Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs
Issue 6 - Evidence - Meeting of February 14, 2005
OTTAWA, Monday, February 14, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs met this day at 3 p.m. to examine the development and security challenges facing Africa; the response of the international community to enhance that continent's development and political stability; and Canadian foreign policy as it relates to Africa.
Senator Peter A. Stollery (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I am going to call the meeting to order. It is three o'clock and we have one or two colleagues. There are an awful lot of meetings taking place at the same time. We always run into that difficulty because, as everyone is aware, Monday is not our normal sitting day.
I want to welcome our witness Lieutenant-General (Ret'd) Roméo Dallaire, who is known to all of us. I will not take up any time with long introductions. General Dallaire, you are quite aware of how this sort of thing is done; please give us your presentation and after your presentation we will ask you questions.
Lieutenant-General (Ret'd) Roméo Dallaire, As an individual: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, honourable senators and guests. Thank you for the invitation to come and speak to this committee as it looks into the realm of a region that, in my personal experience, seems to be a low priority in the evolution of humanity, let alone of globalization in the world.
One is often struck by the impression that when one talks of Africa, one talks about a priority that is not in the forefront of our attention when it compares to Europe, Asia, North America and even South America.
Africa still reels under the effects of the colonial era, and calls forward initial reactions that could be described as ultimately racist in their nature.
Let me give you a small example. Recently, at a forum in Boston, I was asked to present a concept of operations for a UN or an African Union force that would go into the Darfur region in Sudan. I enunciated my concept and said that it would call for about 44,000 troops to do the job properly. The reaction in the crowd was one of enormous surprise. One individual in particular could not control himself, and said 44,000 for Africa? Yes, 44,000 for Africa; we put 63,000 into the former Yugoslavia and that is one-twentieth the size of Darfur — let alone the scale of killing, slaughtering, suffering and raping on a population that is anywhere between 2.5-to-3 million people.
That is the backdrop that the committee might want to be sensitive to when we talk about going out there and doing something for another nation or region. Africa does not attract an immediate response that yes, this is a priority, this is an investment, and this is in our own self-interest. On the contrary, it still attracts an impression that its problems are at the tribal level. People believe that Sudan's problems are associated with tribalism and wonder why we keep pouring money into that black hole with so little return.
I am here to say that we are barely scratching the surface of assisting the 700 million people of Africa to move into an era where, like the rest of a number of parts of the world, they can also live in a certain level of serenity, and hope and dignity. There is much work to be done to help them to get out of the mud and the blood and the suffering and inhumane conditions that often they live in, and permit their future generations, through education, to evolve, not necessarily to build institutions or buildings like this, but to have that level of humanity that is recognized as human, as a basis for human rights.
In so saying, where are our interests in Canada? What do we do in regards to development, security challenges in Africa and the future policies of the country?
First, although you have the notes from which I am speaking, I will amplify on them and reinforce some specific points as I work through them. I do not have a PowerPoint presentation and will do my best to create the images thereof.
In regards to development and security challenges in Africa, it is noteworthy that one in five people, and one-half of the countries in Africa, are affected by armed conflict or are coming out of, or are about to fall into a crisis. Peace and security preconditions on the continent for sustainable development are an essential framework upon which we can assist those countries to move out of conflict scenarios and into scenarios of serenity. It can be in a variety of fashions as we see, for example, the problem of over 6 million refugees in Africa, which is equated by close to the same number in internally displaced people in so many of the countries of that region. Therefore, conflict and conflict resolution is an ultimate priority in the stabilization of that continent.
In the era after the Cold War, we entered a whole new period of conflict and insecurity. Although George Bush Sr. said we had entered an era of order, we, in fact, entered an era of disorder.
Many African countries imploded at the end of the Cold War with the result that despots and autocratic leaders held down their countries in order to prevent frictions from exploding to the extent where the big powers of the East or West would be brought in to deal with the problems and end up with World War III over Tanzania, or a country of that nature.
During the late 1950s and early 1960s they got rid of the colonial powers, and during the Cold War the big powers, or the East and West, maintained a certain control through the support and funding of many despots.
In 1989 the Cold War ended and we turned to these countries and told them we did not need them any more and we told them to sort themselves out. In too many countries that situation has resulted in internal conflict that has had security and humanitarian scenarios. I will give you the examples.
Somalia was a humanitarian catastrophe; a country that could not manage the little resources it had. It had drought and hundreds of thousands of men, women and children suffered from lack of food, water and medical supplies. The international community intervened, including the UN, and as more resources were brought in warlords started manoeuvring and all of a sudden we found ourselves in a very desperate security problem. A humanitarian problem degenerated into a security problem that in the end saw the Americans pull out after 18 rangers were killed during the Mogadishu affair.
The Americans abandoned the other countries that were there, but most important, abandoned the hundreds of thousands of Somalis for which they were meant to assist in getting food and medical supplies.
Somalia was a humanitarian crisis that ended up in a security crisis which had a massive impact on the overall support that went to that country.
The other type of scenario is where there is a security problem that degenerates into a humanitarian catastrophe. The security problem can be the result of power sharing problems, of peace agreements, of frictions between ethnicities or religions, and it creates a movement of rebellion or revolution. This scenario creates confrontations between the government forces and all kinds of other types of forces in the region and degenerates into a humanitarian catastrophe.
Rwanda is an example of this type of scenario. Rwanda had a peace agreement, but there were people who wanted to undermine it because they did not want to share power. They created a civil war, while at the same time they created a humanitarian catastrophe, which lead to the genocide. This situation destabilized the whole central African region and as a result of the civil war in Rwanda we have the ongoing Burundi situation, and Ugandans involved with Rwandans and others in the eastern Congo, and of course the concerns of the Tanzanians.
All of these problems have destabilized the area and have lead to the ongoing friction and the involvement of not only African countries but also outside forces like the French in the northeast of the Congo, the British in Sierra Leone, and the French in Côte d'Ivoire.
A number of these imploding situations have been either ignored or responded to in less than effective fashion. In the case of the some of the former colonial powers, you see them intervening outside of the UN by either some sense of guilt or some sense of responsibility. It is rather interesting to see the British in Sierra Leone or the French in Côte d'Ivoire, or in Rwanda, intervening with rules of engagement and capabilities that go far beyond what they will give to the UN forces on the ground. Instead of making the UN forces more effective you find that these big countries will work outside of the UN, and go into the country to stabilize the situation. They go into the country with such force and capability and rules of engagement that they either hand over or humiliate the UN forces.
We still have a bunch of different players using different parameters for their involvement in Africa. One of the parameters that still exists is this sort of neo-colonialism responsibility that is portrayed in either interest or in sensibilities to what happens in the region.
With the exception of our catastrophic failure with First Nations, Canada does not have a colonial past, and we have no colonial ambitions of any type. We are a nation with a Charter of Rights and our concept of values and moral references are very keen on human rights. We are very keen that the 80 per cent of humanity that is still in the blood and the mud be considered as humans like us and be given the opportunity to progress as we have. In fact, more often than not, we find it difficult to say that humanity has advanced when only 20 per cent has advanced and the other 80 per cent are in such dire circumstances. Canadians have a sense of responsibility that seems to be within our genes and our response to many of these conflicted areas reflects that sense of responsibility.
Over the last three and one-half years I have been very much involved, through CIDA, in speaking to Canadian youth at the senior high school and undergraduate levels on the subject of war-affected children. In my talks I told the students that a flight of 12 hours would bring them to countries where their peers are being killed and raped and abused. I have pointed out to them that while they are in their classrooms continuing to progress in the dynamics of a more and more modern pedagogical atmosphere war-affected children have become child soldiers, girls are being used as sex slaves and bush wives, children are being used as kamikaze troops and cannon-fodder as they walk through mined fields, and pregnant girls are being used as human shields behind which boys are shooting at innocent people. These young people are no longer a part of the sideshow, but they are part of the campaign plans of another authority to bring horror in order to supplant the existing authority.
As I tried to light the pilot light of activism I came to see that our Canadian youth are not passive. The activism of the 1960s, when we did not trust anyone over 30, might be a principle that might be considered today. I found the youth to be quite keen on keeping Canada going, and advancing technologically, intellectually, in our societies and so on. There is no debate there that they are keen on the advancement of this society as it continues.
I encounter the youthful feeling that Canada is no longer a kid in the world community but as a teenager with something to say. Our youth has a sense of maturity and security and serenity. Our Canadian youth are keen and dynamic. All across the country these youth expressed the notion that Canada has a mission beyond our self- preservation. In their impression, that mission has something to do with humanity.
I have heard them say that even though some of our elders are getting rusty we are an adult nation with something to say. We are in full-fledged, energetic adulthood and it is time that we act in that fashion and not with this sense that maybe we are not a full player and maybe some of the other nations are wiser than we are.
They feel that there is a vision, a mission for this country, which includes not only our domestic capabilities but a word-wide responsibility. There is a sense that we live in the 90 percentile quality of life with the bulk of humanity that exists at the 10 percentile.
Our youth feel that they are full participants in humanity and through the Canadian work ethic, our mastery of technology, our non-strategic ambitions of power, and our desire to advance human rights, by which we live, that we are an ideal country to be a leading nation in the advancement of human rights and humanity.
Africa is one of the primary areas that is suffering from such an abandonment of principles. We sometimes get involved when there is a crisis, or we get involved in a parsimonious way with the great NEPAD ideas and the Africa fund, but our involvement is small in comparison to the demand. They feel that we could lead as a middle power, as other middle powers do.
Canada is a nation that is wishes to advance human rights and the plight of humanity. That is the vision of this nation. That is why we exist; we cannot exist for our insular needs alone. In fact, our values make us, in a sense, more altruistic and responsive than many other nations. I will give you an example: There was a platoon that came upon a village that had been massacred, and they found a few women children lying in a ditch that were left alive after the machetes had killed the rest of the villagers. The soldier's only hope was to provide some comfort to the inevitable death of the few survivors. The HIV/AIDS figure of the nation was approximately 30 per cent. As you know, soldiers do not carry rubber gloves. These women and children were dying. At best the soldiers might have been able to save one or to assist them in their last moments.
The platoon commander asked if he should order his troops to go into the village and risk risking contracting HIV/ AIDS to help the dying, or let the people die because the risk would be too high for his men.
I had 26 nations under my command, and when I approached the commanders, 23 of the 26 nations said that their platoon commander would walk away and let the people die because of the high risk of HIV/AIDS. Three commanders said that they would get involved: the Dutch, the Ghanaians, and the Canadians.
There was a small problem with the Canadians; by the time the platoon commander turned around to give the orders, the soldiers were already in the ditch on their own initiative. We have to ask, What makes us do that? Why are we like that?
There is this sense among Canadian youth that there is more than one reason for our existence. Our youth believe that more than the simple reason to keep the system going that reason is an orientation toward humanity in toto. We are not only the 20 per cent that assists the 80 per cent; the human dimension is not a residual exercise, but mainstream.
International development is not a residual from a country like this. It is and must be mainstream, and on the same level as health, defence, employment insurance and international development.
I have heard from too many citizens of developed countries that Black Africans do not count. That racist opinion seems to be a fundamental component in the backdrop of many developed countries. I say that humanity does not have one priority or another; each of the situations is the same. As such, our involvement should be in the whole of humanity and not just in portions of it. Although the African continent is a priority, it is not done in ignorance of the others, it is done in a sense of focus of our efforts.
Canada is a middle power. The research work that I am doing at Harvard defines the middle power and international conflict resolution. It is my opinion that as a middle power we have not come to the fore to the extent that we could in assisting the UN and many of these nations in being more productive and effective. The resource base that we commit, the intellectual power, and the ability to offer the big powers more options that are not based on self- interest, but are based on humanity, is still not to the proportional level that this nation could be doing with other middle powers like Germany, Japan and Italy, let alone those who are working to that level such as Australia and Brazil.
Canada is not taking the leadership role that so many want it to take. In my opinion, we have not committed ourselves to that higher plain of responsibility of being a nation at 90 per cent of quality of life and not responding to what the future generations are articulating should be our role.
One arena that could assist the Canadian government in working in Africa, in particular, and in advancing an African scenario of support, is the NGO community. The NGO community can assist Canada in being a supra capability and to have continued efforts and effects in the field. Do not move away from reinforcing NGOs or using them in any policy base. On the contrary, go and maximize the NGO community and reinforce participation from our structures to the Canadian people toward the NGO community.
In regard to the African situation, much of my interest has been in conflict and humanitarian aspects and not necessarily on nation building. However, it is my impression, as I have been able to discuss with some of the national business leaders that the business, industry and commerce communities could be coalescing far more with some support from government to take on more of the development responsibility in the world. They can manoeuvre much more leverage, capability and resources than governments can in advancing and supporting those societies. It ought to be reinforced that the business, industry and commerce community be coalesced into a capability which is not NGO, which is business, into providing assets, initiatives and opportunities in the African countries. This is a realm that has yet to be fully looked at, if even pursued.
Sometimes we tend to look, through globalization, at them as the enemy, whereas, on the contrary, I think through globalization they can be one of the most progressive instruments in advancing humanity.
If we do not increase our commitment to assist the nations of Africa, where the bulk of conflict exists and the bulk of suffering of humanity exists, if we do not concentrate and advance our commitment to that continent, then our security will be at risk.
We have seen terrorism take on a mantra of a global nature; no one is safe. The scenario of terrorism and international terrorism is worse, in some aspects, than it was in the 1950s when we had the nuclear threat. At least then we knew who was pressing the button.
Today's terrorism has no reference, and terrorists play by no rules. In fact sometimes our security people want us to play with our rules, our civil liberties, our human rights and our conventions to maybe fight off terrorism, which is a road we should never go down.
Terrorism is a fact and terrorism is the expression of rage from the underdeveloped countries. Although we have seen the onslaught of the Muslim world, we will soon see the onslaught of terrorism from Africa, for that rage and that impatience will eventually express itself. There are large populations of Africans in Europe, and even in North America, and my point is if we do not go to the source and assist to attenuate that rage, it will express itself in terrorism. If you are really only a self-interested person then for your own security you might as well start investing there because it will not get any easier.
My last point is that in so many of these scenarios and frictions that fall into conflict, one of the greatest problems is a problem with reconciliation; old hatreds, ethnic, religious, that flare up and explode.
When I have seen the effects of these conflicts and the attempts at reconciliation in Africa which will permit moderates to advance their nations with the fundamentals of rules of law and whatever democratic processes and institutions they build, the instruments to bring about that reconciliation are twofold: the empowerment of women, and the education of the young.
In only those efforts and those energies, will we build a reconciliation that will stabilize the nature of those peoples and bring about the serenity that is so required.
I do not negate anything about the issues of poverty and HIV/AIDS. I am trying to give a higher perspective of what I believe to be an in-depth element of long-term strategy in regard to building a state of serenity in so many of those countries of Africa.
I have already spoken too long. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Prud'homme: Thank you, General. Since you touched upon our entire mission during the year that we are examining, may I point out that, with us today, is His Excellency Mohamed Tangi, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Kingdom of Morocco, who was most interested in hearing your presentation, as well as some friends of Canada from the Algerian embassy.
You mentioned terrorism, and I would be remiss, after having attended on two consecutive evenings, in Montreal, the great triumph of the most popular singer from Lebanon, if I did not ask our chairman to observe a moment of silence following the death of a great friend to Canada, who was savagely assassinated; I am speaking of the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Mr. Rafic Hariri. He was a great friend of our former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. I had an opportunity to meet him on five occasions and you have discussed this subject. It would be good for the Foreign Affairs Committee to take a moment to think about this tragic death, which will have enormous consequences for that part of the world.
I would also like to salute those who have accompanied you, your private secretary, Mr. David Hyman. Mr. Hyman was, I believe, — we have known each other for 35 years — an aide de camp to His Excellency Governor General Vanier, if memory serves. I don't know if that is a sign of things to come, but I fervently hope so.
General, the committee chairman is always impatient with me, and rightly so. My questions tend to be rather long.
What you told us is more or less what we, the dreamers of some 25 or 30 years past, that you spoke of, wanted, and that is, what can Canada do? This is such a wonderful country that the word Canada is universally synonymous with hope. We thought at that time, and even now, and I am going back 30 years, that regional military forces, with the physical and financial support of powers that were better off than others, but might hesitate to become physically involved, but that could easily participate in terms of weaponry and training so that whenever there is a crisis, each region would have armed forces ready to intervene. That cannot be done today because resources are lacking everywhere. Thank you for your presentation; this is almost the end of our study, and you have almost dictated where we should go from here.
LGen. Dallaire: Mr. Chairman, as to this concept of regionalism, we see that the African union is already making an attempt, following the problems in Darfur and the Sudan. Boutros-Ghali, in 1992, published an issue paper which was one of the first reforms to strengthen the regional capacity to operate to a certain extent, independently, but with the support of the UN umbrella.
In September 1995, I attended the General Assembly where the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, Mr. Ouellet, had presented an issue paper called Towards UN Rapid Reaction Capability published in 1995, in which he argued that the regions should have entities that would not only develop a military capability to respond to or prevent conflicts, but would also include groups of diplomats and humanitarians who could help these countries to rebuild. These entities would not only have a military vocation, but would also be diplomatic and humanitarian and they would work together at finding comprehensive solutions. These would include not only a military component, but a diplomatic one as well, and so forth.
At that time, there were two places in Africa: one not far from Nairobi, in Kenya, and another one in West Africa, in Ghana. We suggested an entity where battalions would go for three to four week rotations and where instructors would teach human rights, civic responsibility, and would give them the necessary tools to resolve their conflicts in a more peaceful manner. In doing so, the military would be more familiar with the potential theatres of operation in their region, in other words, areas where problems could occur.
The heads of these groups would become special representatives who could be used for missions, either for the African Union or the UN, in order to solve the problems. A number of countries examined the plan and that is as far as it went, because of the cost. But the idea remains.
As to regionalism, I truly believe in the capability of the regions to attempt to take action in order to prevent and stop conflicts, and help with the reconstruction. In the current context, say, in Darfur, or with what we witnessed in Rwanda where the regional capability was non existent. Today there is a similar crisis, and we want the African Union to take action. Everyone is pressuring the African Union to do something. For 10 years now, we have been telling the Africans that there is a problem in Africa, that it is time to take care of it, knowing full well that they are incapable of maintaining the capacity on the ground, and that they don't have the equipment they need to operate.
Ten years later, we have Darfur. We asked the Africans to get their act together. I think it is enormously irresponsible at this point in time to place the African Union in an almost impossible situation as it applies to the UN mandate.
[English]
We are setting up the African Union to fail as a regional capability because the UN mandate is to observe and report and it will do nothing to help Darfur.
However, what prevents a country like ours from supporting a regional capability outside the UN?
If the Chinese want to veto any other mandate, then we should force the Chinese to vote, so we have them right there saying we do not agree with helping a country that has genocide or near genocide.
In my belief there is no reason that we cannot provide the capability, framework, troops, diplomats, and so on, in a far more deliberate fashion to a regional capability African Union and permit it to have an opportunity to advance and function under an African Union mandate that might say, ``Protection of the people of Darfur.'' That is not intervention in the context of intervention, but protection, which is not in the current UN mandate.
Our responsibility as a leading middle power is to look at regional capabilities and support mandates that are responsible mandates. If the mandates fall under the UN umbrella, all the better. If not, because of the UN stagnation even with the new reforms coming in, then that should not be the reason why we are not going.
Senator Andreychuk: I have just come from the anti-terrorism review committee and I will be going to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights where we will be talking about the rights of the child. Some of your comments here should be echoed in our terrorism and rights of the child studies. I hope that you will return to speak to that issue. Perhaps you can appear before the two committees in one day.
You have eloquently put to us, and not only today, your concerns about Africa. If I understand, Canada and other countries now are looking at poverty, while previously we looked at other issues.
I see you as looking at it as an equality issue first. If we started to treat Africa as an equal region and as human beings equal to us, then we might have a totally different perspective.
I would like you to comment on whether I am reading you correctly.
Canada is very committed to the NEPAD process, and that is good because it is an initiative out of Africa. The peer evaluation process is, in my opinion, rather undefined and weak. We refer more and more to peer-evaluation on economic performance, political performance, and military performance, and you have explained the military aspect.
Is that a right emphasis to back off? If we are starting to treat them more equally, then peer evaluation makes sense. Yet, it does not seem to have that capability to produce, because we know when we looked at Zimbabwe there was not much appetite from Africa to make any statement about Zimbabwe. That hamstrung all of us after that.
Along that same line, we had a very strong program in Canada with NGOs. One component in the 1970s and 1980s in Canada that I grew up with was education. CIDA had a mandate on education in Canada with Canadians. Much of my understanding of Africa came from that mandate. We cut that back. We are now saying NGOs in Africa or Latin America as opposed to Canadian NGOs.
Are we making a mistake? Should we go back to a new form of an education, a Canadian base for CIDA?
LGen. Dallaire: I would love to come to your committee, as I have already spoken in Berlin to the Bundestag Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid. I spoke in Helsinki to an international parliamentary committee on human rights. I spoke in the U.K. in their Parliament on Africa and conflict. Not very long ago I was at the U.S. Congress in their congressional committee on conflict and Africa.
I am very happy to be here and I would certainly be available to speak to the other committees.
In the last few years I have tried to create activism. The youth want to be active and learn more about Africa. They are quite interested. There are programs of international interest and social consciousness in our education system. These courses touch on the plight of these countries and our involvement with them.
The Canadian NGOs as a body still need a massive influx of energy. The NGO community is still marginalized; it is not a mainstream activity of our Canadian society.
In the vision that I have in regards to humanity and how we can lead the way, I see NGO communities participating with our youth with all of their energy and intellect. I see our youth getting their boots dirty through participation and not just a cash hand out. There is the Canada Corps although I am not too sure how that organization is evolving. That dynamic can be reinforced by making the NGO community a mainstream effort in order that it is taken seriously. The NGO community should be seen as a serious business and reflect this nation's perspective of where it is in the world. It should not be purely funded by government or what CIDA can do, but become a dynamic in the nation as it expresses itself in the international community. As such, the NGO power base potential of influencing public opinion has not started to be felt, yet, it could be enormous in advancing our philosophy on humanity and human rights.
It is a crucial component, in my opinion, of the future of how we look at these regions and how we see ourselves moving.
In regards to peer evaluation, my optimism comes from a longer-term perspective. I believe that it will only take us a couple of centuries before there will not be conflict because of our differences. I believe there will be billions of dollars spent, and millions of human beings will suffer and die before we get this thing straight.
There is a momentum in regard to the concept of respect of individuals and of advancing the fundamentals like democracy adapted, human rights and the like.
In those countries, I tend to want to run with the risk of the peer review and see some of the failings. Where we have not pursued much is in that after-action report. There is no way to find out how each participant is doing apart from maybe the G8 when it sits. The G8 is a very structured body that is sometimes perceived as oppressive. There should be an instrument whereby each member might question how things are progressing.
The peer review is fundamental. I will use a small example. In Rwanda, when I was screaming for troops, four African nations were prepared to send me each over 800 soldiers. That would have helped stop the genocide, but they did not have the equipment and could not get there. I launched the idea of having countries pair up and provide them with the equipment. The program started and then it crashed. It crashed because some very objective people, who I consider pragmatic, tactically-minded and near-sighted, thought that if they were to provide the equipment they might create the next presidential guard that would launch the next coup that would destabilize the country.
We treat these countries like children. It was as if we were about to give them too much candy. Even in the face of catastrophic failure, even with the developed countries refusing to send troops, they still would not take the risk of providing equipment for those countries so they could marry up with them in Rwanda and do the job. We did not help them to stop the genocide. We could have helped and then sorted it all out after.
We are not allowed to return to that type of philosophy. The best we can hope for is an evolutionary process and some sort of method of after-action reporting and discussions.
In regard to my perception of how we move, particularly on the African continent, yes, the fight against poverty is a fundamental fight, as is the fight against HIV/AIDS is fundamental, and as is the whole economic building of these nations and the like, but I honestly do not think that we will get beyond fiddling.
We have a mandate to achieve 0.7 per cent of our GDP for international development; we are at 0.37. We need a couple more billion at least to hit 0.7. We are talking about 80 per cent of humanity and the objective we use is 0.7 per cent of our GDP. Is that proportional?
Does it make sense that the developed world will consider only that scale in order to help 80 per cent of humanity?
It is in that context that I say that to improve the situation in Africa, because it is suffering and the wound is so open, is that you must treat them as equals. They are just as human as we are; they are not any different.
As an example, the International War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Hague, is in phenomenal facilities. There is no problem of witness protection. Nobody is being killed outside the courtroom because they testify.
Why is it that in Arusha, Tanzania, for the Rwanda court, the toilets are broken, you cannot get a pencil? The witnesses were being killed outside of town.
Why is there that double standard? We set the court up in a hick town on the side of the Serengeti that is used by people who go on safaris. There is no capability there. Yet, we still complain that it is not performing well.
There is this instinctive double standard. That is what must be broken. That will be your grand strategic backdrop to what I consider operational solutions; that is, poverty, HIV/AIDS and education.
Senator Di Nino: First, I think we should recognize the passion, clarity and honesty of our guest. Thank you for your presentation.
This is one of those difficult issues that the world is facing today. I also have concerns about how we view this issue, particularly in recent comments in the Darfur region I have wondered why a white child's life is worth more than a Black child's life. I thank you for your comments. You put on the record messages that we need to hear. I will certainly do my best to ensure that through this committee we disseminate those messages to Canadians.
One area that I wish to question you on is the comment that you made about the world waiting for someone else to take the lead. I believe that the UN is dysfunctional at this point, particularly as it deals with these issues.
Do you believe that the UN truly cannot deal with these issues with the impasse that it has?
How do we act unilaterally and, even more so, bilaterally with other countries that would be willing to share the load with our own country?
Please give us some guidance when you answer these questions.
LGen. Dallaire: Even with my experiences in the field, I still believe the UN is the only impartial and transparent body in the world that has as its ultimate aim, and in its essence, the betterment of humanity. There is no regional capability that has yet come to that purist level.
As such, the dysfunction of the UN comes very much from the great powers that either want to use it as a scapegoat, or are operating out of self-interest only. Certainly, the war in Iraq was that sort of premise, operating outside of the UN, on the basis of self-interest.
No matter how much a single-nation led coalition of a great power that is invading another country tries to say they are doing it for humanitarian reasons, the impression is that they are doing it for a grander strategic aim, which could be oil, military bases, operations, and so on.
There is no other body that exists that can meet the impartiality of the UN. The question is: How does the UN function? I will use as an example the American involvement in the war in Iraq. It would have been interesting if the UN had told the Americans to go ahead into Iraq and fight the classic war, and the Iraqi army, but stay out of Baghdad. It would have been interesting if the UN had said let the middle powers, countries that do not carry the baggage of imperialism with them, go into Baghdad. The middle countries are the countries that have more skill sets, sensitivities and more ability to manoeuvre and that are less a liability, like an American soldier could be in attracting problems, let them go into the alleyways, let them discuss with the people of Iraq. Let them be the value added and offer that capability. You are a super power, and you should not go into Baghdad. It would have been interesting if the UN had said that to the Americans.
There is an opportunity still at the UN to function even in what would seem maybe dysfunctional by single nations or other big nations operating independent from it.
That never happened, and it did not happen, not because of the UN Secretariat and its internal structures that have the same problems, maybe a little more complex than ours, because the nations that could offer up those options never came forward. That is because the UN is totally dependent on the nations that make it up to come forward with those capabilities.
When the genocide started Kofi Annan, as deputy at the department of peacekeeping, had a signed agreement with 68 countries that if he needed troops they would response. He contacted all 68 and not one of them responded. The UN is dysfunctional because the nations that belong to it do not give it the assets, the initiatives, and the methods to solve the problems. This is where we come in as a middle power. This is where the Germans and Japanese come in; other country's that do not carry the baggage of the big powers, which are very similar to the powers of the Brits, the French, and the Americans in 1919. The Russians and the Chinese are still manoeuvring.
Well, we could offer up other options that do not carry a whole stigma. We can make the UN more functional, but it means putting in a lot more into it than what we are doing now. We have done enormous initiatives. We have helped with the International Criminal Court, and we brought out that fundamental document called Responsibility to Protect that is being used as a major reference in the reforms that have recently been articulated by the committee set up by Kofi Annan. There is no doubt we have done magnificent things. However, it is not to the scale of the problems and the need out there and the ability to counteract or offer other options to the big powers that are tripping over each other to mess things up. That is where the UN is failing. I think the salvation of the UN is in the middle powers committing themselves with more intellectual, functional, and capability resources. The middle powers should commit to more money and more military if necessary. We just are not at the proportional level that we should be in order to help solve the world's problems. People say that we are paying our dues. We are not asking for the dues from this country. We are asking for more leadership and initiative and innovative thinking, and the ability to be the middleman. Do not let the big guys get committed and create insecurity for us; we can go in first and do the conflict resolution, and so on.
The UN is not functional, and the big powers are not being effective because they are fiddling and getting involved in a bunch of stuff because the middle powers have not committed themselves. People say our army is too small. The army is too small because we want it to be too small and we do not want it to be able to become involved in the bigger issues. Our Prime Minister gave a brilliant speech at the UN in September. It was one of the best speeches at the General Assembly but there was one small problem with it: We gutted our diplomatic corps, our international development, and our Armed Forces in the 1990s, the three components that back up any statement made at the UN. We have nothing to back up our statements. To me, the UN is screaming for the leadership of middle powers.
In regard to bilateral and unilateral actions, we are not strategically a unilateralist country, in fact our whole nature has been with someone else's alliance or some other grouping; the Commonwealth when it was powerful, and since then with NATO, NORAD, the UN. We have not been a nation that has launched others automatically. We have not been an outfit that automatically would go in to the African Union and offer to help. We tend to try to be multilateral. We have acted bilaterally sometimes in our development world, but not necessarily unilaterally.
If we are not capable of being unilateral maybe then maybe we have not achieved that maturity that the youth think we have. I think we can make decisions. The Australians make those tough decisions. They have made great decisions in regard to Cambodia, Sri Lanka and they have launched operations based on those decisions.
In 1996 we were going into the Goma region for the catastrophic failure of the refugees out of Rwanda, and when it ended both in DND and Foreign Affairs said they did not want to lead another campaign ever again. A few of feel that we should be the leader in some cases, but the government took measure to ensure that we would not be able to do so in the future. I feel that it is high time that we take that capability and take the risks of doing another campaign.
Senator Di Nino: When you talk about the rage, and the cries of desperation that we do not listen to, it surely has to mean that you must take a leadership role in trying to solve the problem.
The comment that you made is the fact that Canada should not to wait until 1,000 or 100,000 or 1 million human beings are slaughtered. We should be prepared to go around the world and ask other countries to join us to take action to protect the people that are in need of protection. Words are cheap. It is about time that we put some of those words into action.
Should we be encouraging our government to become involved, if not unilaterally at least with those other countries, middle powers and even smaller powers, who are prepared to go with us and maybe get our hands a little dirty?
LGen. Dallaire: We undersell ourselves all the time. We have so much more capability than we actually put on the table, and that may be because we are spending so much time in managing ourselves and not leading others. When a country is managing itself it does not take risks, it lives in a system where you fill in the blanks and make sure things work. Leadership is assessing things that are risky, it is working in ambiguity, it is charisma, dominating a thought process and bringing people to move.
Answers concerning defence, foreign affairs, or foreign international development, would come clearly if we believe that our role in the world is leadership in advancing the plight of humanity. It is a function of what we want to do and so we will build the security dimension, the diplomatic dimension, the humanitarian dimension, the nation building dimension, to be able to function. I do not mean unilaterally, but in the sense that we will be prepared to go, by ourselves, to join the African Union. We do not need others to do it, but that is not in our psyche, and it was proven in Darfur. We are fiddling with everybody else, and dancing to the Khartoum government's continued initiatives and throwing pieces at it not worthy of this outfit.
The counter argument is the following: Why should we? What is in it? Do we want to risk more of our diplomats', our humanitarian workers' and our soldiers' lives for those countries? Why should we do that when others do not? What really brings about our commitment?
That is where the leadership dimension comes in. It is the ability to bring people beyond self-interest, to abnegate, and perceive themselves as having far greater capabilities than just technical and financial, but a capability that has spirit. I remind you of those soldiers who jumped into that ditch, not because they were ordered to, but because of the instinct, the values and the reference they had inculcated them in this country made them do it. It is there.
Senator Poy: You mention two things at the end of your presentation. You said there is a two-pronged approach. The first one is empowerment of the women and the education of the young.
Is this worldwide or particularly for Africa?
Would you like to expound on that, please?
LGen. Dallaire: These would not be innovative ideas for Africa. As an example, when the countries of the Americas met in Quebec City a few years ago, the youth of those countries also met for a week representing all the countries except Cuba, I believe. At the end of the week, I was asked, because I was working part-time for the minister of CIDA to go and to see what they had to say from their week of deliberation. They built up a whole program.
I was there at their presentation. These were youths from 15 to 18 years of age. Their number one priority, far above all the rest of them, was education. They asked to be given the tools to look at the discussions that are there with our traditions, a way of living and how to master our future. I contend that education and the right to education is a fundamental component on the minds of our youth.
In Africa, education for all is of course critical because the analphabètisme situation is so terrible. Education of the youth, and that can be secular, is needed in most of those countries.
The empowerment of women is very much a cultural dimension that I feel was prevalent in a few countries that I visited, and from what I know of Africa particularly.
CIDA and a couple of other bodies have launched initiatives to give opportunities to women to run their families, to run a little business, and stuff like that. They have had incredible responses.
It is interesting that in a country like Rwanda, where so many males were killed, that young girls as young as 16 years of age are running families. They are doing incredible work and sustaining their families.
Many of the cultures are male-dominated cultures. I believe the male dominance has established the modus operandi of those nations, the traditions, and the way of doing things.
It seems to me that if you get the women, and mothers who sense life, who are capable of bringing a whole new dimension to the argument, and as they become more capable of conducting their business and taking care of their families and becoming full participants in their societies, then the male dimension of solution-solving will become tempered by a whole different human dimension.
This is not a power-based dimension, it is one very much based on humanity. That is why I believe the reconciliation is very much in the hands of the empowerment of women. They will be far more flexible and sensitive than the established methodologies of the male.
When we were ordered that women be part of the combat arms, it was not because we wanted to; there was a fundamental belief that that would weaken our cohesion and become an operational deficiency. However, when we were ordered to do it, there was no sense of how to make these women welcome, how to make the milieu adaptive for them so that we could understand what they had to say.
One of the interesting areas that are fundamental to anything military is leadership and command. One of the areas that we were required to look at was what the influence of women would be in our leadership philosophy, which is fundamentally male. We had to wonder what nuances the women would bring to the military and how we could prepare our people for those nuances. We wondered how to maximize the addition of the women rather than seeing them ill-treated and fighting their way through the ranks. We are worried that it might take 20 years before they become a mainstream element in the forces. It took 30 years for the French Canadians to feel comfortable in the military and we finally understand now that leadership in a French Canadian regiment is different than leadership in an English regiment.
Not only are we not doing that for the women, as we still fiddle, but what happens in the year 2012, when the White, Judeo-Christian, anglophones and francophones of the country ask why it is only their children that are in the forces, and the only ones that are taking casualties overseas.
We must consider that the head of the Indo-Canadian society might wonder why there is not an Indo-Canadian regiment with Indo-Canadian traditions. There are French Canadian, English Canadian and Scottish regiments; there is a Scottish regiment in Montreal that is 95 per cent French Canadian.
Why can we not have an Indo-Canadian tradition-based regiment? We are not looking at that really. We are hoping that something will happen. That is where the women come in, as a leading component of that reconciliation.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Lieutenant-General Dallaire, what you are saying is extremely important. It is even more important coming from you, because of your very unique experience. The type of intervention that you are advocating for Canada, as a middle power, is to take the lead.
How would we go about doing that? Would it not be like telling the United Nations that they can't do the job and that we are moving ahead with it? What would be the reaction of the other countries if we were to do that?
LGen. Dallaire: In the context that I was trying to explain, it would essentially be to suggest that the United Nations use more tools than they do now; to provide the United Nations and the Security Council with more options. This would mean trying to find solutions, rather than constantly depending on the super powers to resolve the conflicts and become involved in these situations. This is simply because there are no other viable solutions and no one else who really wants to help prevent the conflicts or even contribute to reinstating stability in various countries and who find themselves either acting or sitting on the sidelines, while worrying about letting someone else go in and not be able to complete the mission, then being forced to act.
If countries like Canada provided more capabilities, there would be fewer chances for the super powers to intervene. This would be done through the United Nations, but in a much more competent way, with more scope and breadth than we do now. Currently, we are on the sidelines; some are sent here and there, but they are in the big leagues.
I think that the middle powers could form a coalition to provide options to the super powers through the United Nations, so as to adopt solutions for various areas, without having the super powers getting in the way.
At the same time, I think that we are capable, as a mature country, that if the United Nations is dead-locked, and that if an intervention or a presence is required, if there is an internationally recognized regional structure in place, with a mandate, then we should be able to decide that we will go ahead.
The United Nations were not unanimously in agreement, but they cannot provide solutions. We know that they want to, but they are caught in their own straight jacket. Even if the region wants to be responsible and has a responsible mandate, we should be able to go in and bring our friends along with us.
In Germany, when I made my presentation to the committee, they argued for becoming a permanent member of the Security Council. I think that the Security Council reforms are a waste of time; it means having to play along with more and more people who have the ability to veto, and so on. I told the Germans that they could be leaders among the middle powers. Because Germany is the strongest of the middle powers.
I told them that we would go along with them, as would the Japanese, the Italians, and other countries that could join these coalitions, to provide serious options; not only to send a battalion to one place or another, but to do serious things, large-scale programs, which could provide an option to the super powers.
The answer was basically that the Germans could not do that because of their history, because too many people will remember history and this prevented them from adopting that position. Fine. Is that the real reason or are they simply using it as an excuse not to become involved? We don't have that problem here.
I am convinced that we can sign multilateral agreements with these countries to create coalitions that would provide alternatives. You have to get involved; you can't sit back and be a big talker and withhold your skills from a nation that would only be too willing to take part in the evolution of humanity, if only it could.
Senator Robichaud: You spoke of education. Every witness says that it is important. But we are also discussing governance, good governance. And we always end up talking about security. When I see television coverage of the conflicts, I am always surprised by the armies that are involved. There is very little food to eat, but there are weapons, ammunition and big guns, they are everywhere. Are we paying enough attention to the arms traffickers?
LGen. Dallaire: That is an excellent question. My other research project at Harvard deals with child soldiers and how to eliminate that phenomenon. It is possible to have child soldiers because they have light, effective weapons that are easy to use. A nine-year old child can be an effective soldier with these weapons.
In the work that I did with the children who are affected by war, and today with child soldiers, the availability of light weapons comes into play. There are over 640 million light weapons available throughout the world. These are used by some countries for a given period of time.
For example, we will use a weapon for 20 or 25 years. But these weapons are built to last 100 years. There are still harquebuses being used. What happens to these weapons when they are no longer needed? Are they destroyed? No, because they are still useable and there are internationally recognized regulations for the sale of weapons to other countries, to responsible governments that require them for their own security. We can't refuse to sell to a country that wants to protect itself.
So they are sold to another country. But what happens then? The third country, or the fourth one? Same weapon. Is it a good idea to recover some of the taxpayers' money by selling weapons that we no longer need? Or would it make more sense, from a business standpoint, to say that in destroying these weapons we are perhaps wasting $14 million, but at least we would not have to spend $100 million in foreign aid, because the weapons could be used to fuel a conflict?
In Rwanda, they had light weaponry like machine guns, that were made by the Warsaw path countries that had a large number of them and continued manufacturing them—and I don't mean western countries. For example, some of the countries that were members of my mission produced weapons that they sold to extremists; and these extremists used those weapons against their own men.
It cost three dollars to buy a weapon, and one dollar to buy a grenade. I thought I could get rid of these weapons by offering to buy them for ten dollars. But that would have only led to an increase in weapons traffic, because they would have brought in more guns to make more money. So how do we eliminate this problem?
The Department of Foreign Affairs has an international program. Canada put forward a basic report that does not only address the technical side of weapons elimination, but also its human impact; no one else had written about that. It deals with the creation of child soldiers, of human instability, and a willingness to increase our efforts in that area.
Up until now, there has been an unbelievable irresponsibility on the part of the arms' producing countries, particularly those whose industry is well developed. In Canada, we do not have such an industry. I am speaking about large and small countries that produce weapons which make their way on to the market, and so on.
When the Rwandan genocide began, brand new weapons appeared: they were AK-47's from former eastern countries. These were not 35 year-old weapons, but brand new ones.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: General Dallaire, on the news yesterday there was an article on the Congo and the genocide taking place there. There were UN soldiers around and the soldiers knew where the aggressive people were hiding, yet, they were not able to act on the information because the UN mandate kept them from tracking and arresting these undesirables.
Do you think the UN needs reform?
Should policing and intervention matters be left to regional institutions?
LGen. Dallaire: Yes, reforms are required. There were some reforms made a few years ago which were very tactical and technical reforms concerning the use of force.
Right now with the new report on reforms and the use of force, which is based on the Canadian paper of Responsibility to Protect, there are new parameters in the use of force that are far clearer and will provide far better guidance to the Security Council in regards to taking decisions and also to help the countries to decide whether to commit troops or not. However, there is still the very fundamental component that the UN must live with in the fact it does not have an army and we do not want it to have an army. If the UN did have an army we would have to know what its hiring practices would be, we would have to know the ethos of the army and whether that army would totally commit itself to its assigned missions. We would have to deal with the fallout if that army lost its war and with it its credibility.
We want sovereign states to provide the troops for the UN, except that the sovereign states, since in particular Mogadishu in 1993 when the Americans pulled out of Somalia, are very fearful of casualties in far-off lands that have no significance to us. They tend to the reticent in sending troops, and also the UN is tentative in the nature of its mandates.
A couple of years ago the Canadian government was looking at whether it should send troops to Afghanistan and I had the opportunity to speak to both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defence at the time. I spoke to them a week before they took the decision, and told them not to send troops to Afghanistan. Yes, we were worried about international terrorism, but the Americans were there and there were many capabilities there. I suggested that we send the 2,000 available troops to the Congo. The UN was screaming for troops with capabilities. We could have been the backbone of that mission. We know the languages, English and French, our diplomats and soldiers know the area, our humanitarian workers know the area, and we could have be the backbone of a UN force going in there, but we went to Afghanistan for other strategic reasons.
The UN and the developed nations, in many cases, have abdicated on peacekeeping, and they have contracted it out to developing nations, who have lots of troops but very little capability. In a number of circumstances, yes, the mandate may have been restrictive, but more often than not you do not have the number of troops you need to do the operation or they do not have the equipment or they do not have the training to be able to perform the mission.
We end up with ineffective missions not because the mandate is wrong, it is because the ability to put it into action in the field is not there. We, as others, do not want to go into them to the significance that we should.
We were even offered to command the Congo mission and we refused it.
Senator Prud'homme: In regard to Afghanistan, it was announced in the last two days that we will not withdraw, but that we will add 1,000 people. Do your comments still apply today?
LGen. Dallaire: They apply doubly.
Senator Prud'homme: What does that mean?
LGen. Dallaire: They are still slaughtering people in the Congo and that is just not a priority.
Senator Milne: Considering that I am not a member of this committee, Mr. Dallaire, I wish to thank you for what you have done and what you are doing.
I wish to return to the war-affected children that have been abused, brutalized and taught to hate. You also spoke of educating children and perhaps a generation from now things will be better.
Africa cannot afford to wait a generation for these children to grow older. By then, they will be raising their own children and they do not know how to raise children because they have been taken from their own families, and in many cases they have been mutilated.
Are there any positive examples where groups are taking in these brutalized children and retraining or rehabilitating them?
Is there anything that we can look to for a positive example on something that actually works?
LGen. Dallaire: I was in Sierra Leone with the demobilization of one of the child soldier exercises and also have experience with the children in the displaced and refugee camps. I know Burundi, Rwanda and a number of other countries.
The war-affected children or child soldiers come in two categories. One category is that there are governments that actually hire children or youth below the age of 18, even though the optional protocol says no one under the age of 18 should be trained or equipped with equipment to fight. There is that side of the house that needs to be looked at and countries need to be brought into a sense of responsibility.
The other side of the wars are the children who are wrapped up in fighting and the children who are caught up in the problem of war. There are a number of NGOs who operate and function in the internally displaced camps, refugee camps, trying to get the schools going, assisting the children, and the like. They have a variety of levels of effect and positive reports to give us.
Many of the children have been raised in refugee camps and although they are being educated they know nothing outside the refugee camp. The fundamental problem still remains, but the process of education gives them a reference point. The day is organized; they go to school and learn and so on. When they get older, their lives spent in a refugee camp can become an incredible instrument of frustration, because they cannot get out of the camp.
One day a member of an NGO came in and knocked on my door when I was working over there, walked in and put a red nose on my face. The NGO was called Clowns Without Borders. This group goes into refugee and displaced camps and they teach children how to laugh. They leave them with games to play. There are enormous amounts of efforts being made, but they are still peanuts in regard to the scale of the need.
You have to demobilize the child soldiers. The NGOs and governments have agreed that you have to demobilize children separately from adults, and the boys from the girls. Many of the boys have been in the bush for years. They can be integrated back into society because they are boys; you give them a small skill, carpentry or something rudimentary and they go back to their community. They did the warrior thing. They were boys, they fought, okay, it was terrible. The family takes them back in and there is reconstitution. The families are strong assets for rehabilitation, and so the boys make it back to the communities.
The girls are totally different, they are damaged goods. They have been raped, and so on; many of them have one or two children already. The family does not want them any more. The community does not want them any more. They are left roaming around; men all over the place continue to abuse them. The girls need extensive rehabilitation. There is not one program that exists that lasts over a three month period, and these girls need one or two years of rehabilitation. The girls need a very developed program.
They demobilize 1,000 boys for every 20 girls because the girls are too much of an asset. Not only do they fight, they also run the camps and they also are the bush wives and sex slaves. We have a more difficult time getting the girls out of there. There are girls who have children who were born in rebel camps. At eight years of age their children are of age to be a child soldier. They can be used now.
Without the love and so on, you are right it is a complex problem, but none of the NGOs have any real ability to deal with what is going on.
There is one other gang that I have been trying to get the NGOs to look at. There is a 14 year-old leader of 50 other kids. This kid has been leading the 50 other kids to fighting, pillaging and all that. This kid's ego is way up here. His skills have been honed as a leader. You do not throw him in with the rest of them and give him Dick and Jane for a couple of months and think he will be rehabilitated.
Those child leaders will be a source of instability in the future unless we build a special program for them and take the four or five years and, through that, build them as the future leaders of the nation. We have to bring in other young gang leaders and positively develop their leadership skills. We must establish schools to nurture the young leaders for the future of the nation. Not one NGO has touched on that idea. You can go there and help thousands of kids. All you need is 20 or 30 leaders to be displeased with the situation, they will go back into the bush, and they will get the weapons. The other kids show deference to him. They will follow him because it is more exciting than living in a displaced camp. In that situation the rape, pillaging and plundering starts all over again. That is a major weakness.
I am not saying to create military colleges, but create institutions that nurture leadership and develop it in those youths and rehabilitate them. That is long-term stuff and the NGOs do not have that capability right now.
The Chairman: On behalf of my colleagues I wish to thank you. You are so filled with ideas about what we might propose, which is not always the case. Again, it was a wonderful afternoon. Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.