Report

INTRODUCTION

The Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association has the honour to present its report on its participation in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s (NATO PA) Spring Session in Vilnius, Lithuania, 30 May – 1 June 2014. The delegation was led by Association chair Mrs. Cheryl Gallant, M.P., and included, from the Senate, the Hon. Raynell Andreychuk and the Hon. Jane Cordy, and from the House of Commons, Mr. Ted Opitz, MP, Mr. Jack Harris, MP, Ms. Élaine Michaud, MP, and Mrs. Joyce Murray, MP. The delegation was accompanied by Melissa Radford, the association’s advisor.

The Spring Session was hosted by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (the Lithuanian parliament) and chaired by Parliamentary Assembly President, Mr. Hugh Bayley, Member of Parliament from the United Kingdom. More than 300 parliamentarians from NATO member countries, North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia participated in the session.

THE NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY

The NATO PA is an inter-parliamentary organization of legislators from the national parliaments of member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, as well as 14 associate member countries. It is institutionally separate and independent from the official NATO structure but serves as a liaison for NATO and member parliaments.^[1] As the NATO PA’s website notes, “Its principal objective is to foster mutual understanding among Alliance parliamentarians of the key security and defence challenges facing the transatlantic partnership.”^[2]

Generally, Canadian parliamentarians draw significant benefit from their participation in NATO PA events. In addition to gaining a better understanding of strategic issues facing both the Alliance and Canada, Canadian delegates are presented with the opportunity to promote Canadian interests and values in the course of discussions throughout the NATO PA, its committees and during informal meetings with counterparts from NATO member and non-member states.

MAIN ISSUES

The agenda of the 2014 Spring Session of the NATO PA included a number of topics of interest to the NATO PA and of importance to Canada, such as:

1.    The crisis in Ukraine;

2.    NATO-Russia relations;

3.    NATO operations, particularly the Afghanistan mission and counter-piracy operations off the coast of Somalia;

4.    Ongoing developments in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and their implications for international security, with a particular focus on Syria and Iran;

5.    The security situation and the UN peace operation in Mali;

6.    The role of women in peace and security;

7.    NATO partnerships with other states and international organizations;

8.    The impact of the Euro crisis on the resources available for defence operations and procurement;

9.    The growing strategic relevance of the Asia-Pacific region;

10. Iran’s nuclear program;

11. NATO enlargement; and,

12. Security issues in regions such as the South Caucasus (particularly Georgia), the Western Balkans and the Arctic.

MEETING WITH CANADIAN REPRESENTATIVES IN LITHUANIA

Members of the Canadian delegation had the opportunity to meet with Ms. Jeanette Stovel, Canada’s Chargé d’Affaires in Lithuania. Ms. Stovel provided delegates with an overview of current Canadian priorities in Europe, Canada-Lithuania relations, Lithuania’s defence and security responsibilities under NATO, an update on the crisis in Ukraine as well as Lithuania’s perspective on this issue and Russia-Lithuania relations.

PLENARY SITTING

Due to scheduling constraints, the plenary sitting, which usually takes place on the final day of meetings, was held on the first day of meetings at this Spring Session. Mr. Hugh Bayley, President of the NATO PA, declared the Spring Session open. The ongoing crisis in Ukraine and its consequences for NATO-Russia relations were a major topic of discussion over the Session’s deliberations. Mr. Bayley began his speech by underlining how Russia’s illegal actions in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine had betrayed the trust developed through the NATO-Russia partnership over the last two decades. He defended Ukraine’s right to determine its own future and remarked that when he had visited Kiev during the Maidan protests, he noticed that protesters in Ukraine were not demanding that their government choose between East and West, but instead they were urging their government to move away from its old tendency for autocratic governing to a future of democracy and accountability. Mr. Bayley emphasized that since both houses of the Russian parliament authorized President Putin’s use of military force in Ukraine, the NATO PA itself needed to evaluate its relationship with the Russian parliament. Correspondence between Mr. Bayley and the Head of the Russian delegation to the NATO PA revealed the Russian parliament’s intransigent position regarding Russia’s involvement in Ukraine. This information led the NATO PA Standing Committee -at its April 2014 meeting in Riga, Latvia- to vote to withdraw the Russian Parliament’s Associate membership in the NATO PA. In his speech, Mr. Bayley noted however, that lines of communication would remain open if members of the Russian delegation wanted to discuss the NATO PA’s decision. He further noted the need for Ukraine and Europe in general, to decrease their energy dependency on Russia. His remarks also touched on the current instability in the North Africa and Middle East region, as he also welcomed parliamentarians from the region in attendance at the Session. In closing, Mr. Bayley urged NATO allies to continue their support for Afghanistan, particularly after the NATO mission ends later this year. He highlighted the need for NATO parliamentarians to help curb any further decreases in national defence spending and to explain to their constituents the importance of the transatlantic bond as a cornerstone for defence and security in Europe and North America. He encouraged all delegates to take his publication entitled “Why NATO Matters” and share it with their colleagues and constituents, noting that the key issues affecting the Alliance would be of primary focus at the upcoming NATO Summit in Wales. Finally, he congratulated Lithuania on its 10-year anniversary of accession to NATO.

NATO PA delegates then heard from Ms. Loreta Graužinienë, Speaker of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, and Mr. Algirdas Butkevičius, Prime Minister of the Republic of Lithuania. Both speakers welcomed the delegates to Vilnius and noted the significance of this year being the 10^th anniversary of Lithuania’s NATO membership. Given Lithuania’s own struggle for independence from Soviet occupation, both speakers expressed their serious concerns regarding the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. They declared their solidarity with the new government in Ukraine, and described their own national perceptions of the Russian threat. Ms. Graužinienë highlighted the need for NATO to continue to support other states such as Georgia and Moldova -- who also have tense relationships with Russia. She commented that Lithuania’s accession under the auspices of NATO enlargement was a success story. Furthermore, she expressed that she and her government believe that NATO’s open-door policy creates a more secure Europe and that this policy should remain an important goal for the Alliance. Mr. Butkevičius thanked the Allies for increasing their commitment to the Baltic air-policing mission following Russia’s intervention in Ukraine. He also told delegates that all seven political parties within the Seimas have agreed to increase Lithuania’s defence spending with the goal of it reaching 2% of the country’s GDP by 2020.

Delegates then heard from Mr. Andriy Parubiy, a Ukrainian Member of Parliament and Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine. He expressed his pride in the success of the 25 May 2014 presidential election which occurred freely and fairly despite the disruption caused by pro-separatist groups in the eastern regions of the country, the potential intimidation caused by Russian military exercises being conducted at their shared border, and the need for Crimean voters to travel great distances to cast their ballots as they were barred to vote within the recently annexed territory. He noted that 90% of voters chose a pro-European leader and emphasized that those who claimed Ukraine’s internal differences were too divisive were wrong. Mr. Parubiy described Russia’s continued interference in Ukraine as multi-faceted: through its support of the pro-separatist forces, its use of propaganda to destabilize the country and spread misinformation about the conflict internationally, and its ongoing efforts to prevent Ukraine from Euro-Atlantic integration. He indicated that the Ukrainian government is already making the necessary reforms to become more democratic. For instance, amendments to the Constitution are being made and will be put to a vote within in Parliament. As well, Ukraine’s Security and Defence Council is planning reforms to Ukraine’s security sector to improve the democratic governance and management of efficient and fair law enforcement. He thanked Canada and other NATO allies for providing military and civilian advisors to assist in this reform.

The NATO PA then debated and adopted three declarations:

·Declaration on Transatlantic Relations

·Declaration on NATO Enlargement

·Declaration on Supporting Ukraine

Canadian delegates were particularly instrumental in shaping the final version of the Declaration on Supporting Ukraine.

The Plenary Sitting ended with a speech and two-hour question and answer period with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. His remarks focussed on the crisis in Ukraine and its impact on NATO-Russia relations. He also discussed the key topics for the upcoming NATO Summit in Wales: defence capabilities, defence spending and the transatlantic bond. Mr. Rasmussen indicated that since the Cold War, NATO and Russia had worked in partnership to establish a more stable and secure Europe. In recent years, NATO and Russia have cooperated at the international level more than ever before. However, the Secretary-General cautioned that events in Ukraine have shown that Russia is prepared to undermine the sovereignty of states in order to reach its geopolitical ambitions. As a result, he stated that NATO must stand strong and in solidarity with its most vulnerable allies and partners. In doing so, Mr. Rasmussen urged countries to reverse the trend of cutting defence spending now that national economies are recovering. He stated that continued investment is needed for NATO to have the necessary capabilities to fulfill its three core tasks: collective defence, crisis management and cooperative security. Mr. Rasmussen argued that a credible defence can be achieved economically through multinational investments such as NATO’s Smart Defence projects and Connected Forces Initiative. As well, a rebalance in the transatlantic relationship is required to achieve better and fairer sharing of the Alliance’s defence and security responsibilities. Mr. Rasmussen commended the NATO PA on its “Declaration on Transatlantic Relations” stating that it provided a valuable contribution towards the declaration NATO will make following the Wales Summit.^[3]

COMMITTEE BUSINESS^[4]

Prior to the Committee^[5] meetings, delegates had the opportunity to meet with their counterparts from their respective political groups: Conservative, Christian Democrat and Associates; Alliance of Liberals and Democrats; and, Socialist. This allowed NATO PA delegates from similar political parties to discuss issues of mutual interest to their own parties and constituents, further solidifying the nature of the democratic debate and parliamentary diplomacy that takes place within the NATO PA.

NATO PA Committees then met simultaneously over the next two days. During these meetings, Committees debated reports drafted by their respective Rapporteurs. Final drafts of these reports will be discussed and adopted at the Annual Session in The Netherlands in November 2014.  n addition, these meetings were an opportunity for delegates to hear from academic experts as well as senior military and government officials from NATO member and partner states, from NATO headquarters, the EU and from the private sector.

1.    Defence and Security Committee

The Committee heard from four speakers. The first speaker was Dr. Juozas Olekas, Minister of Defence of the Republic of Lithuania. Given the recent events in Ukraine, he explained that Lithuania is primarily concerned with Russia and its potential geopolitical ambitions. Further, how Russia’s behaviour affects NATO and the Baltic states in particular, is of utmost importance to Lithuania. He explained that Russia’s actions in Ukraine are part of a larger pattern of Russia’s intention to regain control of the post-Soviet space. This began in 2008 with the invasion of Georgia. Though he does not believe that Russia would test NATO’s collective defence by taking similar action against a NATO member, Dr. Olekas stressed that NATO must work closely with vulnerable partners to help deter this aggression. In his opinion, this would include bringing Georgia closer to NATO membership, and enhancing NATO’s partnership with Moldova. He praised the establishment of the Lithuanian-Polish-Ukrainian brigade and noted that NATO must increase its assistance to Ukraine particularly with respect to institution building. Though Russia may not be a direct military threat to Lithuania and its neighbours, the Baltic states are mindful of Russia conducting offensive military exercises at their shared border. They are also concerned with the upgrades to military hardware Russia is undertaking in the Kaliningrad enclave, and its ability to manipulate the vulnerabilities of neighbours through what has been coined “hybrid warfare.” This may include a mix of conventional forces, cyber-attacks, using the region’s dependency on Russian oil to add an economic element of pressure, and using propaganda to influence the region’s Russian speakers to inflame ethnic divides in their respective countries. Dr. Olekas told delegates that the three Baltic NATO states are cooperating on an effective communications strategy to counter Russia’s use of propaganda in their countries.

The Committee then heard from General Arvydas Pocius, Chief of Defence of the Republic of Lithuania. He described Lithuania’s defence posture particularly in the wake of Russian action in Ukraine. He thanked allies for bolstering Baltic Air Policing and for participating in recent multinational military exercises in Lithuania and Latvia. He stated that further integration and interoperability are required across the Alliance noting that the ballistic missile defence program and projects to enhance NATO’s Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities are a priority for his country.

Next, the Committee heard from Dr. Isabelle Facon, Senior Research Fellow at the Paris-based Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique. Her presentation also focussed on Russia’s “regional revisionism,” and how Europe and NATO should move forward in this context. She explained that NATO and the EU’s expansion in Central and Eastern Europe has given Russia the perception that it was being encircled by Western interests. Its own interest lies in the belief that it is a global power with a sphere of influence that includes Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus. She noted that, aside from its naval base in Syria, all of Russia’s military bases abroad are located within this post-Soviet space. Further, Russia’s successful annexation of Crimea was likely easier to secure given the Russian naval base located there with Russian troops already in place. As such, Moscow has a significant amount of leverage with the countries hosting its military installations. Given that Russia has shown the willingness to use coercive measures and territorial expansion to secure its interests, Canadian delegates asked for Dr. Facon’s opinion on how NATO should move forward with respect to Euro-Atlantic security and its relationship with Russia. She explained that though it will be frustrating, the West needs to rekindle dialogue with Russia and re-discuss the Euro-Atlantic security architecture while acknowledging that Russia is a European power. In her view, this would allow for the development of a stronger, longer-term security strategy.

The Committee’s final speaker was Dr. Lanxin Xiang, Professor of International History and Politics at the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of Development and International Studies. His presentation focussed on Asia-Pacific defence and security. He noted that the Asia-Pacific is the most dynamic region of economic growth. At the same time, this region has also become the most militarized region in the world. Dr. iang emphasized that tensions are rising particularly with respect to specific hot spots, namely in the Taiwan Strait, which could bring the US and China into a military confrontation; on the Korean Peninsula where military confrontations between the two Koreas have already occurred; and, in the South China Sea, where tensions are high among a number of states that are claiming sovereignty over various groups of island. He gave a number of explanations as to why the region is currently so volatile. One reason is the lack of a region-wide, multilateral, collective security mechanism. Dr. Xiang also suggested that a rise in regional tensions could also be attributed to domestic factors. Internal crises within each of the region’s major players have caused their governments to focus on external irritants and stir-up nationalist sentiments to distract their respective populations. For instance, he argued that by exploiting Sino-Japanese tensions in the South China Sea, the Chinese Government can divert its population’s attention away from the wide-spread official corruption among its ranks while the Japanese Government can distract its public from its inability to lift the country out of a depressed economy since the 1990s. As well, Dr. Xiang noted that for the first time in history, a number of the region’s leaders hail from the same socio-economic background: the elite. Dubbed as the “princelings” these leaders tend to be more nationalistic and have a greater sense of entitlement. Finally, he argued that as long as there remain strategic mistrust between the US and China, and no agreement on how to peacefully resolve disputes in the region, tensions in the Asia-Pacific will persist and major powers could be drawn into conflict.

Three draft reports^[6] were presented by their respective rapporteurs and after some discussion, amendments were suggested. The Committee also discussed its activities for the remainder of 2014. Mrs. Murray and Mr. Harris were the Canadian delegates who participated in these discussions.

2.    Political Committee

The Committee heard from two speakers and a panel of Permanent Representatives to NATO. Mr. Linas Antanas Linkevicius, Lithuania’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, gave an overview on Lithuania’s perspective of the crisis in Ukraine and NATO-Russia relations. He noted that the Kremlin views NATO as weak given the latter’s inaction in 2008 by not granting Membership Action Plan (MAP) status to Ukraine and Georgia, as well as its unwillingness to send tougher signals to Russia over the years when warranted. According to Mr. Linkevicius, Russia’s actions in Ukraine and its willingness to break international agreements should be a cause for concern particularly with respect to other contested territories within the post-Soviet space such as Transnistria in Moldova. He argued that allies should send a firm message to the Kremlin by moving forward with a second tranche of targeted sanctions against Russia.

The second speaker was Ahmed Rashid, a writer and journalist based in Pakistan. He provided Committee members with an overview of what support Afghanistan will need from the international community post-2014. He argued that NATO and the US need to be more transparent with respect to which operations their forces will conduct in the country in addition to training and advising the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). As well, he stated that Afghanistan will need between US $7 and 8 billion annually to sustain the ANSF, public services, and its economy. Without this financial assistance, corruption and narco-trafficking would likely increase significantly. Mr. Rashid also argued that before any in-country political reconciliation could happen, Afghanistan’s neighbours, namely India and Pakistan, need to sign a non-interference and non-aggression agreement to foster regional stability. Finally, he urged that reconciliation with the Taliban should not come at the expense of women’s rights.

The Committee then heard from a panel of three Permanent Representatives to NATO: Ambassador Gabriele Checchia from Italy, Ambassador Rudy Huygelen from Belgium and Ambassador Tomas Valasek from Slovakia. The Italian Ambassador focussed his remarks on Afghanistan stating that it was NATO’s most challenging mission in its history. He noted that the level of interoperability achieved through the Afghanistan experience must be maintained in order to engage in any future asymmetric conflict. He argued that the future success of Afghanistan was dependant on the Afghan Government’s signing of the necessary agreements to allow for American and NATO forces to remain in the country to continue training and mentoring the ANSF. It is also dependant on the international community providing sufficiently to assist Afghanistan’s government in increasing its institutional capacity. The Belgian Ambassador focused his remarks on the important of NATO’s partnerships. He recognised the partners who participated in the ISAF mission and lauded the level of interoperability they were able to achieve with the Alliance. He stressed the importance of the NATO-EU partnership noting that the EU’s civilian capacity complemented NATO’s military capacity. Though he expressed disappointment in the recent cooling of the NATO-Russia partnerships, he urged NATO to maintain the moral high ground while bolstering support to Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and the three other aspirant states. Finally, the Slovak Ambassador focused his remarks on NATO capabilities. He expressed concern with respect to NATO’s future defence capabilities given that governments have dramatically reduced their defence budgets in reaction to the global economic crisis. Though NATO programs such as Smart Defence and the Connected Forces Initiative serve to mitigate any future capability gaps by encouraging multinational procurement and sharing of defence equipment to ensure cost effectiveness and interoperability, he argued that as long as states remain protectionist over their defence industries, this pooling and sharing of resources will remain a challenge.

Three draft reports were discussed and amendments were proposed.^[7] The Committee then discussed its remaining activities for 2014. The Chair of the Committee’s Subcommittee on Transatlantic Relations thanked Canada for hosting productive and informative meetings in British Columbia. Senator Andreychuk, Senator Cordy, Mr. Harris and Mr. Opitz participated in these discussions.

3.    Committee on the Civil Dimensions of Security

During this committee meeting, delegates heard three presentations. The first speaker was Ahmed Rashid, a writer and journalist based in Pakistan. His presentation on Afghanistan was similar to the one he gave to the Political Committee (see section above).

The second speaker was Ukrainian journalist Vitaly Portnikov. He argued that following Ukraine’s independence from the Soviet Union, Ukrainians were not prepared to take responsibility for their country. At the same time, the Kremlin never accepted Ukraine as independent. He noted that many Ukrainian senior officials including defence ministers and security sector, even under the Yanukovich government, also held Russian citizenship. Though some Russian observers have advocated splitting Ukraine into security zones run by foreign powers, the speaker argued against this option, stressing that Ukraine’s future will be decided by its citizens. He argued that although there are varying political views across the country, the majority of Ukrainians favour European integration.

The Committee’s final speaker was Colonel Saulius Guzevicius, Director in the Department of Strategic Communication, Lithuanian Armed Forces. He explained that Russian authorities have used various tools through the radio, the internet and television to spread misinformation in Lithuania about the country’s history. He noted that similar tactics were used by the Russians in Ukraine to mobilize the Russian-speaking population in Crimea and the eastern part of the country. Canadian delegates were interested in learning what the Lithuanian government could do to counter this Russian propaganda. The speaker stated that the best strategy was to penalize financially the TV channels that broadcast the misinformation. He also requested that NATO allies help fund domestically-owned Russian language media in the Baltic states and other countries vulnerable to Russia’s information warfare.

The Committee’s rapporteurs presented their respective draft reports^[8] and opened the floor to discussion and amendments from other members. Finally, the Committee discussed its remaining activities for 2014. The Canadian delegates who participated in the discussions were Mrs. Gallant, Senator Cordy, Mr. Opitz and Ms. Michaud.

4.    Science and Technology Committee

During the meeting of the Science and Technology Committee, delegates heard from three speakers. The first speaker was Jaroslav Neverovic, Minister of Energy of the Republic of Lithuania. His presentation focused on energy security both for Lithuania and Europe as a whole. He noted high demand and a limited number of suppliers have resulted in Europeans paying three times as much for energy than their North American counterparts. This has also resulted in Europe relying heavily on Russian energy, which, particularly following the crisis in Ukraine, is now considered a risk. He described the initiatives Lithuania has undertaken to improve its energy security and highlighted the 2012 establishment of the NATO Energy Security Center of Excellence in Vilnius. He views this development as evidence that the Alliance is taking the issue seriously following its stated commitment to energy security in the 2010 Strategic Concept. Canadian delegates highlighted the ongoing efforts taking place in Canada to begin exporting energy to Europe.

Next, Mark Hibbs, a Senior Associate in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Berlin-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, gave a presentation on Iran’s nuclear program. He offered the Committee some context surrounding the 2013 agreement reached between Iran and the P5+1 (the Permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany) called the Joint Plan of Action and outlined possible obstacles to its success. He reminded delegates that the long-term plan for Iran’s nuclear ambitions still remains unclear and that even though Iran is a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear weapons state, it has systematically failed to declare its nuclear activities over the last 15 years and failed to allow any oversight from the International Atomic Energy Agency. He urged the West to remain cautiously optimistic.

The last speaker was Paula De Sutter, a former Assistant Secretary for Verification, Compliance, and Implementation at the US Department of State. Her presentation focussed on arms control in light of deteriorating relations between the West and Russia. She argued that the Russian approach to arms control under Putin is similar to that of the Soviet Union when it was able to gain unilateral advantages by violating and circumventing agreements while all other participating states reduced their security options. She noted that Russia, in recent years, has violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty twice, yet the Obama Administration has not taken any action against these violations and has only informed allies of them in recent months. She argued that if the US government fails to emphasize compliance and verification with the Russians, its ability to deter Russian aggression will be undermined.

As part of the Science and Technology Committee’s program, some Canadian delegates had the opportunity of touring the NATO Energy Security Centre of Excellence. They met with its Acting Director, Lieutenant-Colonel Nicolas Henry who explained the role and responsibilities of the Centre. These include: conducting threat assessments of energy supply to NATO forces during conflict, raising awareness and encouraging NATO allies to increase their energy efficiently and protect their own energy infrastructure, and conducting research and providing education, training and support to allies. As national governments are first and foremost responsible for their own energy security, the Centre was established to produce best practices and ensure cooperation among allies. The Centre was stood up in September 2013, and currently Canada does not have a presence.

The Committee’s rapporteurs presented their respective draft reports. ^[9] Finally, the Committee discussed its remaining activities for 2014. Canadian delegates participating in the Science and Technology Committee’s meetings included Mrs. Gallant and Ms. Michaud.

5.    Economics and Security Committee

The Economics and Security Committee heard from three speakers. First, Dr. Dalius Misiunas, Chairman of the Board and CEO of Lithuania’s main power company, Lietuvos Energija, gave the Committee an overview of energy security in the Baltic region and in Lithuania in particular. The Baltic states, through the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan, are currently working in concert to connect to EU energy networks. Lithuania is particularly interested in reducing its energy imports from Russia, and has begun importing electricity from Sweden. It has received environmental clearance to begin building a nuclear power plant while also having access to a LNG terminal in Finland, the construction of which is expected to begin in 2015. He emphasized that achieving energy independence for the Baltic region is possible as long as it continues to improve the necessary infrastructure and diversify its energy portfolio.

The Committee’s next speaker was Andrei Illarionov, Senior Fellow at the Washington-based Cato Institute’s Centre for Global Liberty and Prosperity. His presentation offered insight on President Putin’s long-term goals in light of Russian interference in Ukraine. He argued that the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is not a “crisis” but should be considered as the beginning of what the Russians are calling a “Fourth World War.” He outlined Russia’s ambitions as follows: to destroy the independence of Ukraine, to build a new “Russian World” and provide a rationale for intervention outside its borders to protect this goal, as well as break up the Euro-Atlantic alliance to alienate the Anglo-Saxon world from a Europe that could ally with Russia instead. He urged the West to acknowledge this war and create a new military doctrine to counter Russia’s strategy. Some of his other suggestions included the need for an updated definition of “aggression” under international law, and the need to transform Russia into a truly democratic state – a solution that achieved success in Germany following the Second World War.

The last speaker was Dr. Lanxin Xiang, Professor of International History and Politics at the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of Development and International Studies. His presentation on Asia-Pacific defence and security was similar to the one he gave earlier to the Defence and Security Committee (see section above).

The Committee’s rapporteurs presented three reports and amendments were proposed following a brief discussion. ^[10] The Committee then discussed its remaining activities for 2014. The Chair of the Committee’s Subcommittee on Transatlantic Economic Relations thanked Canada for hosting productive and informative meetings in British Columbia. Canadian delegates participating in these discussions included Mr. Opitz and Ms. Michaud.

SUMMARY

The NATO PA provides Canadian parliamentarians with an opportunity to learn about the broader strategic issues facing the Alliance, which have an impact on Canada’s national security and defence. It also offers them with an attentive international forum in which to promote Canadian interests and values in the course of discussions and debates about future Alliance policy and strategy. As this report indicates, the 2014 Spring Session was no exception, offering Canadian delegates many opportunities to shape the outcome of discussions, convey a Canadian perspective on key issues of concern, and gain a better understanding of strategic issues facing Canada, the Alliance and Canada’s partner countries.

First and foremost at this spring session, NATO PA members had the opportunity to learn more about Lithuania’s commitment to international peace and security. As was noted throughout the session, the Alliance continues to grapple with the ongoing crisis Ukraine, and as a result, the future of NATO-Russia relations. Lithuania is particularly sensitive to Russian interference and is continually mindful of Russia’s military build up along its shared border, including the Kaliningrad enclave. It is also concerned with the way in which Russia uses misinformation to influence its Russian-speaking minority and manipulates its energy exports to achieve favourable policy outcomes from the Lithuanian government. Throughout the session, Lithuania expressed gratitude to the allies for stepping up their participation in Baltic Air Policing (BAP) and other operations and exercises taking place in the region to defend NATO territory. (It should be noted that Canada answered this call through Operation REASSURANCE^[11]). Lithuania is working closely with its Baltic neighbours to combat the spread of misinformation targeting their Russian-speaking minorities and to achieve greater energy independence. As a result of these meetings, Canadian delegates gained a greater appreciation for its Baltic ally.

Overall, the NATO PA appreciates the opportunity to participate in the process of monitoring the implementation of the new strategic concept by NATO, particularly with respect to Smart Defence and multinational cooperation where necessary and appropriate. All members of the NATO PA continue to be concerned about how the economic crisis is affecting their countries’ economies and what this ultimately means for the ability of NATO to fulfill its mandate, meet current and future challenges, and create a more balanced trans-Atlantic partnership. Afghanistan continues to be a primary focus – particularly with respect to NATO’s current transition mission and the dynamics in the region that impact on the country’s future stability. Delegates were eager to weigh in on these discussions particularly in the lead up to the NATO Summit in Wales where key decisions on these issues would be made.

Canada continues to have important interests in all these issues.

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted,