CBCN - Friday, May 24, 2024 - 12:00 a.m. (ET) - Segment #38

Let me sing all your problems away Get started for free on eharmony. Must be 18 or older to join. Get who gets you. eharmony. Did you know 80% of women struggle with hair damage? New Pantene Miracle Rescue Deep Conditioner with melting Pro-V pearls... Helps hair lock in moisture to repair up to 6 months of damage. Guaranteed or your money back! If you know, you know it's Pantene. With fastsigns, signage that gets you noticed turns hot lots into homes. FastSigns. Make Your Statement. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Loving the uncommon is a wonderful thing we have in common. ( ) Announcer:Stories that make you think. -Will you lower prices? Announcer:If it matters in your home -I'm going to get in more debt. Announcer:or to this country -Affordable housing. -Climate change. Announcer:it's onCanada Tonightwith Travis Dhanraj. Watch onCBC News NetworkandCBC Gem. [ ] >> David: the international court of justice has ordered israel to immediately stop its military offensive in rafah. >> The court considers that in conformity with obligations under the genocide convention israel must immediately halt its military offensive and any other action in the rafah which may inflict on the palestinian group in gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. >> David: the icj presiding judge said the decision comes in response to the worsening humanitarian situation in gaza. He said israel has not been doing enough to minimize suffering as it continues its operation into rafah. In response, the israel government said in a statement... Jon allen is the former canadian ambassador to israel. Arif lalani who previously served as canadian ambassador to jordan, iraq afghanistan, and the united arab emirates gentlemen, always good to see you. Thanks for joining me today. >> Hi, david. >> David: jon, I wonder if we ask start with you, the icj ruling comes on the tails of the request from the icc prosecutors karim khan for arrest warrants and more countries with more to come have said they will recognize palestinian statehood. Where does it leave israel at the end of the week? >> It's a very, very tough week for israel. I'm afraid to some extent they brought it on themselves. On the recognition issue, I think it's countries who are basically saying it's netanyahu government for 15 years and certainly with its current coalition refuses to even consider two-state solution, then we're going to move. On the icc, the main charge, I think -- the one that will probably stick is starvation as a weapon of war because israel imposed a two-week siege at the beginning. And then essentially restricted the entry of humanitarian assistance for months and months. And, of course, on the question that the icj just rendered a decision on concerns about both humanitarian assistance, not coming in through rafah, and the possible loss of life if there were ground invasion or even a targeted assault in that area where there are so many gazans hoping to survive. >> David: I wonder how you sit, the icj ruling comes says because they saw no meaningful action from israel after the last order to improve the population's circumstances inside gaza. What are your thoughts? >> I think a number of things that jon described and happened in the last week have been very public. I think the net result is that

it puts pressure on private diplomacy. I think all of these things have happened. But not much has changed on the ground. And in fact, you know, members of prime minister netanyahu's government are making it clear that nothing will change on the ground. So I think what is really important is what is happening behind the scenes particularly , I think, with the american administration. Because they now need to really deliver some results on the three aspects that the international court has highlighted today. Which is , you know, humanitarian access, a cessation of the activities around rafah, and then separately what other states have said in the last week which is a return to at least the principle of a two-state solution. So in the coming days, you're probably going to see other actions by arab states and others at the U.N. security council with resolutions. And if the americans intend to veto that or oppose it, they're really going to have to show progress on the three things that I just outlined in the meantime. >> Just to stick with you, you're hearing from israeli officials that they're going to continue with this operation in rafah. They have not gotten hamas to the extent that they want to get. And even a lot of their officials will say that the humanitarian situation inside gaza is not as bad as all of the aid groups and the U.N. and everyone says it is. So does any of this, do you think, really change their thought process? Do you get that sense? >> Well, first of all, the problem, of course, is as the court pointed out today, nobody has a very good idea of what is going on. So one of the issues that the court outlined today was access to people -- I would assume including journalists -- to actually report on what is going on. That is step 1. But step 2, I think you're quite right. Look, I think the government of prime minister netanyahu has made clear that they don't intend to change their course. I think the only think that might matter at this stage is whatever behind the scenes diplomacy the americans and others may be conducting. And the second, what israelis themselves have to say about this. It seems over the past few weeks, there is an international consensus on all of these issues. Everywhere except in israel. So what do israelis clearly want their government to do and how are they able to express that given the limitations of the democratic process. >> David: jon, what are your thoughts on that? I saw some commentary in israeli media after Mr. Khan sought the warrants from the international criminal court that galvanized a bit of support behind benjamin netanyahu on that front. The week escalated from there. Where do you think opinion is in israel right now? >> Israelis remain in collective nervous breakdown. They don't see what is happening in gaza in any way. They don't want to see it. You know that 68% of israelis about four weeks ago in a poll suggested that no humanitarian aid should go in. They are still focused on the hostages. They are focused on their soldiers. They are focused on the dead -- the 11, 1200 that died in that massacre on october 7th. They have not gotten beyond it. So we can't count on israelis. Israelis want to to get rid of bibibi netanyahu. They want the hostages to come back. But I think not only the opposition, but israelis rallied around bi bi netanyahu when the icc, the international criminal court came out with its indictment. We can't rely on them, and frankly we can't rely on bibi netanyahu to be swayed. I think to some extent, arif is right, there are some suggestions that bill burns, the head of the cia is going back to the region both to of course discuss the hostages and a ceasefire because the two are related. Maybe, just maybe there can be a breakthrough. But this is not going to move bibi netanyahu. He's had his minister of defence and his chief of staff both tell him and benny gantz tell him over the course of the last

three weeks unless he has some political solution going forward, some political ideas, not just military ideas, that israel cannot win and will not be able to leave gaza. And they're concerned about it. And even criticism from his own war cabinet and his own military leaders has not moved him. >> David: so, jon, just o at point. There are reportedly going to be discussions this weekend on a ceasefire and hostages getting out. And we've seen these before and they've not succeeded. At least recently. The events of this week would seem they might embolden hamas if they feel the international feeling is turning to israel and they galvanized and around some of the events this week. How do the events of this galvanize this? >> The only thing I counter is you're probably right, the combination may have emboldened hamas on that. But just on the recognition issue, whereountries are deciding to recognize palestine and recognize the rights of palestinians to self-determination. The argument has been from the israelis, especially from benjamin netanyahu that this is a reward to hamas. >> David: yes. >> I not a reward to hamas. Hamas wants to destroy israel. Hamas is not interested in a two-state solution. The recognition of the palestinians is about two states. And it's about supporting the moderates in the west bank and in gaza who want two states. And who want an end to these conflicts. It's about sending a signal that israel doesn't have a veto over this. There have to be negotiations ultimately and there won't be a final settlement immediately or by any stretch in the near, near future. But at the same time, it can't be up to a prime minister who for 15 years has refused to even talk about two states to -- the palestinian people. Until you meet my cry criteria, the world's criteria, you're going to have to be occupied. >> Arif, it was norway, spain, and ireland this week. Reports are that belgium, luxembourg, slovenia, and portugal will be next. When you look at this shifting dynamic and with the legal issues this week, how do you see that may be affecting whatever conversations happen on ceasefire and hostages? >> Well, I think the recognitions that you saw this week and that you are likely to see in in the coming weeks, I think they are very significant. But I think in the longer terms. They're very significant because I think there's a principle here that, you know, a two-state solution means that you cannot unilaterally declare for a palestinian state. But it implied that you cannot you knowunilaterally walk away from a two-state solution, and that's exactly what netanyahu's government has done. What these countries and other countries that come forward are saying is that a two-state solution is clearly still the long-term goal. In the short term, I don't think that it's going to change actions on the ground. But I think the states that do recognize palestine as a state now have to also take the next step in the coming weeks which is what does it mean if you recognize a palestinian state, are you going to add some practical dimensions to it? Are you going to sign agreements with a palestinian government? Are you going to transact with this state that you recognized even if it doesn't have clearly fined international borders, even if its capital is not clear. Also -- are you gog to make demands now of the palestinian authority to reform? Because clearly we need some full scale reform in the administration of mahmoud abbas. >> Gentlemen, appreciate your time. Especially on a week like this with a lot of big developments. Arif lalani and jon allen we'll talk soon. Thank you so much. >> Thanks, david. >> David: a bipartisan group of U.S. senators sent ottawa a sharply worded message. Calling on canada to increase its defence spending to meet its nato target. In a letter to prime minister justin trudeau they write... Canada is currently on track to hit 1.76% of gdp spending on defence by 2029/30.

and the cbc's chief political correspondent rosemary barton spoke to one of the signatories to the letter. Senator kevin kramer. >> I want him to not only take the letter seriously, but respond to it seriously, and I think how we communicate with one another is a good firsttep in how seriously we take one another. And this is a serious message. I would expect a serious response to that message. And then start laying out the benchmarks -- not just the trajectory, but how do we get to 2% by 2030? If that is possible. If not, tell us how we can help make it possible. >> You can wat full interview with senator kramer this sunday at 10 A.M. eastern on cbc news network and cbc gem and the main network at 11 A.M. eastern on cbtelevision I'm joined by the director of the canadian defence and security network. He holds the patterson chair in international affairs at carelton university. Steven, it's good to see you. Thank you for joining us today. >> It's a pleasure. >> David: big picture, and the defence spending target of 2% of gdp, is that a meaningful measure of canada's contributions to nato? >> Yes and no. That is it's not a meaningful measure because what canada has done, whether it's fighting in kandahar or sending 2,000 troops to latvia have been meaningful. Other countries that spend more than 2% that are frankly lousy lies. Greece is known for spending way more than 2%. Most of their soldiers spend their time pointing the guns at turkey,turkiye andurkiye is a nato ally, and greece doesn't show up on the missions like afghanistan or latvia. We provide a lot of capability. The reality is we are underspending because we don't have enough money for our troops. We're not buying enough equipment. But nato has agreed to this goal. Therefore it becomes the thing we talk about. >> David: right because -- so the 2%, I mean, whatever you think of it, it is something multiple canadian governments have agreed to and never met. And that's part of the frustration we're seeing in the bipartisan letter that suggests to me, steven, that the issue of defence spending is probably going to be a big issue when the nato leaders gather in washington later this summer. What are your thoughts? >> Well, it always is. And it was before trump. It was during trump. It was after trump. It's always an issue because we need to spend money to get the capability that we need in order to deter and if necessary thwart the russians, and that needhas gotten more obvious with what the russian have been doing in ukraine and it's an issue to talk about, and they'll talk about what nato does, and they'll try to develop plans for dealing with russians, dwelling with other threats. It's not the entirety of the conversation. But it's going to be a meaningful part of it. And canada because it has been honest about its spending is going to get a little more attention than the countries that have been less clear about their spending plans. >> Explain that what you mean by that, canada has been honest and others are not as clear. Has some fudgeed the numbers to get to the 2%, and get off the hook or is canada treated differently because it's a g-7 country with a big economy and right next door to the united states? >> W because we're a big economy, we spend more than most other nato countries. It's just because we have the denominator which is per -- you know, our size of our economy. So the fact that we've been growing more than other countries has harmed us in these comparisons. But, for instance, I was in finland a month ago, and finland has gotten to 2% by front loading the expenditures. It will pay for those up front and now have to wonder how to maintain the defence spending at 2% once the pig is swallowed by the snake if you can think of it that way. >> Canada has pledged billions in new defence spending as part of the policy review and still falls short of 2%. Getting to 1.79, 1.7 -8g 1.78 in round numbers and they keep saying we have to buy submarines and when we do that, it will get there, and they've not picked the sub or it's not in the framework. Is this a correct explanation -- credible. >> First of all, we are honest and we can't double the defence spending. And the defence read has in its budget hiring more people to do the process and the contracting of the assessing of doing all of the nitty-gritty of procurement, and we don't have the people doing that, and we can't get it done, and the previous governments, including the conservative government, got rid of people, and it made it harder to buy stuff. That's one change in the defence review. The submarines are a piece of it. I think that the government could have committed to spending more just on other things that the defence review came out $74 billion over twenty years sounds a lot.

in defence inflated terms, it's not as much money as it could have. They could have thought of other things to spend money on. Higher pay for personnel. More housing for personell. All that stuff, and the personell crisis is severe. Their chances of spending more money are pretty good because all of the things are getting more expensive. But they costed things out and decided to make a specific commitment and decided to be honest about what they are going to get towards it. What we have to remember is their initial commitment was countries will aspire to move towards reaching 2% in 2024. And that fudge language was part of why stephen harper signed on to it. It didn't commit canada to getting to the 2% by 2024. No country was obligated to get to 2% by the end of this year. But the value is moving towards it. Last year, they agreed in the summit to make it sort of a -- we have to get there, we got to do that. And countries aren't spending enough money, and that's true. A lot of nato countries aren't spending as much money as they need to to have effective militarys. We need to buy more ammunition, we need to do more training that costs money. >> David: I know 24 was more -- sorry, 2014 was more aspirational target to hit it by 2024. But, you know, the full scale invasion of ukraine beyondous beyond joust crimea changed the whole dynamic. What we've seen and canada can spend nominally spending the 6th of the g-7 members part of nato, and ukraine needed tanks, canada was scroungeing. It can't send plains, it can't send munitions. Canada has given what it can, but expose the the capacity limits. Do you think being a wealthy nation and committed to the 2% for so long, do you understand the frustration we are seeing by senators and some of the european allies about canada not getting to where the U.K. has gotten and where germany even has a plan to get to which is also a big economy. >> Yes, well, I spent the past three months in germany, and we have to put a pause on being impressed by the germans. I think one of the last countries to criticize us on 2% should be the germans. They promised to get to 2%. They have a special fund to spend on the military. But they have constitutional restrictions that their court has recently ruled will limit their ability to gauge deficit spending which makes iteryhard for the germans to make plans beyond 5 years. Know that this government got credit actively for a lot of the defence spending being past their time in office. Any defence spending plan has to be a long-term project because these things take a long time. And the fact that the germans can't commit the next government or, you know, 5 years down the road to what they are doing and not going to be at 2% in 5 years. So... We're not going to be the biggest offender. We're not going to be the most notable offender. But maybe we're not going to be the most obnoxious offender. That will be going to germany these days if they criticize canada for this. The other countries, you know, britain, they spent a lot of money on really expensive aircraft carriers, and don't have enough planes to put on them, and asking french to put planes on them. All democracies have problems making procurement decisionsment one of the challenges we face the ukranians taught us what we need to buy. Guess what, everybody learned the same lessons. So we can spend lots more money signing contracts to buy systems from americans, and the americans will be sending the stuff to everybody and that means there is going to be a lot of demand for the stuff. We now making more artillery shells. That is going to take time to build the factories. And so a lot of this simply takes time. Should the government have committed more money in the defence review? I thin but on the other hand, none of the stuff can be constantly. Our personnel short an makes it hard to spend money, and can't pay people that don't exist. >> A final point where could canada spend money quickly that would satisfy some of the concerns of nato and really based on what secretary jens stoltenberg said help with the collective defence of ukraine, that seems to be the urgent priority, and haven't done it when told to do, and what can canada do in the short term to get everybody off their backs a bit? >> That's a really good question. Well, we could give the rest of the tanks, and simply say we don't need tanks, artillery, and give it all to the ukranians right now and we'll buy replacements. But the military, I'm sure, has been pushing back on sending more stuff because they question the credible credibility in the government of replacing the stuff they sell. In the interim, they wouldn't have the equipment around to

train the current generation, and points all of the tradeoffs. If we give away all of the munitions and tanks, and howitzers, then our troops will not have anything to train with and make it less interesting to be in the military which worsen our personnel crisis. >> Vicious cycle. Thank you for joining me today, appreciate your time. >> My pleasure, david. >> International tribunal ruled this week countries are legally required to cut greenhouse gas emissions. It's considered a big win for climate justice. Coming up, the implications it could have for the fight against global warming and those suffering most from it. >> Andrew Chang: So yowant to watchCBC News Explore, a new kind of news channel. Here's how to find us. We're on theCBC Newsapp, onCBC Gem, and on your smart tv. Streame. It's always free. Cbc News Explore. It's odd how in an instant things can transform. Slipping out of balance into freefall. (The stock market is now down 23%). This is happening people. Where there are so few certainties... (laughing) Look around you. You deserve to know. as we navigate a future unknown. I'm glad I found stability amidst it all. Gold. Standing the test of time. ( ) That's a dq Chicken Strip Basket! Oh look at those tasty dq chicken strips. And fries! Plus all the dips! Oh let's order one, right now! Dq. Happy Tastes Good. Hey! Wake-up. The words in your head, you're the only one that can hear them. Say it! Yes. I. Can. Move! Feel it. Hold onto this feeling. Yes I can, Yes I must. Watch me! Start your 30—day home trial at OnePeloton.ca. Terms apply. With fastsigns, create factory grade visual solutions to perfect your process. Fastsigns. Make Your Statement™. Be amazed at how something this powerful can be this civilized. Behold the Subaru Crosstrek Wilderness. (Mixed gasps) ( ) Kevin and Sarah have one of the world's largest collections of souvenir plates. [crash] They also have a teenager, so they got their plates insured. But they don't have life insurance. Kevin's worried his diabetes will make it hard to qualify, and Sarah does not like medical exams. So we got them some new plates to tell them about Canada Protection Plan. Canada Protection Plan hassolutions for both the healthy and hard to insure. With no needles or medicalexams required on most plans. You'll get great coverageat a price you'll love and there are no paymentsin your first month. Anybody between18 and 80 can apply and there are greatmember benefits including rewards for activeliving and giving back. As part of the Foresters family,your coverage is backed by our excellentfinancial strength. Contact your advisor or call now to get a no-obligation quote in minutes. Canada Protection Plan. Protecting what matters most... you. [crash] Nutty...and sweet. Latte macchiato. ( ) This one is for the prize? Intenso. No, cool. Definitely iced. ( ) Sweet. Bye. Nespresso, what else? [rock] go hard go wild Woman: And the crowd goes wild! you fear the blood the sweat the tears We fight the best we can. Man: We build our own legacy. Arena announcer: She scores! [ ] >> David: small island nations are celebrating a historic victory this week. A U.N. maritime tribunal ruled that greenhouse gas emissions qualify as ocean pollution and therefore countries must go beyond what is required by the paris climate agreement to protect them. >> Article 194 spraf 1 imposes on states a legal obligation to take all necessary measures to prevent, reduce and control pollution from and through the ghg emissions. States with greater means and capabilities must do more to reduce such emissions than states with less means. >> David: the international tribunal for the law of the sea gave this opinion tuesday. 9 island states requested a

Copyright protected and owned by broadcaster. Your licence is limited to private, internal, non-commercial use. All reproduction, broadcast, transmission or other use of this work is strictly prohibited.

Transcripts