Prime Minister Harper and the Security Review
Exactly what are Canadian security concerns in the current complex and uncertain international environment? A review now is timely.
Prime Minister Harper has announced a strategic review of Canadian security policies. Any discussions of Canadian security requirements will face a common starting point. The Government of Canada’s absolute priorities must be the safety, security and sovereignty of Canada, but we live at all times in the shadow of a superpower which is also our major trading partner. While this relationship with the USA used to provide stability, it can now be problematic, given the American focus on border security and terrorism.
The factors required in such a review will be extensive. The threats to Canada (and its allies) are extensive. At the top of the list, in order, are the effects of transnational organized crime and transnational terrorism. Behind those lie a number of other issues such a cyber crime and cyber attacks, supply chain security, human smuggling, drugs, pandemics and the effects of natural disasters. Canada also faces various pressures (domestic and foreign) to change its values in ways that are not consistent with the Charter or with Canadian traditional values. Resisting these will be a security issue.
This may be a good opportunity to dispel some myths about security issues as well. All too often we are told that “security” issues must be a trade off against “human rights” issues. It should be understood that in a civil society which must exist in a complex world, there is no issue about tradeoffs. Security and human rights are pre-conditions for each other. A state with no security will have no human rights. A state without transparency and human rights will not have security.
Another reality is money. National security costs can rapidly become a sink hole if the government is constantly trying to respond to every threat (perceived or real). Costs will be a reality as the world works its way through the effects of the recent recession.
Two excellent options exist that could be considered by the government to maintain or cut costs. Both are overdue for a review.
The first cost effective option would be to have a greater focus on open source intelligence (OSINT). This often overlooked sub-discipline of the intelligence world is inexpensive, rapid, legal, ethical, and can be used in court. OSINT does not just mean having Google on your desktop, as Google provides access to approximately 5% of the material that is on the Internet. Additionally, there are extensive collections of information available to the government (and others) that are not on the Internet. OSINT can and has been used internationally to drive drug interdiction operations at the tactical level or to increase the effectiveness of container screening. Domestically, it has been effectively used in terrorism investigations and in court. OSINT will be resisted by many intelligence agencies because it lacks the “cool factor” of classified intelligence and – perhaps more importantly – because it exposes the numerous gaps in classified intelligence collection capabilities. However, it is a viable and cost effective option. Given that Canada lacks a foreign intelligence collection agency, this is one area where OSINT may provide the Canadian government its best options.
Another low cost, but effective, option would be the creation of a small cell (less than ten people) to support a “Country Risk Officer.” Akin to a risk officer in a major corporation, this office would be responsible for assessing risk and mitigation to national level infrastructure and to national interests. Currently, the government is often exposed to a veritable “laundry list” of potential threats, but the list of threats does not include such concepts as “probability” or “mitigation.” Without a sense of priorities, the government often finds itself spending money on a number of issues, without a sense of whether the money is being well spent. A country risk officer could provide this input.
Security and intelligence agencies are resistant to change. However, most of our current agencies and methodologies were created during the Cold War. It is time for both the review and for substantive change.
The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not reflect the views of Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.
