Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue 6 - Evidence - Meeting of February 9, 2012
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 9, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 10:30 a.m. to examine and report on Canadian foreign policy regarding Iran, its implications, and other related matters.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: This is the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. We are pursuing our examination of Canadian foreign policy regarding Iran, its implications and other related matters.
Before we start, on behalf of the committee I want to express our condolences to the Dickson family on the passing of Senator Fred Dickson. It is regrettable. He was a gentleman and an excellent senator and had contributed much to his country, to his party and to the Senate. It is regrettable that his life has been cut short. We will pass on our condolences to his family.
This morning, the committee will study, as I have indicated, the Canadian foreign policy regarding Iran. On behalf of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, we have before us Ms. Barbara Martin, Director General, Middle East and Maghreb; and Donald Sinclair, Director General, International Security Bureau. Both are accompanied by a host of other colleagues from the department who will assist them, if necessary.
We know this is short notice. We appreciate that you were not able to attend yesterday as you were testifying in the other place. Thank you for coming and commencing our dialogue on Canadian foreign policy in Iran on all issues. Welcome to the committee.
Barbara Martin, Director General, Middle East and Maghreb Bureau, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: Thank you very much, Madam Chair and honourable senators. We are pleased to speak to you today about the situation in Iran and Canada's response to it.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have both been very clear that we consider Iran to pose the greatest threat to regional and international security today. This is why Canada has been at the forefront of nations in imposing sanctions on the Iranian regime, in limiting our diplomatic relations with Iran through our Controlled Engagement Policy, and in acting strongly in the United Nations to condemn its persistent and systematic violations of the human rights of its own citizens. I would like to first address the human rights situation in Iran, then its destabilizing role in the region, and finally its nuclear activities.
Iran is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, yet it blatantly disregards the rights enshrined in it.
In Iran, religious freedom is only an aspiration. Religious minorities face discrimination in Iran, with the treatment and persecution of the Bahá'ís as the most blatant and egregious example. Bahá'í leaders are regularly detained without cause, and followers are unable to gain access to university solely because of their faith. Jews and Christians, despite constitutional guarantees, face restrictions in access to certain kinds of jobs, and prosecution for apostasy — converting from Islam — remains in force.
Freedom of speech is also heavily restricted. The press is controlled, those violating established government norms routinely shut down, and editors and journalists jailed. Opponents of the regime are imprisoned regularly, including President Ahmadinejad's two principal opponents in the 2009 presidential elections, Mir Hussein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, who remain in detention. These abuses are reflective of a judicial system that serves the interest of the regime rather than justice.
Executions this year in Iran are at a record high, with many of those facing execution denied what any reasonable person would call proper due process. Ms. Sakineh Ashtiani, originally sentenced to stoning for adultery, still faces the prospect of being hanged, while Canadian permanent resident Saeed Malekpour sits unjustly on death row on dubious charges. The list of similar failures is seemingly endless and definitely growing.
A country that abuses its own citizens in this manner, that will not live up to the guarantees of its own constitution and that ignores its international human rights commitments is a country that cannot be trusted and that poses a threat to us all. Iran must be held to account by the international community. Canada has taken the lead in this global effort.
For the ninth consecutive year, this past fall, Canada led the international effort at the UN General Assembly to shine the needed spotlight on Iran's dismal human rights record through a resolution. It is a shocking resolution when one considers the human tragedy that lies behind the words. It is a measure of international concern that the resolution was co- sponsored last fall by a total of 42 states and was supported by 89 countries altogether. Only 30 states voted against it. This represented the most support for the resolution since Canada assumed the lead for it in 2003, and it is a measure of growing international concern.
[Translation]
Iran continues to represent a threat to its neighbours. It is a destabilizing influence in the region, as a whole, and a particular threat to the state of Israel, which Iran's supreme leader only last week called a "cancer" that needs to be and will be "cut out."
To Israel, Iran's nuclear activities are an existential threat. But these activities are not the only threat Iran poses. Iran supports organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, which use violence to oppose peace and co-existence with Israel. Tehran has openly acknowledged the assistance it has provided these groups and has pledged to continue to provide such support to anyone who acts against Israel.
In addition, Iran's interference in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula and also Afghanistan threatens regional stability. Iran is no friend to Saudi Arabia. Iran's Quds Forces, its elite special operations force, have been implicated in the alleged plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the United States. Iran remains a close ally to Syria. Tehran has provided financial, political and technical support to the Assad regime, despite the Syrian government's violence against its own people. Iran's regional neighbours are also threatened by its nuclear activities, fearing Iran could shift regional power balances and become a direct threat to their own security.
Iranians will face parliamentary elections in March, and there are evident tensions within the regime between President Ahmedinajad and the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. It remains to be seen what the upcoming elections will mean for Iran's future, but the prospects for reform or meaningful change in Iran remain dim.
[English]
Iran's nuclear activities remain the single greatest worry to the international community, including Canada. Six United Nations resolutions have demanded that Iran suspend enrichment of nuclear material and fully disclose details of its activities and the possible military implications. However, Iran has remained intransigent. The group of nations called the P5-plus-1 — the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany — has been actively engaged since 2006 in pursuing a two-track approach of carrots and sticks, that is, dialogue and sanctions. To date, Iran has refused to allow its nuclear program to be discussed. While there is talk of another round of negotiations at the P5-plus-1 level, optimism about a breakthrough, or even a minor step forward, remains very low. Both the supreme leader and President Ahmadinejad have stated categorically that Iran will not retreat. It is one of the few issues on which Iran's conservative elites agree.
The November 8, 2011, IAEA report on Iran was a significant milestone. The report details linkages between Iranian nuclear research and missile development programs. It does not prove Iran's intent to produce a nuclear weapon. However, Iran's recent actions, including its recent decision to expand its uranium enrichment operations at the Fordo facility near Qom, deepen serious doubts about Iran's claims that its nuclear program is peaceful.
In January, Iran announced it had begun enrichment of uranium to just under 20 per cent at the Fordo site. Twenty per cent is the threshold for highly enriched uranium. From this point, it takes considerably less effort to enrich it to 90 per cent, which is the level for nuclear material that can be used in weapons of mass destruction. Without full access for international inspectors to Iran's declared and undeclared nuclear sites, the possibility of Iran pursuing a nuclear weapons program cannot be discounted.
Iranian uranium stockpiles require further enrichment before they can be manufactured into a deployable weapon. Iran has sufficient stockpiles of low enriched uranium that could be further enriched and used to build an estimated four bombs.
From January 29 to 31, the International Atomic Energy Agency sent a team to Iran to discuss key disagreements between the two parties. The team planned to visit the Fordo enrichment site, located underground near Qom, and wanted to interview key scientists working on Iran's nuclear program. We do not know the outcome of the visit at this time, but media reports have indicated that there was no indication that Iran was cooperative on the substantive issues. The team is planning another visit for late February.
Canada will be chairing the IAEA board of governors for a year beginning in September 2012, and we will use our role to ensure that this issue remains high on the agenda. The Iranian acquisition of a weapon of mass destruction would be a severe blow to international and regional security, as well as to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It could also prompt others to do the same; that is, seek to acquire a nuclear weapon.
In 2007, in response to Iran's evident determination to proceed with its nuclear ambitions, Canada implemented sanctions in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions. On July 22, 2010, Canada imposed unilateral sanctions against Iran under the Special Economic Measures Act. The intent of these sanctions was to prevent Iran from getting any goods, technology and services that could support its nuclear activities and to pressure Iran to enter into meaningful negotiations on its nuclear program. These sanctions restrict the export to Iran of a range of goods that could be used to support its nuclear program. They also list a number of individuals and entities that supported the development of the program.
In November 2011, the government expanded our unilateral sanctions to prohibit almost all financial transactions with Iran, including transactions involving the Central Bank. In addition, the export of any goods used in the oil, gas and petrochemical industry in Iran was prohibited. This comprehensive ban covers the Iranian crude oil sector.
Canada's sanctions against Iran are among the toughest in the world and are recognized as such. The U.S. administration and Congress have placed extensive sanctions on Iran as well, including against any financial dealings with the country. The EU is also imposing sanctions against the import of Iranian oil by EU members. This welcome step is very significant as a number of EU countries are highly dependent on Iranian oil and will need to find alternative sources of supply.
Sanctions are being felt in Iran. Businesses are finding it hard to make the financial arrangements needed to conduct international trade, and investment in key sectors, including the oil industry, is drying up. The economy, already weakened by decades of financial mismanagement and corruption, is being battered by rising inflation and a weakening currency, at least on the unofficial market. The regime has long denied that sanctions have an impact, even though the recent economic challenges are hard to dismiss.
Israel has been increasingly vocal about its profound concerns that Iran is getting perilously close to being able to build a nuclear weapon. Its leaders talk about the need to prevent this. U.S. President Obama has said that all options remain on the table. The pressure is high for the international community to act together through diplomatic channels to put the maximum pressure on the Iranian regime. Sanctions take time to have an effect, but already there is evidence that they are starting to bite. It remains to be seen whether they will create enough pressure to force the regime to back down, to return to the negotiating table and to allow for full transparency on its nuclear activities.
We would be very pleased to take your questions at this point.
The Chair: Mr. Sinclair, do you wish to add anything or just go to questions?
Donald Sinclair, Director General, International Security Bureau, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: No, thank you.
Senator Finley: You tell a story of devastating sadness. I participated with a group of other senators to highlight a number of the human rights violations in this country earlier this week, and it was a sad and sorry tale.
While I understand the concept of sanctions, in your view is there a risk that as the sanctions to start to bite, and as Iran proceeds down the path to developing a weapon of mass destruction, they could feel cornered, accelerate that, and in effect use that as a shield to have sanctions lifted? Is this like a race between which one gets completed first? Is it as simple as that?
Ms. Martin: I think you have hit on a number of complexities in the situation and the challenges of trying to persuade Iran to stop its nuclear activities and to come back to the table. Sanctions can, in time, have consequences that then are felt by the population within the country. At this stage, it has not reached that point. However, certainly that will be an element that will be closely monitored as we go forward.
As to whether or not Iran would feel cornered, I think the challenge has been that the international community has offered it many avenues out. The P5-plus-1 exercise of dialogue and sanctions has been on the table over six years now and Iran has continued to refuse to participate in an open discussion about its nuclear activities.
Perhaps Mr. Sinclair will want to add a bit more on that point.
Mr. Sinclair: Thank you, and good morning Madam Chair and honourable senators. It is a pleasure to be here.
The question of Iranian behaviour and what it might look like in the future is a difficult one. What the sanctions are intended to do, as Ms. Martin has suggested, is to reflect the intensity of the international community's displeasure with Iran's continuing non-compliance with the UN Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency resolutions.
Frankly, the sanctions are intended to put them in a corner, in a sense, to hope that the tension that the sanctions cause internally will give pause for the regime to reflect upon the wisdom of its intended course of action vis-à-vis the acquisition of a nuclear weapon. It is hoped that a rational response to that would be to come back to the international community, to take account of the wishes of the international community and to answer the fundamental questions the international community is asking. It could, as your question implies, lead to a further entrenchment on the part of the Iranian leadership in that they see no way out. That is hard to predict.
One of the real problems is that we are trying to influence the behaviour of a regime, and the tools that we have to do that are, frankly, quite blunt. Sanctions are a blunt instrument; they take time.
You need a massive, coherent approach by the international community and by the major trading partners of Iran to ensure that they are effective. At the end of the day, there is no guarantee that you can actually influence the course that a regime has set itself. Then there are all the internal machinations, which we probably do not fully understand, of internal politics in Iran. Again, as Ms. Martin has said, the nuclear option appears to be intensely popular. It has coalesced nationalist forces and forces of nationalism around a project that, for the rest of us, is horrific but that seems to hit upon some sense of pride among Iranians. It is very difficult.
To answer your question, there is no way to predict how this will go. We do have experience of sanctions applied on other occasions in other parts of world — South Africa and so on — where the results have been generally good. Our expectation going into this is that sanctions are indeed the way to go and that hopefully we can influence the regime to come to its senses.
Senator Finley: It strikes me as a Rudyard Kipling story about a bunch of toothless mongooses circling around a cobra. This particular cobra has a very potent weapon. The sanctions, as far as I can see and such as have been described, are particularly aimed at hurting the sort of military complex of the Iranians. The larger breadth — and I am not saying that this is what we should do; it is just an observation, I suppose — of Iranian people are not suffering. They will not have a sort of economic Arab Spring because they do not seem to have a particular reason to do so if there are no sanctions that are biting into the everyday life of Iran. I realize there are human rights and all kinds of things that have to come into that, but is there consideration by Canada or by other world bodies to dig much deeper in the sanctions?
Ms. Martin: There is considerable discussion about broadening the number of countries that are imposing sanctions on Iran. Even China has reduced its trade with Iran, even though it has not overtly supported the UN resolutions. Dialogue is ongoing to encourage others. The step taken by the EU is very significant. Some 18 per cent of Iran's oil is exported to the EU. Iran's reaction to the EU decision is, I think, indicative of the extent to which it does not wish to see this happen. It has threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz and also said that the Iranian Parliament could adopt a law that would prohibit the export of that oil to the EU.
Iran depends heavily on its oil revenues for its GDP, so this will have an impact on the regime. Whether it will be sufficient to cause it to change its behaviour remains unknown.
With respect to the Iranian people, in 2009, after the presidential elections, the people did take to the streets in vocal protest about those elections. They were extremely violently repressed as a consequence of that. The clampdown of the regime is severe, and it prevents the organization of a viable opposition. People voice their concerns at considerable peril to themselves. Dissenting voices are imprisoned, journalists and newspapers are not able to present arguments contrary to regime policy. It is a very difficult situation inside Iran. Will the parliamentary elections coming up dramatically change the situation? Probably not. However, it does remain to be seen what the outcome of that will be, and that is, in part, because the regime is controlling who is able to run in those elections. It is a bad situation.
Senator Finley: There is always sanction busting. It has happened before. It is a pretty expert skill around the world. I read something recently about Iran paying for items in a sort of hard, but nonfinancial, currency, such as direct trade for oil, and not going through the economic system, both for gold and for oil, despite the sanctions. Is this in fact the case, and can we be assured that no one in Canada is participating in any way, shape or form in illegal sanction busting?
Ms. Martin: The sanctions that Canada has imposed against Iran are legally binding on all Canadians, all those who reside in Canada and all Canadians, regardless of where they reside. It then becomes a legal matter for prosecution if someone is violating those sanctions. It is something that is therefore the responsibility of the RCMP. When we become aware of instances of possible breakages of the sanctions, we inform the RCMP, and they take it forward from there with respect to those in Canada or Canadians abroad.
The Chair: This entire issue is human rights, a viable political system that one hopes will be accomplished in Iran for its own people, and the nuclear issue. If not sanctions, what other levers are there for the international community to have some assurance that Iran is not progressing to nuclear weapons but is simply upgrading uranium for peaceful means? Has the international community indicated that there are no other options left and that sanctions represent the only possible lever? Is there anything left of diplomacy? They have left the table. Is there anything else? For example, in North Korea, there was always the fallback position of working with China on a bilateral basis for increased pressure. It would seem to me that the pressure on Iran could come from Syria. Syria is in the middle of a very questionable period in its own development, which may or may not destabilize Iran even further on a negative route.
I am pondering those issues. Are we doing all we can? Have we exhausted all possibilities and therefore, as part of an international community, are sanctions the only option for us?
Ms. Martin: Sanctions are not the only diplomatic option. The key element, of course, with sanctions is that it is pressure on a regime to cause it to change its behaviour. As was noted, if the sanctions are leaky, that pressure is diminished. There is a considerable amount of effort to draw in other countries and to increase the intensity of those sanctions.
Canada has done pretty much as much as we can. Anything further on Canada's part is fine-tuning. However, there is room for others in the international community.
When you talk about other political pressure in terms of those countries that would consider themselves friends of Iran, Syria, in particular, is dependent on Iran. Syria is extremely focused on its own internal situation. It gets arms and financial support from Iran. How much could Iran count on support from Syria right now? I think its attention is distracted.
It is interesting that Hamas and Hezbollah, the two terrorist groups that have been supported by Iran with arms and money over the years, both have somewhat distanced themselves from Iran. Hezbollah's leader announced yesterday that it would not engage in a confrontation with Israel at this time when one is looking at the dynamic between Israel and Iran.
Iran is increasingly isolated, which is one of the goals; it is one of the levers. That, too, takes time. It depends very much on the extent to which people are concerned about the direction that Iran is taking. Gulf countries are becoming profoundly concerned. They are becoming increasingly vocal, as we have seen with the Arab League actions in Syria. They are increasingly taking a political stance.
The other avenue, the International Atomic Energy Agency, is Mr. Sinclair's area of expertise.
Mr. Sinclair: In the nuclear field, I think it is important that we talk a bit about the International Atomic Energy Agency. Perhaps its activities are not that well known to Canadians. The importance of the International Atomic Energy Agency is that it applies what are called safeguards to any country that has a peaceful nuclear program, including Canada. We all agree — that is, all of those who have signed a nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which is a fundamental treaty of international security. Iran, Canada and most of the international community agree and signed on to this treaty stating that we will declare our nuclear facilities and we will allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect these facilities. What are they inspecting for? They are inspecting to ensure that there is no diversion of nuclear material from a peaceful process to produce energy to a weapons program. That is what they are looking for.
In November of 2011, the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency issued a scathing report on non-compliance by Iran with its safeguards obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency. I would recommend that to you, if you are interested in all of the gory details of uranium enrichment and what the agency is actually concerned about with respect to activities in Iran that cannot be explained by attention to a peaceful nuclear program. The agency concludes that there are several, perhaps even many, activities that Iran is conducting and has conducted in the past that have potential military applications. The agency has required of Iran that it answer some of these questions.
Iran maintains that it has the right to develop technology for peaceful purposes. The international community accepts that right, as any member of the NPT has, but then you get into the series of questions that are detailed in the IAEA report, such that since the UN called on Iran to stop enrichment, they do not need this enriched uranium for peaceful purposes. They do not need it for fuel, so why do they need it? The Iranian response is, "We have the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes." They will also say that they are not intent on building a nuclear weapon. You have to take that at face value or not.
We, the international community are extremely skeptical. Several of the reasons that fuel our skepticism are Iranian activities in the military domain, which they cannot answer and they have not answered, for example: Why are you doing this? Why are you seeking to import certain materials? Why are you seeking computerized simulation of nuclear explosions? There is a whole range of questions that Iran refuses to answer, all of which point only to military applications and have no place in a peaceful nuclear program.
As Ms. Martin mentioned, they continue to send inspectors to Iran. The question is how forthcoming are the Iranians in answering the questions of the international community as voiced through the International Atomic Energy Agency, and how forthcoming are they in revealing all of their nuclear activities?
Countries have an obligation to tell the International Atomic Energy Agency about all of their nuclear facilities. You cannot hide them; nor can you not declare them. Iran, in the past, has not declared nuclear facilities. Indeed, it is possible there are other nuclear facilities that we know nothing about. That is entirely possible. We have no confidence, and for good reason, that Iran will declare all of its nuclear facilities and nuclear activities.
The role of the IAEA is a continued avenue of pressure and inquiry on Iran. It is strictly in the nuclear field. It does not touch human rights or other areas of governance.
Senator Downe: I assume the sanctions have eliminated all trade between our two countries. Is that correct?
Ms. Martin: Our two-way trade, up until November 2011, was about $118 million. This will be reduced to an absolute minimal amount as we go forward.
There is still trade permitted, such as foodstuffs, humanitarian goods and so on. There are some categories of goods that are still permitted but it is very small.
Senator Downe: To follow up on the question Senator Finley asked about sanctions and busting them, how do you monitor that to control that other things are not being sent on the pretext of food and those that are allowed?
Ms. Martin: I confess that I do not think I am able to answer that, but I will get back to you. It is a matter for the border control agencies monitoring goods and the destinations that are given, but I am not informed on that area.
Senator Downe: I appreciate that it is not your area and I look forward to your written answer.
What is the status of our embassy there?
Ms. Martin: Our embassy is headed by a chargé d'affaires. For some years now, we have not had a full ambassador in Iran. Indeed, Iran is represented in Canada by a chargé d'affaires as well. This is consistent with our Controlled Engagement Policy. We have a small contingent of Canadian staff at the embassy under the chargé d'affaires responsible for political reporting, for conveying messages to the regime as required on issues of concern and for providing consular services to any Canadians that may be in Iran. There are few Canadians who are not dual nationals in Iran, and the numbers of Canadians who are registered with the embassy is in the hundreds; it is not a great deal. This is possibly due to the fact that Iran itself does not recognize dual citizenship, so there will be an expected caution on the part of dual nationals with respect to that.
Senator Downe: A dual citizen going there would immediately be considered Iranian when they land. The limited number of Canadians that are registered with the embassy, what would they be involved in?
Ms. Martin: I cannot speak to that. I suspect there may be some business people. They may be dual nationals who have chosen to register and wish to maintain a steady information flow from the embassy about conditions or issues affecting them with respect to their Canadian nationality.
Senator Downe: Is there any thought to closing our operation since we have reduced our business dramatically? We have a small number of Canadians there. I am not sure what they would be doing since we cannot do any more business on most of the files. Will we wrap up our embassy activities?
Ms. Martin: We have not been undertaking trade promotion activities for quite a number of years now as a part of the Controlled Engagement Policy, which was last revised in 2007 but which existed before that date. The remaining Canadians are there to provide consular and immigration services as required and to do political reporting on the activities in the regime. In comparison to many of our embassies, it is a small and compact operation. We are not considering closing it.
Senator Downe: I am sure it is small and compact because there does not seem to be a wide range of activity. I am just wondering why we would not have another country take on the services required, which would send a message to the Iranian government about our displeasure over human rights and the way they are treating their citizens.
Ms. Martin: It would send a message of displeasure, but it would also cut off an avenue for communicating our concerns directly to the Iranian government. It would also cut off an avenue to a better understanding of what in fact is happening inside Iran, what political dynamic is occurring as we approach the elections, what the situation of the economy is and what the situation of human rights is. If you do not have people on the ground, you rely on second- hand information.
Senator Downe: I do not want to belabour this point, but I am not sure what information our officials could get that they could not otherwise obtain. As your presentation indicated, it is a dictatorship, with incredible suppression of the population. No one will come forward to Canadian officials stating their views because I assume Canadian officials would be followed. Anyone going into the embassy would likely be arrested on the way out. I am not sure what they are getting on the ground, if anything, that they could not get from other sources.
Ms. Martin: Our embassy officials are actually extremely effective in engaging sometimes with regime officials, sometimes with academics, sometimes with others involved in other activities within Iran and in providing to us a perspective that we, frankly, would not get if our source was strictly the media reporting through those sorts of channels. They are effective at doing it. They are a very small number, but they do it quite well.
Senator Downe: If your presentation today reflects the opinion of the embassy, I do not see anything new in here that I have not read in TIME Magazine, quite frankly. Maybe you are not sharing that with us; maybe you are keeping it internal. I do not see anything unique from having people on the ground that we would not know from a host of other sources, versus sending a message to the Iranian government.
I am interested in sanctions. In the brief time we have been made aware that we would be studying our relations with Iran, I have been looking at sanctions. One thing I have noticed is that almost within 24 hours of the United States imposing sanctions, we imposed the same sanctions. What unique sanctions has Canada imposed?
Ms. Martin: Canada had, in fact, been looking at expanding our sanctions in advance of the November IAEA report. We had indications that the report was going to be fairly significant with respect to Iran's situation. We then looked at how we would be able to take a next step because our unilateral sanctions had already been quite extensive.
We agreed with the U.K, as well as with the United States, to make our announcement of additional sanctions on the same day, November 21, so there was coordination behind the scenes in doing that. At that time, the U.S. sanctions were based on a financial act in the United States. I cannot offer the exact name right now. The U.S. Congress then adopted legislation that applied to all financial transactions with Iran. It had extraterritorial application. They imposed that in December, which was after the November decision.
Canada does not use our laws for extraterritorial application, so that is one very significant difference between our sanctions and the American sanctions. There is tremendous similarity in the affect of the U.S., U.K. and Canadian sanctions.
Senator Downe: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Good morning and thank you Ms. Martin and Mr. Sinclair for appearing before our committee. You gave us a lot of insight into what is happening with Iran.
Last Friday, Dmitry Rogozin, deputy prime minister and Russia's special envoy to NATO on anti-missile defence, said in Brussels that any conflict involving Iran would be a direct threat to Russia's security. After four years as the Russian ambassador to the alliance, he made the following statement at a press conference:
Should anything happen to Iran, should Iran get drawn into any political or military hardships, this will be a direct threat to our national security.
At the same time, the former Russian representative to NATO insisted that every country, including Iran, was entitled to have everything it needed to ensure its own comfort and security.
Recently, the Russian general Leonid Ivashov said that an attack against Iran would be an indirect attack against Russia.
What do you think of Russia's position on this issue? Do you think it would intervene if Iran ever came under attack?
[English]
Mr. Sinclair: Thank you very much.
Of course, there is a lot of posturing that goes on, and a lot of people will say a lot of things about the potential for conflict in the Middle East, of which Iran might be at the centre. We have heard a lot in recent days about Israel and the United States, and the Russians have their point of view as well.
There are Russians who live and work in Iran. Russia and Iran have a long, detailed and close history, but I cannot conceive of how hostilities involving Iran — heaven forbid there are any — can be conceived as an indirect attack on Russia any more than it would be an indirect attack on any other country.
I think the Russians have shown their clear position with respect to Syria in recent days, and Syria and Iran have a natural access, as Ms. Martin has described. Therefore, the Russians would indeed have a clear interest on what happens on their southern perimeter. However, to suggest that this would be in any way an attack on Russia is rather far-fetched.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: These three statements warning against any attack on Iran were made at about the same time — I do not know if they were aimed at deterring Israel or other countries from attacking Iran — and they seem pretty strange to me. Ms. Martin, what is your opinion on the issue?
[English]
Ms. Martin: There are many individual opinions in the international domain, particularly with respect to the situation of Iran and what could or could not happen as we go forward. They do not necessarily represent the actual views of the governments in question, so it is possible that there are some who believe that. Does the Russian government necessarily believe that? I think that is the question that one would need to address. There are many individuals offering views on the current situation. The media is very energetic about picking up the various views. They add to the debate and to the speculation. They can create confusion as well.
Senator D. Smith: I have had friends from Iran for well over 40 years, going back to the Shah days, good friends; in recent years, Canadians who are involved in the Iranian Democratic Association here in Canada. There are hundreds of them. I have followed them closely and am quite familiar with the initiatives Canada has taken in terms of sanctions, of which I am totally supportive; and on the human rights issue. Before leaving that, I hope that the EU does get tough and tries to put some muscle into this. The human rights groups basically want to see two things: human rights recognized and some inroads on democracy.
One of the inspiring things that I have done on several occasions is with respect to a huge annual rally of expatriate Iranians who want to see democracy and human rights recognized. I have been there when there have been over 70,000. It is enough to make you cry when you hear some of the stories. We did hear stories from members of the Senate a couple of days ago. I am totally supportive of the points that they were making.
You are probably familiar with the National Council of Resistance of Iran and the PMOI, the People's Mujahideen Organization of Iran. If you go back to Iran and Iraq about 30 years ago, when they were at war, Iranian prisoners were being held in Camp Ashraf and Iraq. That is another story; I will not go down that road because there are still about 2,000 or 3,000 of them there. The Americans are still there, but when they leave, that will be quite an issue; there is no doubt about that. While things happened there back in the eighties, the PMOI, for reasons beyond me, is still on Canada's terrorist list. I have never heard of anyone talk about anything like that.
When you are there, there are all sorts of lords and British MPs, and some of the legislators are champions of this. Lots of French members of Parliament, lots of German ones and this past year quite a few from the U.S. Congress were there. In the U.K., there were three different court rulings. The end of result of those was that they took them off their list of terrorists. That was four years ago. In the EU, there have been four court rulings and they were taken off there, which was three years ago. I know you are not directly responsible. However, it is a mystery that the people who are fighting for human rights and democracy, that organization, are still on that list in Canada. Can you give any explanation to that rationality? There is something cuckoo here.
Ms. Martin: The Minister of Public Safety is responsible for the listing of terrorist groups in Canada. I would hesitate to comment on the process other than to say that it is very thorough. They do review the listings every so many years, and those are the opportunities to take into account any changes in behaviour.
You made mention of Camp Ashraf. The people who reside in the camp are members of an organization called the MEK, which is a listed organization in Canada that had been involved in terrorist activities some time ago. Canada has been actively encouraging a peaceful transition of that camp. The Iraqi government, by its own constitution, does not wish to have a camp housing an organization that it considers a terrorist organization. There is a transition process under way to move the residents to another camp inside Iraq in order to prepare for their relocation to other countries. The UN High Commission for Refugees is involved in trying to facilitate that process.
Senator D. Smith: I am familiar with the Camp Ashraf story. It is a real problem and we will probably be hearing more about that. I would ask you to ask your colleagues in the other department to read those European and British court rulings. If you read them, I do not think there is any other logical conclusion to come to as to what the EU and British courts did. I can tell you that a lot of Iranians in Canada here, who are fighting for democracy and human rights, are really offended by the fact that it is still there. Last year, the U.S. Congress representatives were there in full force. With respect to Canada, I have gone with members of the house on both sides. I hope you will give that sermon to those people.
The Chair: Senator Smith, if you wish an answer to that, we can either call members from that ministry or send them a letter to reply to the question.
Senator D. Smith: I am happy to have it done by letter, but I would appreciate it if that could be done.
The Chair: We will do that. I am sure the comments will go informally from Foreign Affairs to the safety ministry.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Before asking my first question, I would like to make a short comment about Ambassador Rogozin. You are quite right. I am not saying we should not take his statement seriously, but the fact remains he is Putin's mouthpiece. When we need a more nuanced opinion on the Russian government, the department of Foreign Affairs is usually much more adequate and precise in its analyses. Nevertheless, Ambassador Rogozin is a very important player, and in NATO circles, the statement he made is taken seriously, but we know this is the prime minister talking and not him.
First of all, I think Canadians can be proud that their government is showing leadership in this matter, taking a firm and important stand. That being said, it is all very well to show leadership, but before doing so, you must have weighed the possible consequences of this escalation. What are those consequences? What do you see happening? What could be the consequences of the position taken by Canada concerning sanctions?
[English]
Ms. Martin: That is a good question indeed. Yes, we do look at the consequences of the various actions that we take from a range of points of views: Will the action we take be effective? Will it potentially put at risk other interests that Canada may have?
The judgment that was taken was clearly that whatever risks there may be to other Canadian interests, the far greater foreign policy objective was to get Iran to change its behaviour. The consequences of Iran not changing its behaviour outweigh any other consequence in that realm. This is why Canada fully implemented the UN sanctions and why we have adopted unilateral sanctions. It has had an impact on our trade, albeit a smaller one, perhaps, than in other countries. However, our trade has fallen off to a negligible amount. Even 100 million is negligible in trade compared to where it had been.
There are consequences for us, but the view was that the consequence of not taking action would have been far greater.
Clearly, Canada's implementation of the sanctions alone does not have an impact on Iran's behaviour. However, it is when we take that action in concert with allies and then encourage more and more allies to tighten their sanctions on Iran as well that it starts to have effect.
Mr. Sinclair made reference to the experience in South Africa, where Canada was a leader in imposing sanctions, bringing more and more countries into it and eventually having an effect on the behaviour of that country, leading to significant and welcome change.
With Iran, we can only hope that at this stage, with the EU, particularly, and the U.S. constraining their relations with Iran to an extent that it will have a significant impact on their economy, that this will create the pressure that will cause Iran to change its behaviour.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: That leads to my second question. Concerning this change of behaviour, I would like to know what kind of signal, coming from the Iranian regime, could trigger the Government of Canada to ease the pressure.
Let us call a spade a spade: the decisions we make, combined with those of our international partners, are a form of provocation and lead to an escalation.
What kind of change would incite Canada to reduce the pressure?
You talked about three dimensions: human rights, regional security and nuclear security.
Concerning nuclear security, some witnesses we heard from yesterday had conflicting views about the international agency's report. I speculated as to whether the change in leadership at the agency could have influenced the tone of the report. There have not been many changes since the time ElBaradei was in charge. Could the change in leadership have influenced the content of the report?
Mr. Sinclair seems to be an expert on everything that has to do with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and I want to invite him to take part in the discussion.
Concerning regional security, I would like to know what would be the signals that might trigger an easing of pressure. The third dimension is human rights, and I would like to know whether that is our core position.
[English]
Ms. Martin: I will start because I think my answer will be shorter, and Mr. Sinclair will have a lot more to say on that.
It will be shorter because the nuclear threat that Iran poses is the greatest concern that we have with respect to Iran. Regional security dynamics are closely behind, but they are integrated with that nuclear threat. We are concerned about the threat that that poses for Israel, for other countries in the region and for international security, broadly speaking. It is a threat to Canada as well. The regional dimension is integrated with that.
The human rights dimension is a profound concern, and we will continue to press. However, the sign of change will come in the readiness of Iran to engage transparently with the international community on what its nuclear activities are.
Mr. Sinclair: On the IAEA, I suppose every director general has his way of operating. There is probably a tone set by the CEO of the organization, and I think that is natural and inevitable. However, in one sense, it only matters what the IAEA, under its current director general, has said. In November, they said that the agency has very serious concerns about the possible military dimension of Iran's nuclear program, and they went on to justify why they believe that to be the case.
In answer to the first part of your question, I think the UN Security Council resolutions have demanded that Iran stop enrichment. That would be one sign. Another would be that they engage with the P5-plus-1 process, and a third would be that they answer the questions that the IAEA has put to the Iranian authorities with respect to their possible military activities to clarify for all of us that indeed these are — as they claim — peaceful activities.
Those are some of the signs, questions and obligations that have been put upon Iran by the international community.
Senator Johnson: Thank you, Ms. Martin and Mr. Sinclair. My colleagues have covered many of the issues.
I wanted to bring up the fact that our House Committee on Human Rights, in December 2010, came out with a report and 24 recommendations with regard to human rights in Iran. One of key ones was listing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, IRGC, as a listed entity for its role in supporting terrorist organizations in accordance with Canadian law. We also heard from witnesses yesterday speaking of more intense sanctions. Canada could, they said, designate the Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity because it is a measure that could be taken unilaterally and would have a real impact on the ability of the IRGC to finance and train terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and al Qaeda to torture and murder its citizens and to participate in business activities that financially benefit the regime.
Could I have your comments on that, please?
Ms. Martin: Members of the IRGC are indeed listed within the Canadian sanctions regime. Key senior officials, those who have had involvement in the nuclear program, are there.
In addition, we have listed specific branches of the Revolutionary Guard, including the air force, which has the Air Force Missile Command, the logistics and procurement unit, missile command, the navy, and the Quds Force. We have considered carefully whether to list the Revolutionary Guard itself, and at this stage we have felt that this could unfairly target those who are conscripted into the Revolutionary Guard. Not everyone who is a part of it is, in fact, directly associated with repression or with Iran's nuclear activities. It is not a voluntary force; there are those who are conscripted into it. That is why we have differentiated and not listed the guard in its entirety.
Senator Johnson: Do you have anything to add, Mr. Sinclair?
Mr. Sinclair: No.
Senator Johnson: You have acted on the House of Commons committee recommendation to a certain extent already, then?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Senator Johnson: Professor Jones said yesterday that he was just in Israel and he sensed at the meetings that he attended that there was a measure of a cooling off being suggested by all around the table in terms of Iran, and I guess not just sanctions but generally. Do you have anything to add to that, from your perspective and from your work or knowledge?
Ms. Martin: Regarding Professor Jones' assessment, I am not sure whether I would call it a cooling off, but I think there have been voices that have suggested that there should be some sort of military action with respect to Iran. However, most recently, someone in President Netanyahu's office provided a statement to the press to suggest that he has asked all of his senior government officials to stop talking about it. A leak like that from the president's office is not accidental, so there is a signal that perhaps the rhetoric was getting ahead of the policy.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: What can you tell us about the behaviour of China concerning the sanctions? Do they still import oil from Iran? What role do they play in this situation?
[English]
Ms. Martin: China is an important trading partner with Iran, and it has an extensive relationship. However, while it has not implemented the UN sanctions per se, there has been a decrease in its trading activity with Iran. That is important and it is also welcome. I think many of us internationally are encouraging China to do more and would welcome it doing more. It is an important player. However, the fact that it has taken these steps is an important signal in its own right.
Senator Robichaud: Are we putting any pressure on the Chinese government to see things our way? We have a delegation led by the Prime Minister in China right now.
Ms. Martin: I do not have reports on what is to be discussed by the Prime Minister while he is in China; we will be finding out in coming days. Certainly, we have engaged with our embassy in Beijing to ask them to express our views and to encourage China, among others. We contacted quite a number of our embassies to have dialogue with their countries of representation in order to encourage them to join in implementing unilateral sanctions against Iran.
Senator Robichaud: In a follow-up to Senator Finley's question about sanction busting, if I can get what I want from countries that have put sanctions in place, can I get it from China?
Ms. Martin: There is always the potential for the back door and for the leak. What is currently happening now, though, with the pressures that are being put on Iran through the EU, U.S., Canadian and other sanctions, is starting to create a critical mass so that it is having an impact. If Iran is unable to sell its oil to the Europeans, it will seek to find other markets for its oil. In order to do that, it will probably have to offer discounted prices. That will have an impact on its oil revenues. Work is under way through diplomatic channels to try to persuade those countries that would purchase that Iranian oil to not purchase it but, instead, to purchase other oil.
Senator Robichaud: Who would those countries be that would purchase the oil?
Ms. Martin: What I can say is that among Iran's oil clients — India, China and a number of other countries in Asia are among its key export destinations — it is a fairly broad range of countries that we would engage in conversations with.
Iran has the world's fourth largest oil reserves and the world's second largest gas reserves. Trying to stem those supplies in the international market is extremely difficult and puts tremendous pressure on our oil producers to compensate for those supplies. It will have an impact on global markets and on global prices as well. As this unfolds, one would wish to see it unfold in a fairly measured way so that it does not create economic disruptions at a time when the world could least afford it, in light of the economic conditions in Europe in the United States and in many other countries. It is a delicate process.
Senator Robichaud: You say we would "engage." That means that we have not yet engaged those countries that might continue to buy the oil because it could upset the whole world trade?
Ms. Martin: We are engaging. However, there is the question of engaging with suppliers as much as consumers, in order to ensure that the supply that would not be available from Iran is compensated by other producers.
The Chair: I have one follow-up question. Mr. Amano has taken over as director general. Yesterday, one of the witnesses indicated that the tone of the reports coming in from the International Atomic Energy Agency is different, as is the whole process. In looking at the background of Mr. Amano, he has been in the nuclear field a long time. He was with the atomic agency throughout. Do you discern that there has been such a dramatic change, or is the result of their investigations in November the dramatic change?
Mr. Sinclair: I think it is the latter. As I say, Mr. Amano and Mr. ElBaradei are very different individuals and they have different personal styles, as one would expect of any two individuals; I think that is uncontestable.
I guess the question you are asking is whether the IAEA have issued a similar kind of report had there not been a change at the top. I do not know that one can answer that. I am not sure.
I do agree with the latter part of your question, which was a statement that the issues have come to such a boil and to such a head, and with some of the information with respect to recent Iranian activities with respect to enrichment. The continuation of enrichment activities, despite six UN Security Council resolutions, all of this, brought the situation to a head whereby the agency, in my view, could only be expected to issue a report of the depth of the information and the tone that it did. I do not think it is unexpected at all. However, that is not to say that there is not a difference in style between Mr. Amano and ElBaradei. Indeed, anyone who has seen them both at work I think would agree that they are quite different individuals.
The Chair: We certainly have time left to complete one person on the second round of questioning.
Senator Finley: Thank you very much for your observations. I am a little concerned; maybe I am just a nervous ally. You have talked about previous sanctions, South Africa, for example. I am not sure they are really in the same category as this. To go back to my analogy about a trapped cobra with a bunch of toothless mongooses poking at it with sharp sticks, we have a unique situation here where the direct existence of neighbouring countries, such as Israel, is at serious risk.
There are at least 30 countries that support Iran. They certainly voted against — did not even abstain but voted against — the UN resolution. I am concerned that as this thing develops and Iran remains as truculent or as bellicose as it is, some of the supporters of the early 1980s viewpoint that perhaps Iran should be reduced to a glowing disc — you will remember that phrase being used to describe Iran before — may take hold.
Is there anything that you or others in the world who are endeavoring to broker an honest arrangement here have suggested or are suggesting that has not been tried? Is there a way to further cut Iran off from the rest of the world? I notice we are still playing soccer against them, for example, or allowing their boxers into the ring, or whatever. Are there broader sanctions or steps that can be taken? Is there anything that we can do to avoid the horror? Every day that passes, more and more people — as we described this week — are losing basic human rights or getting tortured. There surely must be one more step that we can take. Do you have any comments on that?
Ms. Martin: I find your allusion to the cobra and the mongoose rather interesting. You called the mongoose toothless, but the mongoose is actually smart. The cobra, apparently, does not have bifocal vision. The mongoose, when it sits in front of a cobra, starts going like this.
Senator Finley: I have to watch my analogies.
Ms. Martin: The mongoose moves with the cobra because the cobra is still trying to focus on the mongoose. Then the mongoose goes in and gets the cobra by the neck, so the mongoose wins. Perhaps it is a wonderful analogy for the patience that we need with Iran to try to get it to change its behaviour.
When you say that 30 states voted against the Iran resolution, chances are they are doing so because they do not want a similar resolution against themselves; it is more of a position of principle about not wanting international condemnation of human rights in their countries.
When you ask whether there is anything more we can be doing, like cutting off sports engagements, I think about Iranian students and the important role that hosting them plays in trying to create change of perceptions within Iran. You have a vehicle for educating people in what true democracy and real respect for human rights means and in how Western states and other states around the world function. The students become the base for future change in a country like Iran. However, those measures do take time and patience.
Mr. Sinclair: I cannot add to the mongoose analogy.
Senator Finley: I will seek a different metaphor next time.
Senator Nolin: The real question is: Do you think they are really toothless?
Ms. Martin: Are sanctions toothless, or are sanctions something that actually can have an effect over time? Time will tell. I hope they prove that they are equally as smart as the mongoose and that they are able to cause Iran to change.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: If Iran managed to build a nuclear weapon, one, do you think they would also have the capacity to deploy it and, two, do you think they would be suicidal enough to use it? It would mean the total destruction of other countries.
Personally, I do not think they would be suicidal enough to use it, but what is your opinion on the matter?
[English]
Ms. Martin: I would hope that your assessment is right. We have seen states seeking to acquire nuclear weapons to use them as a deterrent. However, we have seen occasions in the past where state rhetoric has reached a particularly volatile point that has raised serious concerns about whether states would use it. I am thinking of 2003, when the rhetoric between India and Pakistan reached an all-time high that made everyone nervous. We drew down our embassies to essential staff and advised against people travelling to either of those countries at that time.
I do think there are tremendous risks, notwithstanding the abhorrent consequences of those weapons.
Mr. Sinclair is the expert on whether they could do it.
Mr. Sinclair: At the same time as we believe Iran is actively working to develop a nuclear device, they are actively improving their missile capacity. You put these two together, and it more than doubles your worry; it is exponential. They have demonstrated that they can develop missile technology with a range that could cover Israel, for example, and most of Europe. It is no accident that NATO, in its response to the Iranian missile threat, is constructing a very expensive missile defence system to protect European territory from the horrific possibility of an Iranian missile attack. You take your defensive measures far in advance of the anticipated offensive capacity of a potential adversary. NATO is determined to build this missile defence system, which is directed at Iran's activities.
Will they have the capacity to use a nuclear device? There are a number of variables, of course. They actually have to produce a nuclear weapon, miniaturize it, fit it onto a missile and develop their missile technology. Since they are beavering away on those particular problems and issues, one has to take into account the horrific potential that the answer to your question could be yes, they could develop the capacity. They do not have it yet, fortunately, but they have shown no indication of reversing their behaviour. That is where we are today.
Senator Nolin: They know that missile testing anywhere will be noticed by all the various agencies that are responsible for detecting it. The vecteur is key to your assumption, then.
Ms. Martin: Iran tested missiles in December.
Senator Nolin: We know that, but the kind of missile that would reach Israel is the key. Imagine even further, so medium range.
Mr. Sinclair: They have a very active missile development program.
Senator Nolin: We know.
Senator Robichaud: However, they would have to be nationally suicidal to go that way. You are speaking about NATO preparing their defences. I do not think they would just stand by and watch the rockets go by — this one is going to England; that one to France. They could probably shoot them down, but they could also retaliate.
Senator Finley: It does not take a whole nation to be suicidal, just a few of them.
Senator Robichaud: I know, but still, after a while, reason prevails. A witness yesterday said that Canada could work with the opposition to provide them with means of communications so that they could communicate with the people to inform them. Is there a way of doing that?
Ms. Martin: If I understand the question, you are asking is there a way of ensuring that the people have access to open communications internationally.
The Chair: No, I think the question that was put by a witness was that if we are interested in reaching quarters of Iran that could be reasoned with as opposed to some current leadership now that may not be as rational, working with the opposition may be the way to go. "Working with the opposition" means to give them the information, the tools, on how to gain power and on how to work effectively toward gaining some influence within their country. I am summarizing. They said a lot more than that.
Ms. Martin: I think we would dearly like to be able to help the opposition in all those ways. The green movement, which had emerged at the time of the 2009 revolution, has been fairly severely repressed and it is not as active as it once was. Of course, any time you engage with the opposition inside Iran, you automatically make those individuals targets for the regime. It is a difficult thing to do at this time. We are looking at how we could, however. In terms of your investigations, if you learn of ways and means of doing it that do not put individuals at risk; we would be very interested in learning about that.
The Chair: Thank you. Deterrence has been often the way we go in defence policies. We want to be in a position to encourage people from their negative behaviour before they have the capacity to act on that negative behaviour. That is why I asked the first question. Are we saying the best impact or the only impact, if it is desperation, is sanctions? There is no engagement otherwise with the Iranian regime that would produce a positive result, so we rely on the atomic energy agency and on sanctions, but there is no lever of persuasion elsewhere.
Ms. Martin: The P5-plus-1 group was created and basically given a mandate by the international community to take that forward. They have been pursuing the two-track approach, sanctions being just one. They have kept on the table their readiness to sit down and talk with the Iranians directly about their nuclear activities. There have not been talks recently, but there is talk of having them in the future. Will the Iranians actually come to the table ready to talk about the nuclear program would remain to be seen. That is where the pressure of the sanctions may make the Iranians more willing to sit down and engage in that dialogue.
The P5-plus-1 includes China and Russia, which are very important players in terms of engaging in a frank dialogue with the Iranians.
The Chair: Ms. Martin and Mr. Sinclair, thank you for appearing on short notice and continuing our dialogue that we began yesterday on the Canadian position. Certainly from the questions, you can tell that we are reflecting on all possible issues that should concern our government in persuading Iran or at least encouraging Iran from the behaviour that it is engaged in, both on the human rights aspect and also on the nuclear file. Thank you, with all of your assistants behind you, for appearing this morning.
Senators, we are adjourning early. As you know, our meetings generally go to 12:30. However, since there are new rules, we try to end a little earlier so you do get lunch on your own. Thank you for cooperating.
(The committee adjourned.)