Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed an honour and a privilege to appear before the committee.

I will limit my comments to maybe three or four, and then we can get into the heart of this, the question and answer session.

There are three major observations that can be made about world politics today as it impinges on the United States and on Canada.

First, great power politics are back. This does not mean that the older issues, the more recent issues actually of economic considerations, environmental matters, the fight against terrorism, have been pushed aside. What we are seeing is that the great powers are beginning to grind against each other and sparks are flying. This is a quite different experience from what we've seen, really, since the end of the Cold War or perhaps, since the end of World War II.

Second, we are observing a situation in which conflict worldwide is really trifurcating. In the past there was a focus of conflict. During wartimes, such as during the Korean War, the Vietnam War, that was clear, but even in peace time it also tended to be clear.

Now we have three great conflict areas. One, of course, is along the littoral of Russia and involves Europe and indeed some Asian participation. The second area is the new and very serious challenge with ISIL in the Middle East, which is getting a great deal of attention and in some ways is a continuation of a very long conflict there. The third area is the confrontation between China and its neighbours in the South China and East China seas. This confrontation is something that none of us is directly involved in, but it affects all of us, especially in terms of transportation through those areas and in terms of our alliance relationships.

The third issue is that there is radical structural change going on in the system. In terms of our own research, we look at this in terms of the change of position states have on their cycles of relative power. For example, Japan has peaked in terms of its relative power and is entering clear decline. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1989 after the Cold War, and now Russia is attempting at the bottom of its cycle to climb up the cycle again.

The third possible major change will be when China, as it rises in its power cycle, goes through what we call a critical point of change, where the level of its power continues to increase but the rate of increase suddenly and abruptly begins to fall off. This will be a very difficult thing for China to cope with, to manage, for example, with regard to its relationship with Taiwan. Not only will China be affected by this, but the rest of us will. Canada will be affected. The United States will be affected in various ways, in terms of trying to manage the adjustments necessary to get us through these intervals.

These are big changes taking place in terms of world politics.

In terms of the bilateral relationship, there are many areas, I think, of convergence and coordination. Perhaps the largest difference that has some impact on the defence domain is in the area of oil.

In particular, of course, there's the issue of the Keystone pipeline. I think we will likely see some changes on this, because of changes in the participation of Congress after the mid-term elections. I think we're likely to see a vote that's in favour of the Keystone pipeline, but it's also possible that the President, who is very concerned about environmental matters in the long term and has just finished signing a very important agreement with China to try to stop increases in environmental pollution, particularly the impact on global warming by 2030.... The differences of view on the pipeline still exist, and the President could in fact veto what Congress decides to support.

Finally, I would conclude on the very important and I think very positive relationship regarding what is now dubbed maritime NORAD. I have been a long-term supporter of this; I argued for this before this terminology even came into place. I cannot say that I had any direct impact, but as a scholar I argued very vigorously for this, both in Canada and in the United States, and I'm delighted to see the movement in this direction.

We have, of course, a situation in which both governments are very actively involved in terms of the identification and the monitoring of movement of illicit traffic of some sort off our coastlines. This is all coordinated in I think a very effective way inside the larger framework of NORAD and NORTHCOM relations.

It is the case that the task of maritime NORAD is simply to report and to inform the governments in a timely way. The interdiction, then, is up to the individual head of government, the head of state, to act on, but in fact this is all coordinated in a way that I think is positive and essential. Indeed, there have been a number of alerts at this point.

I would simply conclude by noting that NORAD, which some thought was going to disappear as an institution of any significance, has suddenly become, once again, very much more important. How is that? Well, NORAD is oriented toward the so-called air-breathing threat. In the last year or so, Russia has sent some 400 sorties out against North American coastlines, but also against European interests and areas of defence concern. It is of course then up to us to scramble our own fighters and to respond to this. This is familiar territory for us. NORAD has the skill, the dedication, and the long-time experience in dealing with this and that is necessary to respond in a positive way.

If I could, I would just note a statement on the part of the individual who is responsible for the North American Aerospace Defense Command's maritime division, Captain Martin Beck. He put it this way: “We have the watch, and what we do is a no-fail mission.”

I don't think I could improve on that. I think we are in good hands. I now look forward to responding to questions.

Transcript

Discussions (0)