Report

The Canadian Parliamentary Association has the honour to present its report on its participation in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s (NATO PA) 2013 Spring Session in Luxembourg, 17 – 20 May.  The delegation was headed by Mrs. Cheryl Gallant, M.P., Vice President of the Assembly, and included Senator Joseph Day, Chair of the NATO PA Defence and Security Committee; Senator Raynell Andreychuk, Chair of the Political Committee; Senator Jane Cordy, Vice Chair of the Sub-Committee on Democratic Governance; Senator Michel Rivard; Mr. Leon Benoit, M.P., Chair of the Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Economic Relations; and the Hon. Laurence MacAulay, M.P. 

The Spring Session was hosted by the delegation of Luxembourg and presided over by Mr. Hugh Bayley, Member of Parliament from Great Britain and President of the Assembly.

THE NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly brings together parliamentarians from the organization’s 28 member countries as well as representatives from 14 associate member states.  The purpose of the Assembly is both to encourage discussion and influence decisions on Alliance security. Although independent of the official NATO structure, the policy recommendations adopted by the Assembly are taken into account and responded to by the Secretary General.[1] Alliance decision-making can also be influenced through regular meetings between delegates and the Permanent Representatives (Ambassadors) of the North Atlantic Council (NAC).  The NAC is “the principal political decision-making body and oversees the political and military process relating to security issues affecting the whole Alliance.”[2]

Main Issues

The following are some of the main issues discussed during the 2013 Spring Session:

·         The growing importance of cyber-security;

·         Reductions in defence spending by Alliance members and the effect these might have on NATO;

·         Energy and environmental security;

·         Developments in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region;

·         Care of injured members of the armed forces;

·         NATO-Russia relations;

·         The transatlantic link;

·         Security issues in the South Caucuses, the Western Balkans and the Arctic;

·         The security situation in Turkey and the relationship between Turkey and Syria;

·         The NATO mission in Afghanistan; and

·         Smart Defence.

Plenary Sitting

The Plenary Sitting was held on Friday 17 May 2013.  The session was opened by Mr. Hugh Bayley, President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. 

In his address Mr. Bayley welcomed the 28 Allied Ambassadors to the North Atlantic Council and stressed the importance of the ongoing dialogue between them and the members of the NATO PA.  Mr. Bayley went on to note that defence spending cuts by NATO countries could prove problematic in the long run.  According to him, the cuts weaken the Alliance’s ability to deal with complex crises and “they put into question Alliance solidarity by widening discrepancies among Allies, particularly between both sides of the Atlantic.”[3] In order to limit the negative impact of these cuts member states should:

·         “Coordinate better and earlier to ensure that defence cuts are made in a manner that minimizes the erosion of critically needed capabilities.”[4]

·         Work on improving their capabilities once their economies have recovered.[5]

·         “Use smart defence to step up bilateral and multilateral cooperation on capabilities, particularly among Europeans.”[6]

·         Do more to get their respective publics “on board.”[7]

With respect to the latter Bayley argued that today’s citizens want “a greater say in public affairs, including on matters of defence and security.”[8] He concluded by suggesting that in order to do this, NATO needs to be even more open and transparent and that this was “the only way to explain the value of the Alliance to (its) citizens and to retain their confidence.”[9]

Mr. Bayley’s comments were followed by a brief address by Mr. Laurent Mosar, Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.  Mr. Mosar noted that although Luxembourg did not have a large military, its participation in various NATO missions was proof of Luxembourg’s commitment to the values and goals of the Alliance.  He also argued that, given current fiscal restraints, it was especially important that the European Union (EU) and NATO base their relationship on the principles of convergence and complementarity rather than competition and duplication.[10]

The Assembly also heard from Mr. Jean-Claude Junker, Prime Minister of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.  In his remarks, Mr. Junker argued that the Alliance still remained relevant and that this was confirmed by the fact that there were still others who wanted to join.  Although the strategic environment continues to evolve, the fundamental values binding member states remain unchanged.  He also informed participants that the Luxembourg Parliament had extended Luxembourg’s participation in the Afghanistan mission until 2014.  As well, Luxembourg is continuing to help finance the equipping of the Afghan National Army.[11]

Joint Meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the North Atlantic Council

Following the introductory speeches, the Assembly went into joint session with the Permanent Representatives of the North Atlantic Council.  Prior to a question and answer period, the session was addressed by NATO Secretary General Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen.  Mr. Rasmussen’s remarks were largely devoted to issues surrounding NATO’s mission in Afghanistan.  The Secretary General argued that NATO’s job was not to build a perfect state but rather to “protect our security by helping Afghans take control of their own security.”[12] He went on to note that “ISAF is the biggest coalition in recent history” and that NATO’s “support for the development of the Afghan security forces is without parallel.”[13] Mr. Rasmussen also pointed out that NATO’s combat mission will be completed by the end of 2014 and that “a new and different chapter in our engagement with Afghanistan will begin.”[14]

Following the Secretary General’s remarks, delegates were given the opportunity to ask questions of the Permanent Representatives.  In the past, these exchanges had been governed by Chatham House Rules, whereby attributions of what is said are not allowed.  However, this time no such criteria were applied and the session was conducted as an open forum.  Each delegation could designate one of their members to make an intervention on their behalf.  Mrs. Cheryl Gallant, head of the Canadian delegation asked about the status of the multi-national cyber defence development project and whether there have been opportunities to apply its findings.  In response, Ambassador Philippe Errera, the Permanent Representative from France, noted that cyber attacks were a serious problem and that better methods of detection, including the identity of the aggressor, needed to be developed.  He also informed delegates that NATO efforts were focused only on NATO assets.  Ambassador Errera suggested that the improvement of detection and effective counter issues would be an ongoing process. A video of the proceedings is available on the NATO PA website.[15]

Committee Business

Before the committee meetings began, delegates had the opportunity to meet with their counterparts from their respective political groups from across the Alliance:  Conservative, Christian Democrat and Associates; Alliance of Liberals and democrats; and Socialist.  These meetings allow members from similar political parties to discuss issues of mutual concern.

NATO PA committees then met to consider their draft reports which will be adopted at the Annual Session in the fall of 2013.  During the consideration of the draft reports, presented by various rapporteurs, members may move amendments and consider the overall direction of the report.  In addition, presentations are made by experts in related fields. These reports are available, with executive summaries, on the NATO PA website.[16] 

The Defence and Security Committee, chaired by Senator Joseph Day (Canada) entertained four draft reports:

·         Afghanistan:  2014 and Beyond, Sven Misker (Estonia), General Rapporteur;

·         Smart Defence, Strategic Defence:  Pooling and Sharing From the Start, Xavier Pintat (France), Rapporteur;

·         Implementing Transatlantic Relations, Global Partners:  The New Strategic Concept Through Co-operation and Partnership, Nicole Ameline (France), Rapporteur; and

·         A Crescent Crisis on Europe’s Doorstep:  A New North/South Strategic partnership for the Sahel, Nicole Ameline (France), Special Rapporteur.

In addition to the consideration of draft reports, the Defence and Security Committee also heard from General Mario Daubenfeld, Chief of Defence, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, on “Luxembourg’s Participation in Current Operations and its Part in implementing the New Strategic Concept”; Guillaume Lasconjarias, Research Advisor at NATO Defence College in Rome, on “The Implications in Mali and the Sahel Zone”; and Doctor Stephen Biddle, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University and Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, on “The Future of Afghanistan.”

Of particular interest to delegates was the presentation made by Mr. Lasconjarias who offered three reasons why NATO cannot neglect the Sahel region.  First, is the fact that major allies, including the European Union, are engaged in Mali.  Second is the fact that NATO has relations with two countries bordering on Mali:  Mauritania and Algeria.  He suggested that “the experiences of these two partners and their potential demands for training, advice and monitoring of the situation cannot be ignored by the Alliance.”[17] Finally, “like it or not, NATO is often considered responsible for a crisis which has been accelerated by the difficulties in managing the aftermath of the conflict in Libya.”[18] He went on to argue that, “there was not only the problem of militia returning home to northern Mali after supporting Gaddafi to the very end; there was also major concern about their bringing arms from Gaddafi’s stockpile.”[19] This then requires “the need to monitor an area where considerable existing tensions have been further fuelled in the wake of the 2012 crisis.”[20]

The Committee on The Civil Dimension of Security, chaired by the Rt Hon. Lord Jopling (United Kingdom), examined three draft reports:

·         Fostering Democratic Transformation in the MENA Region, Ulla Schmidt (Germany) General Rapporteur;

·         Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic Integration:  Internal and External Challenges, Lucio Malan (Italy) Rapporteur of the Sub-Committee on Democratic Governance; and

·         The Western Balkans:  Securing a Stable Future, Witold Waszczykowski (Poland) Special Rapporteur.

The Committee on the Civil Dimension of Security also heard from Prof Dr. Oliver Schlumberger, Professor for Middle East and Comparative Politics at the University of Tubingen, on “Post-revolutionary Order in the MENA Region and the Challenge of Political Islam”; and Viviane Reding, Vice president of the European Commission and Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, on “Data Protection and Cyber Security.”

In her presentation Ms. Reding emphasized that “data protection is a fundamental right in the EU.”[21] The reason for this, she argued, is Europe’s experience with both right and left wing dictatorships.  This experience has led to “a common understanding in Europe that privacy is an integral part of human dignity and personal freedom.”[22] As well, “Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union also gives the European Union the legislative competence to establish harmonised EU data protection laws that apply to the whole continent and that make the right to data protection a reality.”[23]

In his presentation Dr. Schlumberger argued that “the political landscape of the MENA region has become less uniform and more differentiated after the recent uprisings.”[24] The “threat of eroding and failing statehood is not a new feature in the region, but it has been exacerbated after the Arab uprisings”[25] and there are now “some seven or eight countries at least that have to cope with serious challenges to statehood.”[26] According to Schlumberger, these challenges need to be carefully monitored because they are “the key determinants of a future regional order and of the overall face of a post-Arab spring Middle East.”[27] Developments therefore need to be carefully monitored because they are “the key determinants of a future regional order and of the overall face of a post-Arab spring Middle East.”[28]

The Political Committee, chaired by Senator Raynell Andreychuk (Canada), dealt with three draft reports:

·         The Growing Relevance of Asia:  Implications for NATO, Assen Agov (Bulgaria), General Rapporteur;

·         Report of the Sub-Committee on NATO Partnerships, NATOs Partnership With Central Asia, Daniel Bacqueline (Belgium), Rapporteur; and

·         Report of the Sub-Committee on Trans-Atlantic Relations,:  Security in the High North NATO’s Role, Jadwiga Zakrzewska (Poland), Rapporteur.

The Political Committee also heard presentations from Jean-Marie Halsdorf, Minister of Defence, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, on “NATO in Afghanistan, NATO’s Political Agenda – The View from Luxembourg”; Guillaume Lasconjarias, Research Advisor at NATO Defence College in Rome, on “The Implications of the Developments in Mali and the Sahel for NATO”; David Roberts, Research Fellow and Director of the Royal United Services Institute office in  Qatar on “The War in Syria:  Implications For Regional Security”; and Michael Ruhle, Head of NATO’s Energy Security Section, Emerging Security Challenges Division, on “The Future of the Transatlantic Security Relationship.”

The presentation by Mr. Ruhle drew particular attention.  He argued that “the transatlantic security relationship is going through a profound period of change.”[29] The factors underlying this change include the US pivot towards the Asia-Pacific region, new non-traditional threats generated by globalisation, the financial crisis in Europe and the decline in defence budgets on both sides of the Atlantic.  According to Ruhle, NATO is finding it difficult to deal with emerging non-traditional threats and “the financial crisis is forcing Europe to look inwards.”[30]

The transatlantic security relationship is changing not so much because transatlantic partners made a conscious decision to change it, but rather, because unforeseen, and largely uncontrollable, events have made the choice for them.  In order to sustain the partnership over the long term, Ruhle suggests that NATO must do seven things:

·         “NATO must remain outward looking” and “focused on expeditionary missions.”

·         The Alliance needs to emphasize smart defence projects in cooperation with the European Union.

·         “NATO needs to retain a strong focus on training and interoperability.”  This will help the Alliance retain the experience it has gained from the Afghanistan mission.

·         “NATO must further enhance its partnerships, notably with countries in the Asia-Pacific region.”  Such partnerships help enhance the political legitimacy and military effectiveness of NATO led operations and will enable it to draw on a larger pool of interoperable forces.

·         “NATO needs to explore ways of enhancing the flexibility of its decision-making process and the implementation of collective decisions.”

·         “NATO must become the forum for a much broader security approach in which new threats and potential responses can be discussed with artificial constraints.  The hesitation to discuss certain security developments” like the implications of a nuclear armed Iran will only diminish the Alliance’s importance.

·         NATO’s public diplomacy efforts must put more emphasis on the transatlantic relationship.[31]

These measures, Ruhle believes, will ensure that the Alliance remains stable and effective.  In conclusion he noted that, “if the institutional foundations of this relationship remain intact, and NATO manages to preserve its unique combination of political appeal and military competence, the transatlantic security relationship can cope with whatever change it might be confronted with in the years ahead.”[32]

The Economics and Security Committee, chaired by Mr. Petras Austrevicius (Lithuania), dealt with three draft reports:

·         The Economic and Strategic Implications of the Unconventional Oil and Gas Revolution, Jeppe Kofod (Denmark), General Rapporteur;

·         Defence Spending, National Security and Alliance Solidarity, Harriett Baldwin (United Kingdom), Rapporteur; and

·         Integrating the Economics of the Mediterranean Basin, Uwe Karl Beckmeyer (Germany), Rapporteur.

In addition to dealing with its draft reports, the Committee also heard from three presenters: Patrice Pieretti, Professor of Economics at the Center of Research in Applied Economics, University of Luxembourg, on “Attracting Investment and the Viability of Small Economies”; Phillip Cornell, Special Advisor, International Energy Agency, on “The Geopolitical Implications of the Unconventional Gas Boom in North America and How This Might Recast the Transatlantic Relationship”; and Alexander Nicoll, Director of Editorial at the International Institute of Strategic Studies, on “European Defence Cooperation:  Ways Forward.”

In his presentation, Mr. Nicoll argued that the “cuts in defence budgets that are occurring around Europe represent a major opportunity to increase cooperation and thus to obtain greater value for money … while focusing on military capabilities that will be useful in the future.”[33] The problem is not that defence expenditures are hopelessly inadequate; rather the problem is one of balance and coordination.  It is unbalanced and uncoordinated spending that makes for an inefficient use of resources.  Thus, “the fall in resources can be viewed as presenting an opportunity to extract better value from the money spent – and to do so in a much more coordinated fashion.”[34]  One of the more important things that nations could do is to pool their equipment requirements.  European defence companies are increasingly looking to Asia as a source for markets rather than their own domestic ones.  This means “that, in order to retain a measure of control over what they can purchase, European governments will need to ensure that their own supplier base is correctly sized, resourced and skilled.  This will demand far more effective consultation and coordination than there has been in decades past.”[35]

According to Nicoll, Smart Defence is one initiative that has the “potential to change markedly the way in which many NATO members think about their armed forces.”[36] If properly implemented, it could “lead them away from more traditional, deeply-rooted notions of autonomy and national security.”[37]

The Science and Technology Committee, chaired by Jan Arid Ellingson (Norway), dealt with three draft reports:

·         Improving the Survivability of NATO Ground Forces, Stephen Gilbert (United Kingdom), General Rapporteur;

·         Draft Report of the Sub-Committee on Energy and Environmental Security:  New Energy Ideas for NATO Militaries:  Building Accountability, Reducing Demand, Securing Supply, Osman Bak (Turkey), Rapporteur; and

·         The Future of Combat Aircraft:  Towards a 6 Generation?, Pierre Claude Nolin (Canada), Special Rapporteur (Note:  In the absence of Senator Nolin the report was presented by the Vice-Chair Mr. Andrius Mazuronis of Lithuania).

Along with the consideration of its draft reports the Committee also heard from three presenters: Dr. Pierre Decker, Head of the Research Department, Ministry of Higher Education and Research in Luxembourg, who spoke on “The Space Policy of Luxembourg”; Dr. William C. Potter, Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar Professor of Non-proliferation Studies and Founding Director of the James Martin Centre for Non-Proliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS), on “The Latest Steps in the US-Russian Defence Dance”; and Dr. Stephen Ashley, Research Associate at the Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, on the Future of Thorium-Fuelled Nuclear Reactors.

Dr. Decker provided the Committee with an overview of Luxembourg’s role in the Society of European Satellites, which is the second largest operator of geostationary satellites.  He noted that Luxembourg’s participation in the program is an important element in the diversification and sustainability of Luxembourg’s economy.  In 2005, Luxembourg became the seventeenth member of the European Space Agency (ESA).[38]

Dr. Ashley spoke on the viability of using thorium as a nuclear fuel.  Nuclear states have shown a significant interest in developing advanced and innovative technologies for safe, proliferation resistant and economically efficient nuclear fuel cycles.  The hope is that such technologies would also help minimize waste and environmental impacts. Ashley argued that although thorium is “considered as a future nuclear fuel, the potential for thorium to be deployed in existing nuclear energy technologies, with open fuel cycles, is limited.”[39] He went on to note that “there should be significant care taken in developing specific technologies required to reprocess spent thorium-based fuel to ensure that they cannot be considered dual-use technologies.”[40] He concluded by suggesting that “the proliferation-resistance of thorium fuel cycles depend very much on how they are implemented.”[41]

Conclusion

The Canadian delegation participated actively in all of the events of the Spring Session.  As this report demonstrates, the subject matters addressed are of significant interest to their role as Parliamentarians and to their work in their respective House and Senate Committees.  For example, the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence is undertaking a study on “The Care of Ill and Injured Canadian Forces Members” and is currently completing a report on “NATO’s Strategic Concept and Canada’s Role in International Defence Cooperation.”  Discussions at Assembly meetings, along with the consideration of various draft reports and presentations have provided valuable insight into these matters.

 

 

In addition, participation in Assembly meetings, the plenary session and the joint meeting with the Permanent Representatives of the North Atlantic Council enabled Canadian Parliamentarians to provide NATO members with a Canadian perspective on a variety of issues of mutual concern and to make known the views of their counterparts to their Canadian colleagues.  Perhaps most importantly, the effective participation of Canadian Parliamentarians in the work of the NATO PA reminds all that there are two partners on this side of the trans-Atlantic link.

Respectfully submitted,