as joining the movement toward prohibition, although I'm saying realistically over the long term I think that's where it has to be moving.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
I guess I'm asking if you are stating this as something NATO needs to do. Is this an opportunity for Canada to lead within the NATO alliance? I'm going to relate the two questions I've just asked.
4:10 p.m.
President, Canadian International Council, As an Individual
Yes. I think all those are areas where a country like Canada has an opportunity to lead and to move forward. You can't do everything at once, of course. I mentioned these. It's a menu of opportunities. I think they're all issues that NATO is positioned to make headway on. Canada will have to carefully assess where it can make the most impact and what will be in its national interest, but I think they're all activities that have to be considered.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Since Canada is a country that decided not to take on nuclear weapons a long time ago, it would seem to me that perhaps we have a unique opportunity among some of the major players in NATO to pursue these initiatives you're talking about.
4:10 p.m.
President, Canadian International Council, As an Individual
Yes, especially in light of what's happening on the Korean peninsula, and especially if you consider the fact that we have worsening tensions with Russia. In the past that has been an area where some headway was made in terms of mutually reducing nuclear stockpiles and so on. That's an area that has to be considered. I know it sounds counterintuitive because of the nature of the geopolitical situation right now, but I think that could be seen as a way to reduce tensions over the long term by finding one area where you can achieve some common ground.
I think there's a growing acceptance that, in light of what's happening in North Korea, the proliferation of nuclear weapons is one of the most profound security threats to the planet.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
In terms of NATO, you've raised the next place I would like to go. You started talking about North Korea. What is the relationship of NATO to those more regional, if you like, problems like North Korea? We heard you talking about strengthening regional organizations. Is this the kind of example where, when there's an absence of that regional organization, NATO may be able to play some kind of role?
Either one of you can answer that one.
4:15 p.m.
Adjunct Professor, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
Geography matters. Although it doesn't matter as much to the nuclear proliferation argument because it really doesn't matter where you're located because you are affected in some way, geography matters in NATO. It has a geographic name. We have to know that it can't be all-serving around the planet and serve in theory in what they call regional security complexes, this idea that particular regions evolve against a common threat and they will strengthen and solidify the ways and means to protect themselves.
Where two groups have always been fighting one another, if there's a common threat to both of them, they will work together and create a security complex to be able to counter the threat. NATO in a way can't necessarily be everywhere because it's intended to serve the countries from a geographical position around the north Atlantic. I just want to put that in there because I am a political geographer.
4:15 p.m.
President, Canadian International Council, As an Individual
I'd like to offer a slightly different perspective, although I absolutely see the danger of mission creep. This is a quote that always sticks with me. German defence minister Peter Struck, years ago when he was rationalizing the war in Afghanistan—Germany and NATO being in Afghanistan—said that German security depended on the security of the Hindu Kush mountains. He meant that security threats defy borders and regions nowadays.
When we talk about cybersecurity you cannot say that we're just worried about cybersecurity in the north Atlantic region. When we worry about terrorism it's the same. NATO has engaged in out-of-area operations. I would argue that many of the global threats we face are transnational threats, so we have to view them as such. Whereas I agree we have to be very careful, that's why I talk about working with regional organizations. NATO shouldn't be everywhere. If you can work with other actors on the ground, that should be the option you take.
