The Global Navy/Coast Guard Relationship: a Mandate-Based Typology

  • 949 views
Uploaded on

Guest lecture for undergraduate class in contemporary maritime security.

Guest lecture for undergraduate class in contemporary maritime security.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
949
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. THE GLOBAL NAVY/COAST GUARD RELATIONSHIP A MANDATE-BASED T YPOLOGY 5 APRIL 2010 MATTHEW GILLIS MA CANDIDATE, POLITICAL SCIENCE, DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH ASSISTANT, CENTRE FOR FOREIGN POLICY STUDIES
  • 2. OBJECTIVES  TO DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR A TYPOLOGY OF NAVY/COAST GUARD RELATIONSHIPS.  TO ESTABLISH A TYPOLOGY OF NAVY/COAST GUARD RELATIONSHIPS WORLD-WIDE.  TO OFFER POLICY OPTIONS FOR NAVY/COAST GUARD REFORM IN CANADA AS THEY ARE PRODUCED BY THIS TYPOLOGY.THE GLOBAL NAVY/COAST GUARD RELATIONSHIP J.M. GILLISA MANDATE-BASED T YPOLOGY 5 APRIL 2010
  • 3. 1. WHY A T YPOLOGY?  THE [RE]EMERGING NEED FOR A PRESENCE IN CANADA‟S „THIRD OCEAN.‟ “...the Canadian Forces must have the capacity to exercise control over and defend Canada‟s sovereignty in the Arctic. New opportunities are emerging across the region, bringing with them new challenges. As activity in northern lands and waters accelerates, the military will play an increasingly vital role in demonstrating a visible Canadian presence in this potentially resource-rich region...” Canada First Defence Strategy, 8, emphasis addedTHE GLOBAL NAVY/COAST GUARD RELATIONSHIP J.M. GILLISA MANDATE-BASED T YPOLOGY 5 APRIL 2010
  • 4. 1. WHY A T YPOLOGY?  PROBLEM: THE CANADIAN FORCES HAVE THE MANDATE FOR SECURITY AND DEFENCE IN INTERNAL/TERRITORIAL CANADIAN WATERS, BUT LACK THE EXPERIENCE OR EQUIPMENT NECESSARY FOR A SUSTAINED ARCTIC PRESENCE.THE GLOBAL NAVY/COAST GUARD RELATIONSHIP J.M. GILLISA MANDATE-BASED T YPOLOGY 5 APRIL 2010
  • 5. 1. WHY A T YPOLOGY?THE GLOBAL NAVY/COAST GUARD RELATIONSHIP J.M. GILLISA MANDATE-BASED T YPOLOGY 5 APRIL 2010
  • 6. 1. WHY A T YPOLOGY?  THE CANADIAN COAST GUARD (CCG) HAS THE EXPERIENCE AND THE EQUIPMENT... “It is the CCG that annually sends its most capable units into the high Arctic, including Canadas largest icebreaker, CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent. Each summer, up to eight CCG icebreakers provide not only scientific research platforms, search-and-rescue capability, pollution response capacity, support for commercial shipping engaged in the annual „sealift,‟ and occasionally „platform‟ support for the RCMP and Armed Forces, but the big red and white hulls are also the main element in Canadas sovereignty presence in these waters...” Former deputy commissioner of CCG Michael Turner, “Guarding Canadas northern coast,” Ottawa Citizen, 13 July 2007. ...BUT NOT THE MANDATE.THE GLOBAL NAVY/COAST GUARD RELATIONSHIP J.M. GILLISA MANDATE-BASED T YPOLOGY 5 APRIL 2010
  • 7. 1. WHY A T YPOLOGY?  SO WHY NOT AN ENFORCEMENT MANDATE FOR THE CCG? “A fairly widespread belief exists that the Canadian Coast Guard should undertake all the domestic maritime security roles in a similar manner to the US Coast Guard. This is more easily said than done. The US Coast Guard is very different from the Canadian Coast Guard in being a paramilitary (non-unionized) force with a broad maritime enforcement mandate that draws in responsibilities that in Canada are shared between several government departments. Although such a change could be authorized with the stroke of a pen, making the related operational transformation would be costly and time consuming. Moreover, one has to ask if the coast guard people would be prepared to work on a basis of continual (24/7) availability or accept far broader responsibilities with the associated personal risk – the unlimited liability criteria under which the military serves. Does the present coast guard structure include people to maintain and operate such things as complex electronic systems, weapons and helicopters? Can an existing coast guard ship muster and land an armed force, albeit limited in capability, to provide a government presence ashore in a remote area in the face of a crisis? Could the Canadian Coast Guard undertake the essential data management task presently done by the navy?” Commander (Ret‟d) Peter Haydon, “Do We Really Need a Canadian Navy?”, Canadian Naval Review 5:3.THE GLOBAL NAVY/COAST GUARD RELATIONSHIP J.M. GILLISA MANDATE-BASED T YPOLOGY 5 APRIL 2010
  • 8. 2. BUILDING A T YPOLOGY  THE UNITED STATES IS NOT THE ONLY OTHER NATION WITH A COAST GUARD.  OF THE APPROXIMATELY 150 NATIONS WITH A COASTLINE, 72 HAVE COAST GUARDS.  SO, HOW IS EVERYONE ELSE RUNNING BUSINESS?THE GLOBAL NAVY/COAST GUARD RELATIONSHIP J.M. GILLISA MANDATE-BASED T YPOLOGY 5 APRIL 2010
  • 9. 2. BUILDING A T YPOLOGY  GENERATING SOME OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN COAST GUARDS AND NAVIES... 1. MANY NATIONS, INCLUDING CANADA AND THE U.S., HAVE BOTH A COAST GUARD AND A NAVY. 2. SOME NATIONS, LIKE MEXICO AND DENMARK, HAVE NO COAST GUARD – ONLY A NAVY. 3. EVEN A FEW NATIONS, LIKE ICELAND AND JAMAICA, HAVE NO NAVY – ONLY A COAST GUARD.THE GLOBAL NAVY/COAST GUARD RELATIONSHIP J.M. GILLISA MANDATE-BASED T YPOLOGY 5 APRIL 2010
  • 10. 2. BUILDING A T YPOLOGY  GENERATING SOME OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE ENFORCEMENT MANDATES OF COAST GUARDS... 1. ONLY TWO NATIONS, CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM, HAVE CIVILIAN COAST GUARDS (I.E., NO ENFORCEMENT MANDATE). 2. MANY NATIONS (52) HAVE COAST GUARDS WITH A LIMITED PARAMILITARY ENFORCEMENT MANDATE. 3. SOME NATIONS, LIKE THE U.S., INDIA, AND EGYPT, EMPOWER THEIR COAST GUARDS WITH A MILITARY ENFORCEMENT MANDATE.THE GLOBAL NAVY/COAST GUARD RELATIONSHIP J.M. GILLISA MANDATE-BASED T YPOLOGY 5 APRIL 2010
  • 11. 2. BUILDING A T YPOLOGY  NAVY/COAST GUARD ARRANGEMENTS CAN BE CLASSIFIED UNDER TWO HEADINGS: Coast Guard Mandate Navy/Coast Guard Relationship Civilian Full Coast Guard Paramilitary Divided Responsibility Military Full MilitaryTHE GLOBAL NAVY/COAST GUARD RELATIONSHIP J.M. GILLISA MANDATE-BASED T YPOLOGY 5 APRIL 2010
  • 12. 2. BUILDING A T YPOLOGY Navy/Coast Guard Relationship Full Coast Guard Divided Responsibility Full Navy Civilian (0) Canada, United Kingdom (2) Algeria, Argentina, Australia*, Azerbaijan*, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria*, Djibouti*, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia*, Finland, France, Brazil, Brunei, Cambodia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Indonesia*, Iran*, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Coast Guard Mandate Ireland, Israel, Italy*, Ivory Coast*, Japan, Kenya*, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Paramilitary Lebanon*, Lithuania, Madagascar*, Malaysia, Gabon, Guatemala, Honduras, Burundi, Costa Rica, Mauritania*, Morocco*, Myanmar, Netherlands, Laos, Malawi, Mexico, Iceland, Mauritius, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, PRC, Philippines, Poland*, Montenegro, North Korea, Panama, Seychelles (6) Republic of Korea, Russia*, Saudi Arabia, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Singapore*, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Portugal, Romania, Senegal, Thailand, Tunisia*, Turkey, Ukraine*, United Arab Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Emirates, Yemen (52) Venezuela, Vietnam (27) * = no dedicated coast-guarding org. Military Cape Verde, Jamaica, Chile, Egypt, India, Kuwait, Norway, Peru, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago (3) United States, Uruguay (9)THE GLOBAL NAVY/COAST GUARD RELATIONSHIP J.M. GILLISA MANDATE-BASED T YPOLOGY 5 APRIL 2010
  • 13. 2. BUILDING A T YPOLOGY  THE CANADIAN ARRANGEMENT, AS A CIVILIAN/DIVIDED RESPONSIBILITY CASE, IS UNIQUE. Personnel Strength Active Naval Navy % Nav. Res. Nav. Res. Coast Guard CG % of Strength Strength of Active Strength % of Navy Strength Navy Canada 64,000 11,100 17.3 4,200 37.8 9,350 84.2 USA 1,498,157 341,588 22.8 128,293 37.6 40,500 11.9 Global 196,860 24,612 12.5 8,696 35.3 4,837 19.7 Average Less USA 178,531 20,148 11.3 6,702 33.3 4,026 20.0THE GLOBAL NAVY/COAST GUARD RELATIONSHIP J.M. GILLISA MANDATE-BASED T YPOLOGY 5 APRIL 2010
  • 14. 3. POLICY OPTIONS Navy/Coast Guard Relationship Full Coast Guard Divided Responsibility Full Navy Eliminate the Navy Civilian Status Quo Keep the Coast Guard as is Coast Guard Mandate Paramilitary Eliminate the Navy Keep the Navy as is Eliminate the Coast Guard Give Coast Guard Security Mandate Give the Coast Guard Security Mandate Assign coast-guarding duties to Navy Keep the Navy as is Eliminate the Navy Military Give the Coast Guard Military Mandate Give Coast Guard Military MandateTHE GLOBAL NAVY/COAST GUARD RELATIONSHIP J.M. GILLISA MANDATE-BASED T YPOLOGY 5 APRIL 2010
  • 15. 3. POLICY OPTIONS  EACH OPTION IMPLIES A VARIETY OF NEEDED REFORMS, COSTS, AND BENEFITS.  EXAMPLE: PARAMILITARY COAST GUARD / DIVIDED RESPONSIBILITY MODELTHE GLOBAL NAVY/COAST GUARD RELATIONSHIP J.M. GILLISA MANDATE-BASED T YPOLOGY 5 APRIL 2010
  • 16. 3. POLICY OPTIONS  PARAMILITARY COAST GUARD / DIVIDED RESPONSIBILITY:  NEEDED REFORMS  REVISIT EXISTING LEGISLATION, E.G. OCEANS ACT  PROVIDE CCG WITH NECESSARY TRAINING/ARMAMENTS.  RE-BALANCE NAVY‟S COMMITMENTS  COSTS  FINANCIAL COSTS  ADDED RISKS/RESPONSIBILITIES FOR CCG  BENEFITS  AMELIORATES THE MANDATE/EXPERIENCE DEFICIT IN THE ARCTIC.  NAVY‟S RETURN TO MORE TRADITIONAL HOMELAND DEFENCE/OVERSEAS DEPLOYMENTS?THE GLOBAL NAVY/COAST GUARD RELATIONSHIP J.M. GILLISA MANDATE-BASED T YPOLOGY 5 APRIL 2010
  • 17. WHICH OPTION FOR CANADA? Navy/Coast Guard Relationship Full Coast Guard Divided Responsibility Full Navy Eliminate the Navy Civilian Status Quo Keep the Coast Guard as is Coast Guard Mandate Paramilitary Eliminate the Navy Keep the Navy as is Eliminate the Coast Guard Give Coast Guard Security Mandate Give the Coast Guard Security Mandate Assign coast-guarding duties to Navy Keep the Navy as is Eliminate the Navy Military Give the Coast Guard Military Mandate Give Coast Guard Military Mandate QUESTIONS?THE GLOBAL NAVY/COAST GUARD RELATIONSHIP J.M. GILLISA MANDATE-BASED T YPOLOGY 5 APRIL 2010