Rob Oliphant, the parliamentary secretary to Canada’s foreign affairs minister, says the Russian invasion of Ukraine highlights a naiveté among western nations about the vulnerability of Ukraine. Oliphant touched on the invasion during a speech at the Arctic360 conference Friday in Toronto. (Photo by Madalyn Howitt)
Western countries were naïve to Ukraine’s vulnerability, says foreign affairs official
Parliamentary secretary addresses security at Arctic360 conference
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has highlighted a “naïveté” among Canada and many other nations and demonstrates the need for a strong defence of Canada and North America, says Rob Oliphant, the parliamentary secretary to the federal foreign affairs minister.
“My world has changed. Canada’s world has changed,” Oliphant said Friday during a speech to the Arctic360 conference taking place this week at the University of Toronto.
Wearing a paper business-card-size Ukrainian flag on his lapel, Oliphant said he intellectually knew of the vulnerability of Russia’s neighbours but it only hit home emotionally in the past two weeks.
Oliphant was a last-minute addition to the conference agenda, filling in for Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly, who had been tentatively scheduled to address delegates at the conference for governments, Indigenous organizations and the private sector to discuss Arctic activity.
But Joly has been in Europe this week, part of the Canadian government’s delegation meeting with other foreign leaders about their response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that began a little more than two weeks ago.
As evidence of Canada’s condemnation of Russia’s invasion, it joined the “pause” taken by members of the Arctic Council in future meetings of what Oliphant called the “pre-eminent forum for Arctic co-operation.”
Last May, Russia began a two-year term chairmanship of the international body, but the organization’s future is uncertain after Russia’s attack.
While the invasion has cast a shadow of the Arctic-focused conference, Oliphant said overall the Arctic is a “region of peace and stability.”
He gave the lunchtime audience of approximately 30 northern business leaders, government officials and diplomats an overview of Canada’s approach to dealing with other Arctic countries.
Oliphant touched on the federal government’s Arctic and Northern Policy and Framework, a document the Liberals adopted in 2019 as a 10-year plan for Canada’s international and security priorities as well as its domestic goals for the Arctic.
NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, is being “re-engaged and reimagined” and is “an important and ongoing” project, Oliphant said.
Last year, in the first meeting between newly elected U.S. president Joe Biden and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the two leaders agreed to upgrade the North Warning System, an early-warning radar system for the continent’s air defence.
Oliphant also touched on challenges associated with climate change, including impacts on ice and wildlife migration. But climate change also offers opportunities because as more waters become navigable, more investment will flow into the region, he said.
As Arctic states collaborate, they are engaging with Indigenous peoples, Oliphant said, noting that Inuit, Inuvialuit and Sami peoples are becoming “increasingly engaged in self-determination.”
Oliphant concluded by saying Canada and other Arctic nations’ strategies include engaging youth in the future of the region.
“We want more young people engaged, internationally,” he said.
When a Canadian parliamentarian talks about our naivete on the global stage what we are hearing, in part, is a confession (conscious or not) that Canada has not been that serious about international affairs for decades.
We aren’t alone, many western states have been cashing in on the peace dividend since the end of the Cold War; that is, the period when the United States was the uncontested global power. Safe knowing our neighbor had our back there has been little urgency to prepare for the possibility that the world might someday change.
What do we mean by change?
For years states under the umbrella of US protection have been free to enjoy a sort of perpetual peace, a western-liberal utopia, as close to a garden of Eden as we may ever get.
Of course, this era hasn’t been purely peaceful. It has been marked by low level conflict which we occasionally inject ourselves into if we decide it is our interests to do so, or not (compare Rwanda to the Balkans).
What shocks us now is that the western interests and power, long taken for granted and surely invincible, have been challenged by a reasonably powerful and nuclear armed adversary. Our vanquished foe.
In other words, the west is losing control of the “global order” (or to be specific, the order that serves western goals and interests).
At the onset of the Cold War the United States adopted a belief that the expansion of Communism anywhere in the world would act like a first domino, the collapse of even a tiny state would lead to the collapse of entire regions, and eventually the world (why else get involved in Vietnam or Korea?). We hear that concern surface again when people suggest the fall of Ukraine paves the way for the fall of Taiwan, the wildest imaginations even invoke Nunavut.
Canada has been misguided in its relationship with the Arctic and its jurisdiction is challenged by many countries including the US, in particular over the Northwest Passage. The vast majority of the Canadian population lives within 300 km of the southern border with the US and the Arctic has been largely ignored by Canadians and governments.
Meanwhile, the USSR and Russia were very active in the Arctic, establishing cities and using very sophisticated equipment like nuclear icebreakers. Canada is unable to protect effectively the North, counting only on its isolation and the US. So, if there is an open, nuclear conflict with Putin, the Arctic will be between the main adversaries and that’s where Ukraine comes to play.
A spark there may ignite the fuse of the third world war and our country would be extremely vulnerable in the face of a nuclear conflict with the new weapons in use today. Can we stop this madness? That’s the one million dollar question!
Fair analysis, Tulugak.
Before the Cold War Canada had always been a little ambivalent, even reluctant to interfere with let alone devote much to the development of the north. There was a consensus, briefly, that the north and the Inuit would be best off left alone. When the Americans entered the region to build their DEW line they shamed Canada into a more active role; which had previously been left to the exploits of the HBC and the Church.
As for capacity, you’re right, but it’s probably not fair to compare us with the 20th century Soviet Union, or any major power. We have never had the economic strength (which is not to say we could not have done better). Even though our landmass is huge our human capacity is much smaller than Russia, the US and now, China. Given this we have indeed relied on our relatively isolated geography and our proximity to a superpower to our south for our security, and this made sense.
With the NW Passage issue, it seems to me the US really doesn’t have any territorial aspirations for our land, they mainly want the freedom to transit these waters with the least friction possible; and without the possibility of any nuisance from Canada. Granted, I’m sure there is much more that could be said around that.
As for nuclear war, I think you are right to be concerned. It seems all the major wars in the 20th century erupted over smaller skirmishes at some relative periphery. It is possible for this to escalate into something larger. I don’t think it will, but if that proves right it will have to be admitted there was a measure of luck to the guess, more than any obvious inevitability.
Once in while a Canadian politician, even a Liberal, has a good idea. Rob Oliphant has a good one when he hints (only) at engaging youth in the defence of Canada’s North.
In the past, Canada’s Indigenous peoples made a huge contribution in Canada’s wars relative to their numbers.
It would be a real natural for Canada’s arctic and subarctic peoples to form an elite regiment for combat in winter and mountain conditions, like what the Finns had to beat back the Russians in the 1939-40 Winter War. It would also be a natural for Inuit and First Nations to build northern search and rescue capacity with home-grown and trained pilots, navigators and engineers.
Of course, any such ideas are ridiculous in the context of what the Rangers actually learn and do.