Report

 

The Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association has the honour to present its REPORT on the Spring Session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, held in Oslo, Norway, May 22-26, 2009. The Canadian delegation was represented by Senator Raynell Andreychuk, Senator Jane Cordy, Senator Joseph A. Day, Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, and Mr. Claude Bachand, M.P.

Overview

Prior to the commencement of the official meetings the Canadian delegation met with Ambassador Jillian Stirk and officials from the Canadian Embassy in Oslo.  Ambassador Stirk briefed the delegation on a variety of issues relevant to the upcoming sessions as well as the role of Norway in NATO and Norway’s particular concerns with respect to the issues that would be discussed during the coming days.

The Spring Session was opened by the President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO PA) Mr. John Tanner.  Mr. Tanner noted that NATO is a team with different strengths and weaknesses, but the most important aspect of a team is that it works together despite the differences of respective members.  What is most important, according to Mr. Tanner, is that Alliance members share the same values and they live up to their obligations and commitments. He went on to argue that what the Alliance was fighting in Afghanistan was a force that rejects “our principles.” He went on to argue that tolerance of those who seek to undermine our common values is not a virtue, and that Alliance members need to explain to their constituents why “we are in Afghanistan.” He suggested that the NATO PA could play an important role in that regard.

The Assembly was then addressed by Mr. Jens Stoltenburg, Prime Minister of Norway.  Mr. Stoltenburg spoke about the key security issues facing NATO.  These included the risks of nuclear proliferation (with a specific emphasis on the North Korean nuclear program), disarmament and Afghanistan.  The Prime Minister also drew attention to recent developments in the High North and to some of the conflicting aspiration and policies of the main players in the region.  He argued on behalf of the need for increased cooperation among governments to manage the increasing human activity in the region. 

Next, delegates heard from Mr. Kai Eide, Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General for Afghanistan and Head of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA).  Mr. Eide stressed the positive developments in Afghanistan.  He said that there has been a breakthrough in regional cooperation in the past year.  However, there are still challenges to be addressed such as strengthening the Afghan Army, reducing corruption and increasing aid effectiveness.  The speaker noted that more emphasis should be placed on capacity building.  Mr. Eide’s presentation was followed by a question and answer period.

The Assembly then heard from Mrs. Jozefina Topalli, Speaker of the Parliament of Albania and Mr. Luka Bebić, Speaker of the Parliament of Croatia.  Mrs. Topalli argued that NATO’s Strasbourg Summit represented Albania’s most significant event, besides its independence.  Noting that Albania’s dream of NATO membership had been fulfilled.  Mr. Bebić thanked the Assembly for its instrumental role in the timely ratification of Croatia’s NATO accession.

After adoption of the report of the Treasurer, Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, Members entered into a discussion with the Permanent Members of the North Atlantic Council. Prior to a general discussion, Mr. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Secretary General of NATO, addressed the Assembly.  The Secretary General noted that NATO’s forces were currently deployed in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq and the Mediterranean.  In addition, the Alliance was carrying out counter piracy operations off the Horn of Africa, thereby demonstrating NATO’s flexibility.

He also went on to note that, politically, NATO has also been very active.  France had recently been reincorporated into NATO’s military structure, and the Alliance has new members.  These developments were important, he suggested, because the Alliance is increasingly a forum for political debate.  However, the Secretary General also noted that this did not mean that everything was going smoothly.  The Alliance was facing three major challenges: solidarity, institutional challenges, and challenges relating to resources.  These challenges could now be addressed in the new Strategic Concept.

According to the Secretary General, the new Strategic Concept will need to describe the new strategic environment, it must provide a new understanding of what constitutes a threat, and it must reconfirm the consolidation of Europe.  Finally, the new Strategic Concept needs to address NATO’s relationship with Russia.  He concluded by saying that the input of NATO’s Parliamentary Assembly was important because of the collective expertise of this body.

During the Session, one of the major topics discussed by the Political Committee was NATO’s relations with Russia.  Senator Raynell Andreychuk (Canada) presented a report entitled “Resettling Relations with Russia”.  Andreychuk argued that NATO needed to explore venues to engage Russia constructively and that it should use all platforms at its disposal.  The report identified points of convergence that could serve as the basis for a reinvigorated dialogue with Moscow.  Further, it examined Russia’s strategic priorities and domestic challenges, its strategic priorities and domestic challenges, and proposed areas upon which to build a mutually beneficial partnership.  Senator Andreychuk went on to argue that a successful NATO –Russia partnership was essential for tackling a host of contemporary security challenges, including instability in  Afghanistan and Central Asia, terrorism, piracy, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and arms control.

In Afghanistan, she argued, Russia could facilitate the provision of supplies to NATO’s International Assistance Force (ISAF) through the expansion of over flight rights and the accommodation of military materiel transit routes.  Andreychuk concluded, with the proviso that closer NATO-Russia cooperation not be directed against anyone nor come at the expense of any NATO member or Partner country.

One of the more poignant presentations was that of Major-General Patrick Cammaert (Retired) of the Netherlands who spoke on the problem of violence against women and girls during conflict situations.  The presentation was given during a meeting on gender-specific issues organized by the Norwegian Delegation.  Cammaert argued that “advancing women in our armed forces and speaking of the sexual violence suffered by the civil population is not just a gender-specific issue; it is a crucial security issue, which must be treated as a matter of extreme urgency having regard to the extent of the phenomenon.” In his view, “the scale and brutality with which women and girls are treated during armed conflicts are beyond imagination, and fall within the scope of war crimes and crimes against humanity.” All participants were in agreement that it was essential for the international community to join forces and take action to protect the civil population.  The recent Afghan law on the family signed, by President Karzai, was noted during the discussion as one more example of the lack of serious treatment of the problem.  Many Parliamentarians expressed their indignation regarding the weak response by the international community to this matter.  It was not the role of the Alliance, and indeed, contrary to its principles, to tolerate any form of peace that was detrimental to the “real” and “absolute” security of women.

During its deliberations the Defence and Security Committee was briefed by Espen Barth Eide, State Secretary, Norwegian Defence Ministry, on Norway’s Security Outlook – Strengthening the Relevance of NATO.  Espen Barth Eide reviewed the outcome of the NATO summit from the Norwegian point of view, as well as the evolving strategic context NATO must adapt to.  He outlined Norwegian proposals on strengthening the relevance of NATO, both at “home” and “away” and its approach to the high north.  Finally, he outlined Norwegian views on the ongoing NATO involvement in Afghanistan.  Eide suggested that NATO would continue to be the cornerstone of Norwegian security, and the primary multilateral security forum for dialogue between the U.S., Canada, and Europe.  He further suggested that NATO should focus both on the challenges facing it at strategic distances and on those confronting the Alliance closer to home. 

Eide suggested that there was a need to readdress the broad set of issues pertaining to NATO’s tasks and responsibilities closer to home.  The situation in the High North is at the top of the Norwegian government’s policy agenda.  Norway, he noted, wants to ensure that NATO also increases its focus on this issue.  In doing so, it must also be willing to take the concerns of Russia into account and find some means of cooperation.

The Committee also heard from Ambassador Gentilini, NATO senior Civilian Representative in Afghanistan.  On a positive note he suggested that life in Kabul was dominated by politics rather than security concerns.  He also went on to suggest that one of the most important priorities was to properly resource the existing long-term Afghan based strategy.  Of particular importance here was support and training for the Afghan national police.

After discussion, the Committee went on to consider its various draft reports.

The Committee on the Civil Dimension of Security heard from Elisabeth Rasmusson, Secretary General Norwegian Refugee Council on Civil-Military Relations in Conflict Areas.  Rasmusson argued that Afghanistan provides velar evidence of the need for an undisputed division of labor between military and humanitarian actors in conflict situations while the military focuses on security stabilization and counter insurgency efforts, humanitarian actors undertake their activities following four main principles:  humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence.  Humanitarian organizations need to act and be perceived as neutral by local authorities and populations to be able to perform their work.

The Committee also heard from Jean-Francois Bureau, Assistant Secretary General Public Diplomacy Division NATO.  Mr. Bureau spoke on the subject of “public diplomacy and the younger generation.” He reminded members that, at the Bucharest Summit, NATO Heads of State and Government had tasked NATO to foster public support and understanding of NATO operations through timely, accurate, responsive and interactive communication.  Thereafter, the Committee went on to the consideration of its various draft reports.

The Science and Technology Committee began with the consideration of the draft Special Report:  Climate Change and National Security.  The report was presented by Senator Pierre Claude Nolin (Canada), who started his introductory remarks by warning that the world is likely to get warmer by at least four degrees Celsius within the next century.  He also went on to note that scientists warn of the possibility of an abrupt climate change due to the weakening of the oceanic current circulation or release of enormous volumes of methane gas from thawing permafrost.  This could cause crisis and conflicts involving food and water, more extreme weather events, and the spread of tropical diseases.  The Rapporteur stressed the responsibility of the NATO PA in ensuring that the political will needed to address climate challenge will hold steady.

The Committee also heard from Erik Solheim, Minister of the Environment and International Development of Norway, who argued that there is general agreement that climate change will be a major security challenge in the future.  And from Dr. William Potter, Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar Professor of Nonproliferation Studies and Director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monetary Institute of International Studies.  Dr. Potter addressed the issue of “The State of the Nonproliferation Regime.  In his comments he noted that despite the fatalistic forecasts about proliferation cascades, the pace of proliferation remains much less than anticipated.

Finally, members were given a presentation by Mr. Neil Davis, Defence Analytical Service and Advice, UK Ministry of Defence.  He spoke on the subject of “meeting the challenges of limitations in defence budgets and escalating costs through collaboration and cooperation.”

The Economics and Security Committee heard from Josette Sheeran, Executive Director, United Nations World Food Program (WFP), on the Food Security Nexus:  Addressing the Security Aspects of Food-Related Crisis and Emergencies.  Ms. Sheeran pointed to several NATO operations in which feeding hungry communities has been integral to ensuring that security crises do not evolve into humanitarian catastrophes.  NATO assistance to refugees in Kosovo helped contain violence and instability in the 1990s.  Today, Alliance support to Afghanistan helps sustain WFP School feeding programs in 6,000 schools, reaching 2.2 million school children.  Ms. Sheeran further explored the humanitarian and political fallout from the previous year’s food price spike, which triggered riots in over 30 countries and cut in half the WFP’s capacity to distribute food.

The Committee also heard from Professor Dag Harald Claes, Department of Political Science University of Oslo on the subject of Global Energy Market Trends – Heyday or Doomsday?  Professor Claes examined the recent spike in oil prices and particularly the $120 a barrel price increase 2003 and 2004.  He noted that the market price was unrelated to demand shifts.  It was rather a consequence of politically induced market distortions related to conflict and cartel behavior.  Thus, the volatility of oil prices had very little to do with the real oil reserve base.  Oil production costs are a much more reliable marker for reserve shortages.  Claes argued that, disregarding recent market distortions, the past twenty years had seen a steady decline in production costs for oil.

Respectfully submitted,