[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, November 28, 1996
.1558 
[English]
The Chairman: We now turn to the issue of the IFOR mission.
We're pleased to have with us Rear Admiral King. Thank you very much for coming back to the committee, sir. Captain Brown is with him, and Mr. Court. Thank you very much for coming back, gentlemen.
I wonder, before you begin your evidence, had you thought you would make a presentation again today, or with the presentation of the minister is it now a question of your being here so we can ask you questions as we continue to discuss some issues?
I want to draw the attention of the members of the committee to the fact that there is a resolution being distributed, and I think Mr. English has asked for the floor to speak to that resolution. I think it would be better for us to have something in front of us to discuss rather than just have a general discussion that is going tous azimuts, and that way we can focus our attention on specific proposals.
Did you want to raise something first, Mr. Bergeron?
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron (Verchères): I have two questions. First of all, I would like to know if the Parliamentary Secretary will be here to move a resolution. I see that Mr. English is acting on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary, and on behalf of the government, he has kindly given us the proposed resolution that we currently have before us.
Secondly, have we determined the structure for this debate or will we proceed as we normally do? Are we going to use more or less the same model we use in June for Haiti?
The Chairman: I would suggest that we allow Mr. English to move his motion, and then I will give the members of the opposition the opportunity to respond, like we did last June for Haiti.
Mr. Bergeron: Questions and answers.
The Chairman: Questions and answers. Bear in mind that we are lucky enough to have experts with us, but at some point, if they're no longer necessary for the deliberations of the committee, I'm sure they'll have other things to do. We do not want to keep them here for the whole debate if we do not need them.
.1600
We also have with us Ms Parrish, who went to Brussels and Paris to attend the NATO meeting last week.
[English]
Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): I was also in Bosnia in September.
[Translation]
The Chairman: She was also in Bosnia recently. So in addition to her very pertinent intellectual perspective, she has recent experience in this area.
[English]
Mr. English.
Mr. English (Kitchener): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With the permission of the members, I won't read this motion I bring forward; it's a fairly long one. Perhaps we can just agree that it is distributed and that everyone has a copy.
What it does is build upon the earlier testimony of the minister relating to IFOR. It brings forward some specific recommendations. What it does recommend is the creation of a follow-on force to the current IFOR mission. I don't intend to elaborate upon the reasons given by the minister. Of course we have some witnesses today who can explain those reasons more fully.
Secondly, it talks about our cooperation with others and points to some of the questions raised by the opposition party and other members during the discussion following the minister's presentation. In this respect, you will note item 4 relating to the questions of war crimes. In terms of some of the other questions that were raised, it talks about the limits of the mandate and also about the question of operational risk.
I don't think at this point there is any need for me to make additional comments. We can debate the motion, as was suggested earlier by Mr. Bergeron and by you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
The Chairman: Maybe I should ask members, if I could go back to my original observation about the presence of Rear Admiral King and his colleagues, that if there any specific questions - perhaps as a follow-up from the other meeting - they might want to ask our experts before we actually get into a debate among ourselves.
Mr. Paré.
[Translation]
Mr. Paré (Louis-Hébert): I just have a question on one of the word in the second whereas. It says:
- Whereas the Joint Presidency of Bosnia have indicated their approval...
- As regards their ``approval'', was the force imposed on them, are they happy or did they ask for
it? Did the Joint Presidency ask for the force or is it simply tolerating its presence? To my mind,
it is important for us to understand that aspect.
The Chairman: Mr. Court.
[Translation]
Mr. Charles Court (Policy Analyst for NATO, North American and Euro-Atlantic Security and Defence Relations Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): At the Paris conference a week ago, the President of Bosnia-Herzegovina indicated that he was in favour of an international military presence.
Mr. Paré: He wants it.
Mr. Court: He wants it.
[English]
Mr. Assadourian (Don Valley North): On point two made by my colleague, maybe you have a copy of the draft resolution. It says: NATO force with NATO members and non-NATO members force. My question is whether we have non-NATO members in Bosnia under NATO command. That's normal? Is that the way it works?
Rear Admiral J. King (Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Department of National Defence): Mr. Chairman, it's not normal. One of the really impressive aspects of the IFOR mission - and it does have a bearing on this whole debate on NATO enlargement - is the fact we have been able to gather like-minded nations, including I think about ten that are non-NATO, operating under a NATO command and using by and large NATO procedures and doctrine to carry out this mission, but of course under the UN mandate.
Mr. Assadourian: Thanks.
The Chairman: Rear Admiral King, there are Russian and also I believe Czech troops there who are non-NATO members, but are there others who are non-NATO?
.1605
RAdm King: Yes. I'll ask Captain Brown to go through them, since I think he has a better idea. But I've been told there are in fact about 17 in the current mission and I think we're expecting about 10 in the follow-on.
Certainly the Russians and the Czechs are there. I think what is impressive is there are about 2,000 Russian troops under United States command, because of course the United States was not prepared to have it any other way. They do carry out joint patrols right down to the lowest level where Russian soldiers and American soldiers actually work together on a day-to-day basis. The same thing goes on with others, like the Czechs for example.
The Chairman: Captain Brown, did you want to add something?
Captain B.R. Brown (Department of National Defence): In terms of some of the other nations that are involved, there are Malaysian troops involved and Egyptian troops involved. Certainly there are the Russians; and we've had the Poles and Estonians. Each of the Baltic nations has contributed troops to what is a multinational organization under the leadership of the Nordic states.
So there are, as the admiral says, in the vicinity of 12 to 14 other nations contributing to this, and most of them have indicated a desire to participate in a subsequent mission should it be required.
The Chairman: So it would be fair to assume any operational problems that might arise out of this, either linguistic, or difference of equipment and things like that, have been ironed out at this point, that we've resolved.... This sounds like a tower of Babel operation if you look at it from the outside, but presumably those types of operational problems have been largely resolved by now, have they not?
Capt Brown: Yes, sir, the higher level formations have provided liaison officers down at the lower level of formations to make sure the linguistic problems are being dealt with. For instance, in the Canadian sector, where we're commanding a brigade with the Czechs in it, we have a number of Canadian liaison personnel with the Czech brigade. They're expressly for communications purposes so orders going up and down the chain are properly translated and properly transmitted.
The Chairman: That's interesting.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron.
Mr. Bergeron: I have a very technical question.
First of all, would it be possible to get the full and exact list of the 33 countries participating in the mission?
Next, I would like to know if there are many countries participating in the mission that are contributing more personnel than Canada, and if yes, which ones and how many.
Then I would like to know if it is still true that Canada is not a member of the Liaison Committee.
Mr. Court: The contact group?
Mr. Bergeron: Yes, the contact group.
The Chairman: We received that document last Tuesday. If you want it, it contains the list of all the participants.
[English]
Can you help us, Captain Brown, as to where Canada's contribution would fit within that context?
[Translation]
Capt. Brown: I can confirm that we are not members of the contact group.
As for the other countries, Portugal has roughly the same number of soldiers as we do, and Spain and Turkey have roughly 1 500 soldiers each. The Czech Republic has roughly 800 troops.
Mr. Bergeron: Captain Brown, how many Canadian soldiers are there?
Capt. Brown: We have 1 030.
The Chairman: Is the RCMP still present in the former Yugoslavia?
Capt. Brown: Its presence is very limited.
The Chairman: Very limited. At one point, I think there were 60 RCMP members.
.1610
Mr. Court: At one point, there were roughly 100 members of the RCMP, but at present, there is just a very small team left.
[English]
RAdm King: We also have of course retired RCMP officers assisting with the IPTF, the international police task force, which is under the OSCE in the same mission. I'm told there are five of them.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: So clearly, unless I have misunderstood, no country is contributing more troops than Canada.
Cam King: No. As regards NATO countries, I think that the United Kingdom and France have sent roughly 10,000 troops and the United States, 17,000. As for the other countries, they have sent in roughly the same number as Canada has.
As for other countries, Malaysia has committed roughly 1,500 people, New Zealand, 12, and Ukraine, 400. All of these countries have committed fewer soldiers than Canada has.
Mr. Bergeron: That is really what I meant, Mr. Chairman. Would it be possible to obtain specific data on that?
The Chairman: Okay. We will get numbers on participation.
[English]
Mr. Flis.
Mr. Flis (Parkdale - High Park): I assume we are not only looking at Canada's extended participation in IFOR, but we're also looking at examination of NATO expansion.
The Chairman: Not this afternoon. We're not going to mix them up together. We're going to deal with the IFOR matter first and then move on to NATO.
Mr. Flis: While we have our witnesses here, I'm reading the sheet giving the purpose of this meeting, which is, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), ``an examination of Canada's future participation on IFOR in Bosnia and an examination of NATO expansion''.
The Chairman: Right. It was an assumption that we would do the latter if we could complete the former, not that we would mix them up. If that's all right with the members of the committee, I think it would be better.
Mr. Flis: My question's on our NATO expansion, so why don't we just proceed with the IFOR as you're proceeding.
The Chairman: Mr. Morrison and Madam Debien.
Mr. Morrison (Swift Current - Maple Creek - Assiniboia): Mr. Chairman, are we at this particular stage of the proceedings able to get on to the question of the resolution, or do you want to leave that for later?
The Chairman: I was trying to clear up any questions that were going to be asked of our witnesses, because if there were no questions left I was going to put it to the committee that we could release them. They're busy people, and there's no point in them sitting here during our debate if it's not necessary. If the members of the committee think they would contribute to the debate if something came up, I'm willing to invite them to stay. I didn't want to move to the debate stage until we'd exhausted the question stage.
I think Madam Debien had a question, and then we could maybe move -
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: If I may comment on that, we all remember that during the long debate on Haiti, Mr. Cousineau's presence was very important. He provided us with data as the debate unfolded. I do not know whether our witnesses have to stay, but we could at least have a resource person to helpMr. English defend the government resolution.
The Chairman: I have no objection to that.
[English]
Mr. Assadourian: Do you need anyone to defend you?
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Not to defend him. There is a slight difference.
The Chairman: Madam Debien.
Ms Debien (Laval-East): I have a technical question.
In the document we received, there is an excellent definition on page 2 of the mandate and the role of the Canadian troops currently in Bosnia. In relation to the resolution, it says on page 1, in the first paragraph:
- 1) That Canada endorse the creation of a follow-on force...
I am sorry that I am not familiar with military terminology, but is that the same as the description on page 2 of the sheet? What is a follow-on force?
I'll start over. In the fourth paragraph on page 2 of the short document, there is a definition of the current mandate and role of the IFOR. It ensures communication, reconnaissance and logistics services, etc. Okay?
The government resolution on the bottom of page 1 says:
- 1) That Canada endorse the creation of a follow-on force to the current IFOR mission;
- What is a follow-on force?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: It has nothing to do with military terminology, if I've understood you correctly. It is a translation problem. It is follow-on force in English. I am not sure this is a good translation.
Ms Debien: I would have never guessed that.
The Chairman: The question is very legitimate. I think the translation is a little -
Ms Debien: To say the least.
The Chairman: If I have understood correctly, there is nothing technical about the term ``follow-on force''.
[English]
Mrs. Parrish.
Mrs. Parrish: I'd like to first make a comment, then ask a question.
I was in Bosnia monitoring the elections in September. We were extremely well prepared for the anti-personnel land mines. I must say the film they use there for training, the Canadian film, needs to be redone. It's a fabulous film, but they've used it so many times it's cracked and it's fading. I think we can afford to send them another one.
We're very well respected over there for our expertise in disarming anti-personnel land mines and finding them. If Canada were to pull out, have you sufficiently trained the other troops who are there whereby they could take over that role, or are we still the experts?
RAdm King: I think everybody has varying levels of expertise in this area, depending on the level of equipment they've had or used in various theatres. I think in our case, the thing that gives us the level of expertise we have is, first, the really wide variety of backgrounds in which we've had to cope with this menace, everything from what was left over in Afghanistan to our contribution now that's in Cambodia, as you're probably aware, to of course the considerable experience in Bosnia.
We have made disposal of anti-personnel land mines one of our highest research and development priorities, so we're always working on this area. I think the problem is so widespread over there it's simply the fact that if we left, it would be one less very experienced outfit to contribute to the overall effort. I wouldn't want to say we're the only people with good expertise and equipment, but we're certainly right up there with the best.
Mrs. Parrish: Mr. Chairman, in case you do excuse the gentlemen, I want to compliment them again. We're very highly thought of over there, our troops. And our efficiency and our pleasantness is always spoken of very highly.
I was very proud of you guys over there. I was very proud to be a Canadian.
Capt Brown: If I could just add to that -
Mrs. Parrish: You're proud to be a Canadian too?
Capt Brown: No, to respond to the first part of your question. The film has been replaced. The thing's been put on CD-ROM now -
Mrs. Parrish: Thank you.
Capt Brown: - so that the whole training program is available on CD-ROM in theatres.
Mrs. Parrish: It was a really old film.
The Chairman: I thought, Captain Brown, you were going to take the opportunity to say you were proud of the parliamentarians who were sent over there and that we could get a sort of a reciprocal thing going.
Capt Brown: I missed my chance, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry.
The Chairman: Mr. Flis.
Mr. Flis: The opening statement in what we were given on Canada and IFOR says that Canada participates fully in international efforts to ensure a lasting peace in the former Yugoslavia and to provide relief to victims of the conflict.
.1620
Many of the victims are psychologically scarred and physically scarred by the war criminals. We've set up a war tribunal. What directions has Canada given to its peacekeeping troops? If in the course of their duty of keeping peace and providing relief to victims there is an identified and indicted war criminal, what instructions do our peacekeepers have? Do they arrest so-and-so? Do they report that person to a higher authority?
Let's not say one thing and then turn our backs when we are faced with the challenge.
RAdm King: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Perhaps I could address it in terms of where we are now and where we're going.
Where we are now, of course, is there has not been acceptance of the active pursuit of war criminals under the mandate of the Dayton accords and the mandate of the IFOR. That does not mean the forces there do not lend every effort to the IPTF and indeed to the local police forces to carry out this mandate, but they are not actively engaged directly in the apprehension of war criminals.
However, while under the new mandate they will not be either, as Mr. Axworthy said, Canada is working hard with their allies in the margins to see that Canadian military people, as well as all the other people there, are as active as possible in the overall pursuit of war criminals.
In other words, in any way we can, we are indirectly assisting the effort, whether it's by reporting on the movement of these people, identifying them if they're seen in certain areas, or, as I think he mentioned, withholding aid that might go to areas that are known to harbour war criminals.
I think Mr. Axworthy said anything that will make their life more difficult and that will ultimately lead to progress in prosecuting these people will be done by our people, to the extent that it can be done, but it will stop short of active participation in what is essentially a police requirement.
Mr. Flis: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison: Admiral King, I'd like to pursue that just a little bit.
What happens if one of these people falls into your lap at a checkpoint, for example? Say he's there right in front of you and you know he's an indicted war criminal. What do you do about it? Or perhaps on a lower plane, what do you do if someone comes up to your people and says ``There is a fellow in that house over there who murdered my family. I will identify him. I know who he is. There's nobody protecting him right now. All you have to do is scoop him up.'' What do you do?
RAdm King: Again, Mr. Morrison, without prejudging the decision NATO will make on the final mandate, what's envisioned by the Canadian side - and Charles, jump in if I'm out of my area here - is that every possible assistance to the police, whose job it is to apprehend war criminals, would be given. In other words, military people would be given the information regarding known war criminals and they would cooperate with the police in passing on any information they had or that was given to them. I guess what we're saying, though, is they would stop short of actually taking action to physically apprehend these people.
Mr. Morrison: Even if they were in your hands?
RAdm King: Yes.
The Chairman: But you would notify the police.
RAdm King: Yes.
Mr. Court: In the past 11 months, during IFOR's presence there, a lot of work was being done to establish and stabilize the separation of forces to make peace the working reality. Over that period, the people in the country have come to think peace is once more the way of life.
IFOR took pains to avoid anything that would upset that process, and therefore, among other things, took a very restrained approach to war criminals, because that's a very sensitive point.
But our view now is we have a stable peace; there hasn't been an act of conflict for a year. The minister is very much of the view that, as Mr. Flis said, reconciliation requires healing the scars and the fears that have been opened by the activities of indicted persons, and we want to now try to isolate those people in the communities.
.1625
If they're working in a local government, we want to draw attention to that. We want to say you can't have that person in local government and expect to get funds for reconstruction or projects undertaken, whether it's by our forces who are doing specific projects or by other people. To do the things you're suggesting, to make things possible for soldiers on patrol to recognize war criminals, to say their guy is here, he was there all the time.... Tell the Serbian police that he's there and he has to get out; he can't do that any more. He has to be arrested and turned over to the tribunal. It's called closing the net on people and beginning to isolate them and move them out.
As people get used to peace, if that's their way of life, these guys become sources of difficulty for them. They identify them with oppression and deprivation, so they'll start cooperating.
RAdm King: My staff has just advised me that there is a memorandum of understanding, of course, between the current IFOR forces and the IPTF. In the case of a war criminal who's actually in the presence of our forces, there may be situations where he would in fact be detained until IPTF came to take over custody.
We will investigate this and get back to you so that you know exactly what the memorandum of understanding says.
The Chairman: The IPTF is the actual international tribunal charged with.... It's the enforcement arm of the tribunal, in other words.
RAdm King: Correct.
Mr. Morrison: Do they have the physical capability of doing anything when you notify them?
RAdm King: I believe that is one of the problems with the whole process. There are only about 2,000 of these people. They are certainly not heavily armed if they're armed at all. In most cases that is certainly a problem.
The Chairman: I take it from your answer, though, that as the civil society gets restored more and more, this will progressively become a more aggressive operation. You can't allow this aspect of the operation to interfere with the first step, which is to establish the basic requirements of peace and security in the area.
RAdm King: One of the things we as Canadians are so conscious of is the importance of maintaining a balanced approach between the former warring factions, between the people who are there. You cannot show favouritism in any way. Moreover, the job is to keep these people apart, to maintain a stable environment so properly constituted peace officers can do their work in the way the police do.
Soldiers are not used for that. They're not good at it, and it's not the way they should be employed. It is difficult. It mixes their mission very much so. So that is essentially why the role is to let the police do this function.
The Chairman: Mr. English.
Mr. English: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had the bad fortune not to be here when Mr. Axworthy spoke, but I had the good fortune of having read his speech this morning, because I was absent. This motion reflects what he said in his speech to this committee. He saw the presence of the war criminals as a serious threat to the viability of the peace process.
Secondly, as a participant in IFOR, Canada would push very hard and take quite an active role in having a more active approach - as I put it here, the apprehension of persons indicted for war crimes. In Mr. Axworthy's testimony he spoke of this at a fair length in his speech. He was very strong on this point. He doesn't accept the kind of situation that might develop as described by Mr. Morrison. That should be noted.
The Chairman: Mrs. Gaffney.
Mrs. Gaffney (Nepean): If we approve this resolution that's before us here today, and this resolution is referring to these countries that are on here, is this in any way developing into a foregone conclusion that these countries will be part of the NATO expansion?
RAdm King: Perhaps I could just say no, not at all; there is no connection whatsoever. Although it's important to notice that no doubt some of those countries who are looking for NATO expansion see this as an opportunity to prove themselves in an operational forum and contribute further to more ammunition for their acceptance as future NATO members.
.1630
The second thing I would say is that we see that the Russian participation in this NATO effort is something we really want to build on very much for our future relation with Russia as we expand NATO.
Mrs. Gaffney: In terms of Canada's adopting a position on NATO expansion and which countries should be included in it, that's another whole area of discussion.
RAdm King: Yes, it is.
Mrs. Gaffney: Thank you.
The Chairman: Members, if we've finished the questions with Mr. Paré, then I would suggest we move into the debate stage.
[Translation]
Mr. Paré, do you have a question? Then we will move in to the debate stage.
Mr. Paré: I would like to know if there is co-operation and support among the non-governmental organizations and the troops, since the non-governmental organizations are there primarily to provide humanitarian assistance.
Secondly, there are a lot of you on IFOR. There are 60,000 soldiers. Is the military personnel involved in the reconstruction work in conjunction with civilian authorities?
Cam King: Regarding your first question, yes, there is co-operation among non-governmental organizations and the troops, not only in Bosnia, but in all operations, for example in Somalia or in Zaire.
Regarding the number of soldiers, we started out with 55,000 people. Then, in an effort to reduce the number of troops, the number dropped to 53,000 or 51,000. For the SFOR, the IFOR's successor, the plan called for roughly 35,000 or 36,000 people.
Mr. Bergeron: Can these 30,000 or 35,000 soldiers who are not necessarily assigned to military work participate in reconstruction work with the civilian authorities?
Cam King: Yes. There is a mandate for IFOR that states the military role, and on occasion, there are resources available for undertaking construction projects, and they do that.
For example, in the Canadian sector, there is a $375,000 fund for undertaking small construction projects in conjunction with NGO's. There are projects to help the spouses of soldiers who have been killed during the conflict in order to help prepare them to re-enter the work force, and projects like the building of schools, and providing assistance in polyclinics and health centres. There is a host of projects like that.
It is a very active program. Other national contingents like the British do the same thing.
Mr. Paré: Last week, I went to Haiti, and Canadian soldiers there are participating in humanitarian projects. However, they have to do so during their free time.
I'm trying to see if it is recognized that soldiers, through their work, can make a material contribution to reconstruction. That is the essence of my question.
Captain Brown: There are two types of projects. There are official projects for which NATO or the United Nations provides funding so that Canadian soldiers or soldiers from other countries can do the work.
There are also unofficial projects, like the ones you have described, where soldiers participate during their free time. Generally, these projects involve work on orphanages. The official projects generally involve repairing buildings. But is it possible to do both.
.1635
[English]
The Chairman: I would then recommend to members that we move to the discussion phase now. Mr. English has introduced the motion.
Again, as we did in the Haiti debate, we might wish to have questions after statements, if statements could be kept to five minutes. If we worked hard on this issue, we might be able to have a vote and wrap it up by 5.30 p.m.
Is that a point of order, Mr. Flis?
Mr. Flis: Yes. Is there any need to detain our witnesses, knowing how busy they are?
The Chairman: Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison: Let's try it with the witnesses here. If Mr. English can carry on without them, fine, but if he can't, I'd hate to see them just going out the door when we asked a pertinent question.
The Chairman: Perhaps Mr. Court or one or more witnesses could remain.
Mr. Court: Sure.
The Chairman: If you have other pressing engagements, just let us know and we'll certainly do our best to accommodate you. Thank you very much.
RAdm King: We'll stay as long as we can.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Bergeron.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: My statement will be brief. I do not think we will have to come back to it later, unless we run into problems like the ones we had last week in the case of the resolution on Haiti.
I would like to start by saying that we are obviously in agreement, for all of the reasons we outlined earlier. As the situation in Yugoslavia unfolded and each time we were called upon to debate the issue in the House, we explained why we were in agreement, in the same way we agree to an intervention in Zaire or in Haiti.
When we think about how privileged we are to live in an area of the world that is relatively stable and well off, and when we see people, other human beings, experiencing such hardship, we are more morally bound to helping them and to share this privilege with them, through our humanitarian organizations, our humanitarian aid and our peacekeepers who always work so professionally.
I am always surprised to see this government, knowing that it can count on the opposition, do things in a way that irritates the opposition. From the outset, we could have worked together on drafting the resolution, and that is why I assume that this motion was not from Mr. English, but instead from the government. Mr. English is a gentleman, and I know very well that he would have taken the time to discuss it with us before bringing it to committee. So seeing him come in with a resolution that had been prepared and digested ahead of time, I knew very well that it did not originate with him, but with the government.
Having said that, despite the government insisting on antagonizing the opposition, we continue to be cooperative when the decisions the government makes prove to be appropriate. In the case at hand, the decision appears to be quite appropriate.
I am happy to see that the fourth provision focuses on arresting war criminals. I had raised the issue with the Minister of Foreign Affairs when we met him last Tuesday. I would not want to appear presumptuous by assuming in any way that I made the suggestion to the minister so that he would include it in the recommendation. At any rate, even if that were the case, he would never admit it.
The Chairman: I assume that the fourth point was added precisely as a result of the observations made by the members of this committee when the minister appeared. Mr. English is confirming it.
.1640
[English]
Any questions or observations of Mr. Bergeron as a result of his statement? Mr. Flis.
Mr. Flis: I've studied every ``whereas'' very carefully, and every point, one to four. The debate we had when the minister was here, previous debates on IFOR and NATO, and today's debate - I think they're all encompassed here.
I would just remind my colleague from the Bloc that it's not a government resolution, it's not John English's resolution, it's the committee's resolution. That's why it's here. If you have any amendments, if you want to add a point five or six, etc., go ahead, but I think we should make it clear that this is the committee's resolution, and we're voting on it.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: It is very nice of Mr. Flis to assume that this is the committee's resolution. It will only really become a resolution of this committee after it has been adopted by the committee.
At present, it is not the result of work done by the various members or the various political parties present on this committee. As a result, I do not consider it a resolution prepared byMr. English, for as I said earlier, Mr. English being a gentlemen, I know he would have called me before bringing it to the committee.
The Chairman: All right.
[English]
Mr. Assadourian, I know you're going to make a statement about polite exchange of -
Mr. Assadourian: Actually, I want to commend my friend for taking the initiative of preparing this draft. I'm sure each and every one of us had the same opportunity. I didn't do it. My colleague, John English, took the chance and drafted the resolution, and I totally agree with the principle of it. If I or other members haven't done the job, we can't blame our colleague for being punctual and effective in the committee.
The concern I have with the bill's resolution number two, as I raised earlier... It mentions in the preamble -
The Chairman: Mr. Assadourian, I don't want to interrupt you, but the structure of the debate is following the House of Commons model. After hearing Mr. Bergeron's observations and then questions and comments on that, we then move to another speaker. I was going to move toMr. Morrison, and then to the government side. We'll sort of follow the House of Commons procedure. I think you're moving now into where you would be making substantive comments yourself. You're on the list for that. Could I ask you to reserve that till then?
Mr. Assadourian: All right.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What I'm mostly concerned about in this resolution is not what's in it, but what is not in it.I would like to have some information with respect to the proposed timeframe: when do we start; when do we end; how many people are we talking about sending for the second phase; what will their job be when they are there; and how much is this going to cost? In other words, let's hear some practical nuts and bolts. What is this resolution all about? Anybody.
Mr. English: Perhaps the witnesses should -
RAdm King: Perhaps I can respond to that. What we envisage is a follow-on group. I'm just going to read out to you the way we've described it: about 1,200 personnel, made up of a reconnaissance squadron; three mechanized infantry companies; a combat support company, which is about 145 personnel armed with mortars and anti-tank weapons; a field engineer squadron; an advanced surgical centre; a national support element, to provide supplies and such; and military police platoons.
As opposed to our current organization, which is a little over 1,000 and is concentrated primarily in providing the headquarters or command element in the division, we are now downsizing of course the whole force in Bosnia. So we're talking about something more in the size of an army brigade. Within that brigade we would not in this case be providing the headquarters elements - that would be provided probably by the British - but we would be providing one of the battle groups that would operate under that. There would probably be two others. We envisage the Czechs, and perhaps the Dutch, and perhaps some Malaysian presence. All this has to be worked out, obviously. But in preliminary discussions with our allies, this is the kind of thing we see.
.1645
We see essentially the same mandate and tasks as we carry out now - that is, monitoring the movement of people, monitoring the maintenance of the inter-entitity boundary line, and giving support to providing the secure environment we had for the previous elections that were held. Of course there still are municipal elections to be carried out, and our people would be there making sure that was set up as well, not taking part in actually running the elections, but making sure people could move freely to and fro to carry out the electoral process.
With regard to timings, can you address that? What's the actual date?
Capt Brown: The actual date for the rotation of our personnel, if this was approved, would begin in the first week of January, to be complete by January 15. The troops that were there would then rotate home, so they would be home somewhere in the third week of January.
Mr. Morrison: How much longer are we talking about being in Bosnia? That was what I really meant, not when you would begin this rotation.
RAdm King: The current thinking in our case, in terms of planning and talking to allies, is that we would look at another mandate of approximately 12 months. There are allies like the United States who are proposing that the mandate be extended to 18 months. I think our position is we would support an 18-month mandate in principle, but we wouldn't sign up to anything beyond 12 months, simply because - as Minister Axworthy said the other day - given our commitments in Haiti and possibly in Central Africa, it's difficult to say much beyond the next year. But certainly for the next year we'd be happy to make the commitment we're planning on now.
The Chairman: Could I follow up that question, Mr. Morrison?
Admiral King, presumably we wouldn't make a 12-month commitment by ourselves - I mean, the other participants would all be committing to the same amount of time, wouldn't they? You're talking about a year framework for whoever does buy into this agenda, presumably.
RAdm King: Yes. I'm saying that when the foreign ministers gather in Brussels on December 10, they need to discuss the actual mandate and the commitment each would make and the time period it would encompass. For our planning, and based on the discussions we've had with our allies thus far and our own national requirements, we're looking at a mandate of about 12 months as being something we could live with. If the mandate were to be beyond that, we would I think sign up to say the first 12 months of it.
The Chairman: On the other hand, if the British and the French and the Americans all said we're only committing for eight, I presume we'd only commit for eight too. Is that the way it's going to work?
RAdm King: Correct.
The Chairman: And that will happen on December 10.
RAdm King: Yes, that's when foreign ministers will essentially gather to approve the mandate. Defence ministers will meet later, to get into the real details of the implementation. It's at the foreign ministers meeting on December 10 - I think that's when Mr. Axworthy is going to Brussels - that actually we should get a NATO agreement on the way ahead that there will be another IFOR, and that that's generally the way it will be configured.
Mr. Morrison: Part of my question is still outstanding, and that is, what does it cost us to keep a brigade-sized unit in Bosnia for a year?
RAdm King: The calculations that we've made - we're budgeting for approximately $90 million, and that is incremental costing, Mr. Morrison.
The Chairman: That's a term that is bandied about much in this committee. To get this precise, when you say incremental costs, that would be $90 million over and above what it would cost to keep that brigade standing here in Canada - is that right?
RAdm King: Correct.
The Chairman: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrison, is that completed then?
Mr. Morrison: That's adequate for the moment, yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Bergeron, a comment? Or does anybody else want to comment onMr. Morrison's observations?
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: I am always surprised to hear that type of question, albeit quite legitimate, from the Reform Party as to the duration and the cost of peacekeeping missions. I do in fact feel that these questions are quite legitimate and I thank rear admiral King for having provided some clarification. I would simply like to remind members of this committee that after this week's lengthy debates, the Reform Party received answers to all of their questions on the cost and duration of the mission.
We even amended the resolution as they requested. Despite all of these efforts, they still voted against it. I am always surprised to see them ask the same questions, when in the end, they vote against.
.1650
[English]
Mr. Morrison: I'd like to know what he's talking about. He's confusing the issue with the debate on Haiti. I can assure the member that we don't come in here with our minds already made up. I rather resent the comment.
[Translation]
Mr. Paré: I would like to talk about the duration of the mission. I read in the newspaper today that while the Americans are recommending a maximum 18 month period, there will be a review or an assessment after 6 and 12 months. If it were no longer necessary to extend the mission to 18 months, it would be shortened. I do not know if this information is correct, but that is what the newspaper article reported. That was a comment; I also have a question.
The Chairman: Okay, we will accept it as a comment.
Mr. Paré: I would like to suggest a minor amendment to the fourth paragraph of the resolution.
The Chairman: We are presently asking questions and commenting on Mr. Morrison's observations. I would not want to be too formal, but after having heard from Ms Parrish, we could perhaps ask you to move your amendment, if that is acceptable.
[English]
I have Madam Parrish and Mr. Assadourian on my list. Madam Parrish.
Mrs. Parrish: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I support this resolution wholeheartedly, because the key here is that what you have in Bosnia is not peace, but a truce. The instant the forces leave, in my estimation - from what I saw when I was there - you would be right back at it. So the cost, as Mr. Morrison brought up, of what we've done so far might as well be flushed down the toilet, because all that money will have been wasted. There is no such thing as peace there right now. All there is is an armed truce, and I think the IFOR troops are keeping it that way.
I'd like to give you a little snapshot of what we're protecting there. There is no running water - not hot, not cold. There is no dental care. I have two daughters, 19 and 22, and they're at that courting stage. The kids there can't shower. If they have problems with their teeth, the teeth are pulled out. They can't have them repaired. The place I stayed in had no sanitary conditions. You flush the toilet by using rain water and a bucket. Where it's going no one knows, and how it's being purified no one knows. You drink bottled water; you wash your body in bottled water. The hydro comes on for two hours in 24, and it's erratic. It can come on at two in the morning and wake you from a dead sleep or it can come on at two in the afternoon.
The Chairman: And also wake you from a dead sleep.
Mrs. Parrish: That's right.
There's a fairly reasonable amount of food and access to food, but it's low-protein - a lot of vegetables, a lot of potatoes, a lot of things that they just fill up on. There are 4.5 million land mines in a country with roughly two million people. The day I arrived in Gorazde, which was where I was posted, a little boy picked up a red lunch pail from under a bridge and blew his arm off right at the shoulder. The Doctors Without Borders cauterized it and sent him to Sarajevo, and I don't know what happened to him. He was eight years old.
They have 100% damage to every building in the place. They cannot rebuild it if we aren't there and the other troops aren't there to maintain the truce so UN people can go in and start rebuilding. You can't live like that for an indefinite period of time. The rebuilding without attack is absolutely essential. I think if we are humanitarian in our outlook, the costs should be irrelevant at this point, because there are many organizations all over the world willing to go in, send labour in, send materials in and do the work, but they don't want to be shot at while they're doing it.
I don't think there will be security and peace in that country for at least two generations, because the adolescents and the young people in their twenties who are living under these conditions are feeling quite hopeless, and their children, I believe, will feel quite hopeless. It's up to the world to go in there and at least maintain the truce that we have, clean up the mess with the land mines, and do all we can to try to return some sort of normalcy there, because peace will never be achieved if people are suffering from morning till night.
I came specifically today to give you this colour picture. If you have any questions, you can ask me.
I'm very proud of our troops, I'm proud of our country, and I'm proud of what's going on there. The police troops are amazing there as well; there were American police officers there. The whole situation can only continue to exist with our troops there. You can sit in a restaurant on a corner and the tanks go by and the trucks go by. There is a definite sense that they're constantly visible, and if they were not visible you would have nothing progressing there.
.1655
So this is a wonderful resolution and I hope we'll all support it.
The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Parrish.
Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison: Perhaps you misconstrued my question, Mrs. Parrish. I wasn't necessarily saying we shouldn't do it, but I don't like sloppy resolutions that don't have the details in them. What DFAIT or DND or both are asking for is a blank cheque, and I don't like that.
As far as the annualized costs of $90 million, that's fair, that's understood, but what's the end game? You've been there and observed this. How many times are we going to here having this same discussion again and again and again? For how many years?
Mrs. Parrish: Mr. Chairman, I hope I wasn't misinterpreted. I wasn't suggesting that cost isn't an issue. It is. What I was suggesting was that the $90 million that's already been spent will have been wasted if we don't invest the next $90 million.
As far as your question is concerned, every time this is reviewed, I hope conditions will have improved there considerably. If we have to come back to the table in a year and commit a small number of troops and $20 million, I hope we would consider doing that. The war there has been going on for so many years, I don't think you can fix it overnight. Watching the human suffering and what it's doing to a whole generation of young people, I would hope that whatever the cost, it's reasonable and it's maintained. It's worth every cent.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. English.
Mr. English: I'll respond to Mr. Morrison's comments. I think his points are legitimate, as was said before. I think what we're asking for in this resolution is not a blank cheque but a statement of Canada's position in advance of the December 10 meeting, and before mandates have been agreed upon. As the chair said before, if the Americans go six or eight months or whatever, obviously that will be reflected in the Canadian decision. And as Admiral King said before, the exact numbers and the kind of Canadian contribution will also be altered by the circumstances of the negotiation. So this resolution is preliminary to many of the considerations you advanced.
It was very helpful to have the comment made that it would be $90 million. That is the estimate given the presumed mandate length and contribution. But in terms of this particular resolution, what I'm asking for is an indication that we support the mission.
Further to Mrs. Parrish's point, I think the situation there is better than we had any right to expect it to be two years ago. We were at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe last July and there was considerable pessimism about the elections. It was debate about whether the election should be held. The elections were held in conditions that were far from salubrious, but on the ground, things are quieter than people had anticipated.
In 1994-95 this was a major constituency office question for me, partly because there's a large community and partly because there are a lot of refugees in my riding. That's diminished considerably - not that there aren't still concerns along those lines - because the conflict has ended. There are lots of difficulties and tragedies that continue to exist, but we have made a step forward and hence this resolution recommending a continuation.
So I'm not asking for a blank cheque but an expression of support for this particular mission at this time.
Mr. Morrison: John, do I interpret that to mean that we will be revisiting this after the meetings in Europe, or will that be it? Everything will be decided and anything we might care to contribute at that point will be irrelevant.
Mr. English: We may revisit it, depending on what happens in those meetings. But we're giving the two ministers involved here - defence and foreign affairs - an indication that as a committee we support the so-called follow-up force to the current IFOR mission. Beyond that, I don't think we can predict the future.
.1700
Mr. Morrison: All right.
I have supported our venture in Bosnia from the beginning, but the next time we come around to this, if we don't see some light at the end of the tunnel, or we don't see the Europeans taking hold of what is basically a European problem, you probably will not retain my support indefinitely.
Mr. English: There is an advance in that respect. The Germans are becoming involved. German peacekeeping is a new innovation and a welcome one, given its size and importance in Europe. Clearly there are historical reasons for the earlier difficulties in this region, but on the whole, things are better than we probably had any right to expect. Secondly, this mission does seem to have some possibilities for improvement on the ground.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Paré.
[Translation]
Mr. Paré: I would like to make a short comment on Mr. Morrison's observations. He said he would not always give his support and that Europe would have to eventually solve its own problems. I would just like to point out that this is not strictly a European problem; it is a problem that concerns all human beings, including us.
Last weekend, I had the pleasure of attending a party organized by a fourth grade teacher at my former school. She told me that there were five children from Bosnia in her class of 28 pupils. Five children out of 28, that is not someone else's problem; that is our problem. Each time a war breaks out in the world, we are likely to accept people who are displaced, refugees. That is why we cannot distance ourselves from this issue. This problem concerns us all.
The Chair: Could I add a few words? This morning, the Director General of UNESCO delivered exactly the same message, that Canada has a good image all across the world because our attitude is like yours. Finally, major problems with immigration will come to the fore in coming years if we don't settle this kind of war wherever it happens in the world. It's becoming a problem for everyone. That's exactly the point the Director raised this morning before the committee.
Mr. Paré: I announced that I'd like to move a minor amendment to paragraph 4 of the resolution which reads in part:
- ... a more active approach to the apprehension of persons accessed of war crimes in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, since this outstanding issue represents a serious threat to the viability of
the peace process.
The Chair: ``It being understood the question of impunity is...'' If I understand you correctly, you only want to add for clarification. In the English version we would then have
[English]
that this outstanding issue clearly refers to ``the apprehension of persons indicted for war crimes''.
I don't think there's any need to change the English version.
Mr. Bergeron: May I see the English version?
[Translation]
The Chair: There is no confusion possible in the English text. the allusion to ``this outstanding issue'' can only refer to the apprehension of war criminals.
Mr. Bergeron: How do you translate ``impunité'' in English?
[English]
The Chairman: Impunity.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Could we also make that clarification in the English text?
[English]
The Chairman: Of impunity. I don't think Mr. English would have any problem with adding the issue of impunity in the English version, if that helps members.
Mr. English, is that right?
Mr. English: That's fine.
Mr. Bergeron: Does it go with your resolution?
Mr. English: Yes.
The Chairman: It makes it the committee's resolution.
Do you have comments on the proposed amendment or...?
Mr. Morrison: No, on these comments.
.1705
The Chairman: Comments and questions on Mr. Pare's comments, and then I'll pass it you, Mr. Assadourian -
Mr. Assadourian: I have comments to Mr. Morrison's comments.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: I have you next on my list. I'll give Mr. Morrison the floor and then I'll turn to you.
Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison: I have the greatest of respect for Mr. Paré's warm, beating heart. I do not think it's fair to suggest that Canada has ever not contributed its share of obligations in matters of this nature. I think we have led the world in this. To suggest that we can be the universal 911 number with our population of 30 million is absurd. At some point we must have a beginning and an end to all of these programs. We have to be realistic and practical, and that was my meaning.
The Chairman: Mr. Assadourian, you have the floor to make your principal observations.
Mr. Assadourian: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Morrison raised the point that we should not be there because this is mostly a European problem. On the list are 27 countries. Two of them are North American - Canada and the United States - and two African and one Asian. So of that 27, only five are non-European, and the two North American countries are NATO members anyway. So we are not there all the time; we are there because we are participating with the rest. That's the pointI wanted to make as a comment.
Mr. Chair, when I presented earlier I asked the witness about NATO and non-NATO members. When you read the whole page, the second paragraph from top mentions that this IFOR force was authorized by the United Nations Security Council, but nowhere in the recommendation does it mention the UN. If my colleague agrees, I would suggest that point two read ``Canada offers to participate through the UN in such a force under NATO leadership''. This is a UN operation, not a NATO operation. It doesn't make that clear here. It sounds as if it's a NATO operation.
The Chairman: Mr. Court, because of the evolving roles of these different operations, perhaps you could comment on this point.
Mr. Court: The UN resolution adopted last December specifically turned over execution of the operation to NATO. So it's quite right that the UN authorized the constitution of IFOR and will be asked to do the same for the follow-on force, but strictly speaking it's not through the UN that we participate, it's through NATO. So perhaps it would be right to reflect that there would be a UN mandate for the follow-on force.
Mr. Assadourian: I think there should be some kind of UN presence there, because that's all UN. We always said NATO is the best instrument to use that - that's my understanding. Am I right?
The Chairman: I think if we just changed number one to read ``That Canada endorse the creation of a follow-on force to the current IFOR mission, with United Nations authorization''.... That's the thrust of -
Mr. Assadourian: That's okay with me.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: ``The United nations creation of a follow-on force to the current IFOR mission''.
[English]
The Chairman: It's not a UN force. If you take -
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: No, but it's the UN that creates the force and puts it under NATO's command or responsibility.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. English.
Mr. English: The context document states that the resolution authorize member states to establish a multinational peace implementation force under the control of NATO, so I don't think you can say the UN created the force. It authorized the member states to create.... Obviously I'm sympathetic to adding a reference to the UN, but I don't think it would fit exactly where you suggested.
.1710
The Chairman: Excuse me, but I'm keeping my eye on the clock. At 5:15 p.m. the bells will start ringing. We're going to leave here at 5:25 p.m. at the latest. I think all members are anxious to deal with this issue by then, so let's keep an eye on the clock and not lose ourselves in too much detail unless it's important.
The second ``whereas'' clause specifically refers to the force being ``under the authorization of the United Nations Security Council''. I'd suggest you could either replicate that wording in number 1 or just assume that the fact that we have it in the ``whereas'' clause means this is the UN-authorized force. Is that all right?
Do you see what I mean? It's in our resolution already. We have a reference to the UN already.
Mr. Assadourian: If you read this page, Mr. Chairman, it says:
- On December 15, 1995, the United Nations Security Council, acting under chapter 7 of the
United Nations resolution, authorized member states -
Mr. Assadourian: So the authorization came from the UN.
The Chairman: Right.
Mr. English, is there any problem with saying ``That Canada endorse the creation of a follow-on force to the current IFOR mission under United Nations authorization''? We've already said it, but -
Mr. English: That's fine, even if that authorization comes in the future.
[Translation]
The Chair: ``Under UN authorization as set out in article 1''.
[English]
Mr. Flis.
Mr. Flis: I have a point of order. Is the extension of IFOR under UN authorization, or is it a NATO decision?
RAdm King: I think it's a NATO recommendation that there needs to be a follow-on force, and its allies, NATO and non-NATO, who are all UN members, are seeking a UN mandate for another mission, to be called the stabilization force.
The Chairman: My understanding of the international legal situation is that NATO would not and could not be there were it not for a United Nations covering resolution, because NATO doesn't have any authorization to interfere in somebody's internal affairs without an article 7 resolution of the UN. So it will certainly get the UN cover before it moves in. It will have to do that.
Is that not correct?
RAdm King: Not only that, but of course this is outside the NATO boundaries, so indeed, without UN authorization NATO could not of itself, because of its own charter, do this type of operation.
The Chairman: I think we're comfortable with that.
Did you want to add anything?
Mr. Assadourian: The way you suggest for number one is good enough for me if it's good enough for my colleague. That's the point I want to make.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Assadourian.
I've assumed all members are in agreement with that amendment. It's consistent with the international legal position, and I think it's quite correct.
Mrs. Gaffney: I move the motion.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Madam Gaffney.
An hon. member: Hear, hear!
The Chairman: Unless there's any other debate, I would suggest -
[Translation]
I am sorry, Mr. Bergeron. You had a comment?
Mr. Bergeron: I could perhaps draw a quick conclusion. I would like to add a few words to what Mr. Paré said when he asked us whether these were problems concerning Europe or humanity as a whole. I don't know what the world would look like today if, at the end of the 30s and during the early 40s the whole world had decided that it was just a European problem and let the Europeans deal with their own problems.
Thank God, Canada, the US, India and Australia helped the Allied forces in Europe and changed the face of the world. What would it be like now if we had not done that?
What happens anywhere in the world has an impact in our daily lives. We simply have to realize that. I agree with Mr. Morrison when he says that we should not be humanity's boy-scouts. Canada should make a modest contribution in keeping with its means to the mission in Yugoslavia whereas other states like France, the United Kingdom and the United States should contribute far more because this is a matter that concerns them far more closely than us.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
If I may briefly be allowed to depart from chair neutrality, I certainly support the motion as amended.
As chair, may I say I am pleased Madam Parrish was able to join us for this debate, because of her recent experience. The committee is enriched when we're able to draw on other members of Parliament and bring them in when they've had some special experience.
It's been very helpful to have you here.
I'll ask the question on the motion.
.1715
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: I see it unanimously adopted.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I'd like to thank Admiral King and his colleagues for having come today. Thank you, sir.
We will be moving next to the question of what the Germans call NATO opening. Others call it NATO expansion, but the closer one gets to the frontiers of the Soviet Union, the closer one is to the sensitivities in this area.
Had it been suggested perhaps that one or another of you gentlemen would be available to answer questions in respect of that debate as well? It would be helpful.
I think Mr. Flis has already indicated he has some questions he'd like to ask on the NATO matter.
The bell will ring in a few minutes, but do you want to take an opportunity to ask those now?
Mr. Flis: No, I think it's a bit late to go into that now.
The Chairman: We meet again at nine o'clock on Tuesday morning. We will open the debate on NATO expansion, and we will have the opportunity of expert advice from Admiral King,Mr. Court and Captain Brown.
Thank you very much for coming.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: We have not really decided if we would have a round table with experts on the expansion of NATO or if we would only have a debate amongst ourselves on this matter without further ado.
The Chair: Do you wish to hear them at this point, after our visit to Germany?
Mr. Bergeron: We have visited Germany, but I'm raising this question for the other members of the committee. Personally, I feel rather comfortable with the matter.
The Chair: Does everyone -
Mr. Paré: I tend to think that those who went to Germany should guide us in this process.
The Chair: It could perhaps be enriching, but I think that Mr. Flis and Mr. English are comfortable enough with the matter.
[English]
Mr. Morrison, do you feel we need to have an opening round table on this issue before we proceed to debate, or are you comfortable with the present format, where we have these gentlemen here and can conduct the debate and the questioning at the same time? It seems to me a fairly effective format.
Mr. Morrison: Yes, I think so. I attended the conference a couple of weeks ago at Fort Pearson, so I am more or less up to speed.
The Chairman: Good.
Mr. Flis: Up to now we've had political experts on NATO expansion. I wanted to take advantage of a military perspective on NATO expansion.
The Chairman: Fine. We might give Admiral King that warning. I certainly had the same idea.
We've heard a great deal about how this integrates into the European Economic Union's expansion and all those political dimensions of stability in Europe, but there are questions as to when states would be ready, what the compatibility of their forces is with NATO forces, etc., all of which reflect an impact on the time table of a possible admission. You might be able to help us understand that better.
RAdm King: I had the military delegation to Russia, and I host them when they come here on an annual basis. Of course NATO enlargement is a key issue that we discuss, and very frankly. Having listened at our last meeting to the concerns of people about the Russian view on that, I would very much welcome an opportunity to be able to contribute in whatever way I can to say how we view accommodating the Russians, in particular in this area.
The Chairman: That would be very helpful, because we had the opportunity of hearing the observations of our Russian counterparts when we were in Russia, but we didn't meet any military people. How comfortable they are with things would be certainly very helpful.
So we'll perhaps start with that. You can address those issues as you see them, and then we'll move to the debate.
Thank you very much for coming.
We're adjourned until nine o'clock on Tuesday morning.