NDDN Committee Report

Supplementary Report of the Official Opposition to the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence Report on NATO’s Strategic Concept and Canada’s Role in International Defence Cooperation

Introduction

1. While we agree with much of the committee’s majority report, there are a number of matters on which we, the New Democrat committee members, believe further elaboration is required. In addition, there are a number of issues that do not appear in the report, or are only briefly mentioned, which we believe should be given a higher priority and emphasis when discussing NATO’s Strategic Concept and Canada’s role in international defence cooperation.

Smart Defence

2. Firstly, as interoperability is at the heart of NATO’s work and its Smart Defence concept, it is important to stress that interoperability is not defined as partnering countries using the same type of equipment. Rather, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander for Transformation, General Stéphane Abrial, defined interoperability as ensuring that NATO’s partners, and more of its potential partners, can work together even though they have different capabilities. In the words of General Abrial:

We do not advocate a single type of battle tank, a single type of aircraft, a single type of ship, a single type of rifle. We advocate that when two units, two soldiers, are fighting side by side, they can work together. They can exchange information they need, they can talk to each other, they can know what to expect…With interoperability, you are different, but you work together.[1]

3. New Democrat members wish to emphasize the need for Canada to participate in multilateral programs guided by NATO’s concept of Smart Defence. Such programs not only seek to improve the interoperability of the Alliance but they also seek to maintain the Alliance’s overall capability in a climate of fiscal restraint. As explained by Dr. Philippe Lagassé, Assistant Professor at the University of Ottawa: “At a time when NATO members are faced with austerity measures and rising defence costs, this pooling of resources and sharing of capabilities may be necessary to preserve the alliance’s overall ability to undertake high-intensity operations in the coming decades.”[2]
4. Operations in Libya, according to Mr. Samir Battiss, revealed that only a few member states “were capable of proving a sustained effort.” [3] Several witnesses stressed that most countries can no longer afford to maintain “general purpose” forces with a broad spectrum of capabilities. Canada is no exception and must therefore, in the words of Dr. Lagassé, “choose between a gradual – and likely ad hoc – capability reduction or a planned move toward complementary niched [sic] forces.”[4] Thus, it is necessary to have a more strategic approach to defining Canada’s contributions to NATO and international defence cooperation efforts.
5. The Government of Canada’s decision to withdraw from the NATO AWACS program is an example of the ad hoc capability reduction Dr. Lagassé indicated would occur without such a strategic approach. Paul Meyer, former UN Ambassador for Disarmament and now Senior Fellow at the Simons Foundation, argued that withdrawing from the AWACS program sends an “unfortunate signal” to NATO allies, considering the AWACS is “a common NATO program providing a very specialized capability that would have been prohibitively expensive for most of its members to acquire on a purely national basis.” [5] Mr. Meyer also suggested that Canada should be “supporting common programs or assisting with specialized capabilities that may be beyond the reach of other allies or partners.”[6] As such, Canada’s decision to withdraw falls out of step with NATO’s drive towards multilateral capability cooperation under the Smart Defence concept. Furthermore, the decision is demonstrative of the Government’s indiscriminate approach to reducing Canada’s defence budget.
6. Several witnesses, including Mr. Battiss and Dr. Lagassé, stressed that now is the time for the Government to consider equipment acquisitions more strategically to determine which capabilities the Canadian Forces should focus on in order to best align domestic requirements with capabilities that compliment Canada’s allies. Thus far, the Government has not undertaken this task. Rather, the Government has had to put the implementation of its Canada First Defence Strategy on hold because it is widely considered to be a financially unmanageable “shopping list” of procurement projects. New Democrats have been calling for a white paper to reassess the vision for a modern defence policy for Canada, based on priorities and affordability. This policy needs to be integrated with clear foreign policy objectives.

Role of the United Nations

7. There is a need to clarify the roles, responsibilities and relationships between the UN and NATO. It is not always evident how NATO-led military operations align with the broader political framework of the UN mission, or what accountability mechanisms should be in place.
8. The lack of clarity can stem from operations where the rules of engagement are set by the North Atlantic Council, but the legitimacy of the operation flows from a Security Council mandate. [7] Concerns over NATO’s perceived expansion of the UN mandate authorizing operations in Libya - and a lack of reporting to the Security Council throughout these operations - highlight an accountability gap. New Democrats wish to emphasize the Security Council as the principle organ charged with the maintenance of international peace and security under international law. The Security Council’s role should be reflected accordingly in UN-mandated operations undertaken by NATO.
9. Furthermore, clarification is required regarding the crisis management tasks included in the Strategic Concept. As former UN Ambassador for Disarmament Peggy Mason described, it is unclear where NATO’s crisis management tasks fit in with the “UN’s pre-eminent role in international peace and security writ large, including … crisis prevention, crisis management, and post-conflict peace building.”[8] In Ms. Mason’s opinion, it is “highly problematic” that NATO could be duplicating the UN’s role, particularly when it “drains the most professional military resources away from UN-led operations.”[9]
10. New Democrats echo the concerns of witnesses regarding the role of a predominantly military organization in the civilian dimensions of peace operations. The UN should play the primary role in overseeing the civilian side of peace building and nation building operations. Peace operations should occur with the support of a credible peace process, and the UN can provide that credibility.

Nuclear Deterrence, Non-proliferation and Disarmament

11. NATO’s Strategic Concept affirms the Alliance’s commitment to “create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons in accordance with the goals of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in a way that promotes international stability, and is based on the principle of undiminished security for all.”
12. However, New Democrats wish to emphasize the comments of witnesses who questioned how much NATO has actually done to realize this clearly stated goal. Witnesses raised concerns regarding NATO’s compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, given the presence of tactical nuclear weapons in European non-nuclear states. In addition, Mr. Meyer pointed out an “absurd element” to NATO’s nuclear posture since “clearly, as long as NATO retains such weapons, they will continue to exist.”[10] Furthermore, as Dr. Ernie Regehr explained, so long as such weapons exist, the “threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons to non-state actors, or nuclear materials, even if not in weapon form” is a sobering reminder of one of the most potentially destabilizing threats to global security.[11] As Dr. Regehr continued:

[T]he notion that we can have a stable international community in which some remain “have” states of nuclear weapons for a long time while others do not is not possible in a world in which nuclear material, nuclear know-how, is widely dispersed.[12]

13. There is an obligation for States to “remove the threat of nuclear weapons by negotiating to eliminate them under strict and effective international control,” emanating from decisions of the International Court of Justice. While other multinational forums – pre-eminently the UN – are better placed to oversee the disarmament process at large, the Alliance can and should do what is necessary to create the conditions for reducing both tactical and strategic nuclear weapons within the Euro-Atlantic community and with its partnerships.  
14. Many NATO countries have increasingly questioned the practical military purpose that deployed tactical nuclear weapons serve.[13] The Science and Technology Commission of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly has assessed that the remaining tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe do “not add substantially to the security of Europe” and proposed a phased out withdrawal as a result[14] In negotiating the removal of such weapons from Europe, there is the potential for NATO allies to play a significant role in terms of creating the conditions that could open the door to further arms control and disarmament agreements – in particular between the United States and Russia.
15. By collaborating with other NATO countries that have advocated for the removal of deployed nuclear weapons in Europe, Canada can play a more influential role in terms of ensuring that NATO and its partners have a credible nuclear policy in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Canada should also take on a stronger role in advocating for nuclear disarmament on an international scale by engaging, for example, in diplomatic efforts seeking to curtail Iran’s nuclear program.

Climate Change as a Horizon Threat

16. With melting ice caps, rising sea levels and more severe weather patterns, there is a significant potential that security issues will arise from the displacement of peoples and the scarcity of resources. Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, has even described climate change as “probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’’[15] Given these concerns, Canada should be playing its part to mitigate the effects of climate change. Canada should further advocate that its NATO allies place a higher priority on climate change as another potentially destabilizing force on the horizon.

Political Engagement

17. As witnesses noted, NATO as a military alliance largely assesses conflict through a military lens. However, NATO as a military alliance is not always the most appropriate forum in which to address security threats. As an example, Paul Ingram suggested in his discussion on NATO’s role in energy security: “It's far more important to be dealing with sources of energy from a diplomatic perspective than to be using a military alliance.” 
18. Whenever possible, Canada should place greater value on strengthening political dialogue and building co-operative relationships through diplomatic channels, as nations are not completely independent of each other in the global security context. An example of a venue for fostering such relationships is the NATO Parliamentary Association, through which the Alliance can reach out to parliamentarians from countries seeking a closer association with NATO, striving for mutual understanding on key defence and security issues. Canada should advocate a strengthening of such institutions in order to help foster strategic partnerships.

Canada’s Role in International Defence Cooperation

19. While the Committee’s report focuses on NATO’s Strategic Concept, the discussion is contextualized within Canada’s larger role in international defence cooperation. As such, it should be stressed that while NATO plays a key role in terms of co-operative security, the Alliance is one venue, inter alia, in which Canada can contribute to international peace and security efforts.
20. New Democrats would like to emphasize the importance of recognizing the legal authority of the UN Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security and the need for strong diplomatic persistence and presence in achieving this overarching goal.
21. The UN Mission to Mali is an example of a mission to which Canada can provide direct support to work towards the objective of peace and political stability. Canada has supported Mali with aid for many years, and provided a modest level of support to the military aspect of the mission. However, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative to Mali has recently called on NATO members to support important stability initiatives in the north of Mali, in the wake of military action that left an institutional vacuum. Canada could be more responsive to this request as part of its contribution to international peace and security efforts.