The Canadian
Delegation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Parliamentary Assembly
(NATO PA) has the honour to present its report on the Economics and Security’s
consultation with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) held in Paris, France 10 February, 2012, which was followed by the Joint
Meeting of the Defence and Security, Economics and Security and Political Committees,
including the officers of the Committee on the Civil Dimensions of Security and
the Science and Technology Committee held in Brussels, Belgium, on 12-14
February 2012.
MEETINGS
AT THE OECD, PARIS – FEBRUARY 10, 2012
In Paris, Canada
was represented by Mrs. Cheryl Gallant, Head of the Canadian Delegation and Mr.
Jack Harris, M.P.
Delegates
had the opportunity to discuss issues related to the ongoing debt crisis facing
much of Europe and the United States with senior OECD officials. Since these
were closed meetings, most details of the in camera discussions cannot
be made public.
The meetings
were chaired by Petras Austrevivius, Chairman of the Economics and Security
Committee and Yves Leterme, OECD Deputy Secretary-General (co-chair).
Presentations
were made by the following people:
Paul van den
Noord, Economic counselor to the Chief Economist, Economics Department (ECO) on
Economic outlook, the fiscal crisis and rising inequality;
Monika
Queisser, Head of the Social Policy Division, Directorate for Employment,
Labour and Social Affairs (ELS) on Inequality and gender;
Andreas
Schleicher, Special Advisor on Education Policy to the Secretary General,
Directorate for Education (EDU), on Matching skills to jobs;
Richard
Boucher, OECD Deputy Secretary General on After the Arab Spring: OECD and MENA
region; and
Ken Ash,
Director for Trade and Agriculture on Advancing the Global Trade Agenda.
Discussions
followed each presentation.
The
delegates also heard introductory remarks by the OECD Secretary General, Angel
Gurria.
JOINT
MEETINGS – BRUSSELS FEBRUARY 12-14, 2012
In Brussels,
Canada was represented by Mrs. Cheryl Gallant, M.P., Head of the Canadian
Delegation, Senator Raynell Andreychuk, Chair of the NATO PA Political
Committee, Senator Joseph A. Day, Chair of the NATO PA Defence and Security
Committee, Mr. Jack Harris, M.P., and Mr. Lawrence MacAulay, M.P. The
Delegation was accompanied by Mr. James Murray Latimer, Secretary of
Delegation, and., Ms. Melissa Radford, Association Advisor from the Library of
Parliament.
These annual
meetings in Brussels give delegates the opportunity to receive an update on the
Alliance’s activities and operations from senior bureaucrats and military
officers working at NATO headquarters. The delegates also met with the NATO
Secretary General, Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and were briefed by Canada’s
Permanent Representative to NATO, Mr. Yves Brodeur, and Canada’s civilian and
military staff at the Mission.
The meetings
in Brussels were conducted under the Chatham House rule.
Summary
of Discussion
Delegates
attended six sessions. Senator Andreychuk chaired two sessions of the Political
Committee, while Senator Day chaired two sessions of the Defence and Security
Committee. The speakers included senior civilian officials and senior military
personnel from NATO headquarters as well as various Ambassadors and Permanent
Representatives to NATO.
Topics of
discussion included an update on ongoing NATO operations, the current state of
NATO military capabilities and Smart Defence, partnerships, NATO enlargement,
and NATO headquarters transformation.
With respect
to ongoing NATO operations, delegates were told that Afghanistan remains NATO’s
highest priority. NATO officials remain cautiously optimistic about the
progress being made in the country, although they continued to urge governments
to relax the caveats placed on their country’s military forces. The NATO
mission in Afghanistan is currently in transition; region by region,
responsibility for security is being transferred from NATO’s International
Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF).
Although this transition will be complete by 2014, continued training by and
financial support from Alliance countries will be key to sustaining the ANSF into
the future. NATO may also need to continue providing medical support to the
ANSF, as well as assistance with logistics and command and control. Finally,
the presence of ISAF in the country currently stimulates a large percentage of
Afghanistan’s GDP. Officials are therefore concerned about how the country’s
economy will cope once international military forces pull out.
Officials
briefly talked about NATO’s mission in Libya and Kosovo, as well as the
Alliance’s counter-piracy operations off the Horn of Africa. Regarding Libya,
officials noted that the operation was a prime example of why NATO continues to
be relevant in today’s world. With respect to Kosovo, they explained that
NATO’s Kosovo Force (KFOR) has been reduced. Unfortunately, the European Union
Rule of Law Mission (EULEX) in Kosovo, which includes a police force component,
has also been reduced. As a resulted, KFOR has increasingly taken on the role
of first responder, which is not a traditional military task. Finally,
officials noted that a political solution to the conflict in Kosovo remains
necessary though unfortunately still far from being realised. NATO’s
relationship with Serbia, however, has improved over the last two years.
Regarding counter-piracy operations, officials told delegates that instruments
of hard power, such as NATO’s naval operations, and of soft power, such as
international assistance for strengthening governance and the judicial sector
in the affected countries, are all required to combat piracy and insecurity in
the region.
Officials
discussed NATO’s current capability gaps and how Smart Defence initiatives
could help strengthen NATO’s military capabilities to ensure that the Alliance
will be able to counter future threats in an era of fiscal restraint. NATO
officials expressed concern with respect to the Alliance’s lack of resources.
They noted that capability gaps are worsening and that the Alliance’s
overdependence on American military assets serves to highlight Europe’s
shortcomings. During the Libya operation, the U.S. conducted 75% of all the air
to air refuelling missions. Specifically, U.S. capacity included one tanker
aircraft to every five combat aircraft whereas the other allies had one tanker
aircraft for every 23 combat aircraft. Financially, the U.S. currently
contributes 77% of the Alliance’s budget. As a number of NATO member-states
continue to deal with economic crises, measures need to be taken to ensure the
Alliance’s ability to combat future threats. At the same time, the cost of
security continues to rise as more advanced technology and weapons systems are
developed and as the Alliance adapts to emerging threat environments such as
cyber security. Further, a number of member states are making reductions to
defence spending in order to balance their national budgets. NATO officials are
concerned that uncoordinated cuts in defence spending across the Alliance may
lead to irreversible losses in certain military capabilities.
Smart
Defence and its initiatives are meant to counter these challenges. The goal is
not to spend more but to spend better by having member states prioritise and
specialise their capabilities. Joint air policing over the Baltic states is
considered a practical example of Smart Defence. NATO’s ballistic missile
defence program is another example. This program was agreed to at the Lisbon
Summit in 2010, and further implementation was discussed at the Chicago Summit
in May 2012. There are, however, challenges to Smart Defence, as national
interests often trump integration and cooperation among allies. If military
assets are to be shared among multiple states, there are questions as to how
these assets will be made available to the rest of the Alliance, who will have
the authority to make decisions on deployment, and whether the Alliance will be
guaranteed access to these assets. In addition, governments often see defence
procurement as a means to stimulate their own defence industries. While some
countries, such as Portugal, appear to be moving away from industrial offsets
with respect to defence procurement, it remains to be seen if other countries
will follow suit. When it comes to taking into account both the procurement
costs and operational costs of military equipment, states may choose to share
the burden of these costs particularly at a time when they cannot afford to go
it alone. NATO officials noted that common funding for military operations must
also be further discussed among allies. There are concerns that this may
encourage some member states to just provide funding towards military
operations instead of troops. For these reasons, the evolution of this concept
must be continually assessed.
NATO has
also had the opportunity to work with non-Alliance states such as Australia,
New Zealand, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, to name a few, in operations
in Afghanistan and Libya. This has helped with burden sharing, and the Alliance
is looking to strengthen these partnerships. According to officials, NATO has
partnerships with approximately 40 countries and has cooperated with these
partners on about 1600 tasks. The challenge for NATO is maintaining the spirit
of trust and interoperability that has developed between the Alliance and its
partners as NATO’s main missions draw down. New mechanisms such as the 28+N
dialogues are being established to bring non-Alliance states to the decision
making table with NATO member states particularly on issues that require
increased global cooperation such as cyber security and counter-piracy. NATO is
also reaching out to other possible partners. For example, Afghanistan and Iraq
have gone from theatres of operation to partnerships; and NATO remains
available to assist the Libyan state during its current transition.
Officials
stated that the Alliance also remains open to new member states within Europe
who meet its criteria, but noted that the Chicago Summit will not be an
enlargement summit.
NATO
officials discussed the ongoing changes occurring at Alliance headquarters, as
the organization makes it own spending reductions and streamlines its internal
operations. The organization has gone from 11 command headquarters down to
seven. Delegates were also told that operational and personnel costs were being
reduced by 20%.
Conclusion
The annual
joint committee meetings in Brussels and Paris offer Canada’s delegates the
opportunity to have in-depth discussions with senior officials at NATO and the
OECD and with parliamentarians from NATO member countries on current defence and
economic priorities pertinent to the Alliance. Topics covered by the
presentations included ongoing NATO operations, the current state of NATO
military capabilities and Smart Defence, partnerships, NATO enlargement and
NATO headquarters transformation.
Canada
continues to have important interests in all these issues.