Canada NATO’s cheap date
The British may form the world’s most orderly lineups, but they tend to lose patience when people don’t live up to their commitments.
At the conclusion of the NATO summit in Wales two years ago, all countries signed a declaration reaffirming collective defence, after Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, and agreeing to increase defence spending to two per cent of gross domestic product within a decade.
With another summit due in Warsaw this summer, the Brits indicated this week they are a little bit cross, if not slightly miffed, no visible progress is being made by several countries, including Canada.
There was no official comment but sources said London sent the diplomatic message through embassies and high commissions this week. They were at pains to point out that Canada was not the only recipient of the rebuke.
But it came in the same week that the Trudeau government was excluded from a U.S.-led meeting of defence ministers from countries spearheading the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. U.S. Defence Secretary Ashton Carter warned allies that there was no room for “free-riders” in the coalition.
The pressure is piling on the government’s defence agenda from all sides. One particularly damning commentary doing the rounds points out that, according to estimated expenditures for 2015, only four NATO members are expected to spend less as a percentage of GDP than Canada and one of them is Luxembourg. The author of that piece was Roland Paris, Justin Trudeau’s new foreign policy adviser.
The Liberals are not responsible for the Harper government’s record on defence spending, but talk of a “leaner, more agile” military does not suggest a sharp uptick in expenditure.
The reason for the furrowed brows in London, and in Washington, is easily explained by a glance at military spending by GDP, still the benchmark measure used by NATO.
Only five nations — the U.S., Britain, Greece, Estonia and Poland — will meet the two per cent target this year. Canada’s defence expenditure is now less than half that, having fallen from about two per cent under Brian Mulroney in 1988. The Americans account for three quarters of the alliance’s spending.
Budget 2015 earmarked another $11.8 billion for defence over 10 years, but that amount doesn’t start flowing until next year and will barely keep spending increases above inflation.
Canada, whose armed forces are about the same size as those of NATO ally Romania, also falls short on another commitment made in Wales — one fifth of defence spending would be devoted to equipment. It currently spends about 16 per cent of its defence budget on equipment, research and development.
In the past, Canadian governments have argued allies should look at the quality of their contribution, not the quantity. Further, they have pointed out that Canada always answers the call.
But that argument carries little water in light of the decision to pull the CF-18 fighters from Iraq.
The Americans said Thursday they will convene a meeting of defence ministers from 27 countries next month to discuss how each coalition member can contribute more to defeating ISIL.
“Every nation must come prepared to further contributions to the fight,” said Carter.
Even in the relatively honeyed words of international diplomacy, it is apparent that our principal allies believe we have short arms and long pockets; that if we had to choose between our money and our lives, we would have to think it over.
As a nation, we signed on to an agreement that pledged to strengthen the partnerships on which the foundations of our prosperity and way of life are built.
We said we would provide the resources, capabilities and political will to meet any challenge; that we would stand ready to act together to defend freedom and our shared values.
Apparently, the Harper government signed the summit declaration, with no intention of even trying to live up to it. For once, the Liberals are in full agreement.
But we live in a dangerous world and the alliance is the bedrock of this country’s security.
Canada can’t be back unless it plays a fuller part in NATO.
IT IS APPARENT THAT OUR PRINCIPAL ALLIES BELIEVE WE HAVE SHORT ARMS AND LONG POCKETS. — COLUMNIST JOHN IVISON