AUKUS alliance could mean it’s time for a NATO rethink

OTTAWA—At the United Nations’ general assembly in New York, U.S. President Joe Biden, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, and U.K Prime Minister Boris Johnson used the occasion to announce a new security pact between the three countries. Under the terms of the new agreement, the U.S. and U.K will agree to furnish Australia with advanced nuclear propulsion technology for their proposed submarine fleet. In announcing the deal, Biden made the claim that “The United States has no closer or more reliable ally than Australia.” The fact that even in making that statement Biden could not remember Morrison’s name, would seem to take the gravitas out of this “best buddy” moniker. Nevertheless, a single quip of hollow praise was enough to set off squeals of protests by Canadian defence cheerleaders. By their logic, it is somehow proof of the Trudeau Liberals’ neglect of our military that we are being left out of this exclusive new military alliance. One of talking points used by Biden, Morrison, and Johnson was that this new agreement would allow Australia to bolster the collective counter balance to China’s growing military threat in the Pacific. Not mentioned by these three amigos was the fact that Australia already had a contract with France to supply them with nuclear propelled submarines, valued at an estimated $66-billion. This little item was not lost on the French government-owned shipbuilder, Naval Group, which has already demanded massive cancellation costs from the Australians. This was not an alliance formed to thwart China. It was simply a creation of convenience aimed at cutting France’s grass on a major military procurement project. As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pointed out to reporters who questioned him regarding our exclusion from this new club, Canada is not in the process of acquiring nuclear-powered submarines. As for ramping up our collective defence forces to counter China’s burgeoning military muscle, Canada is in fact already keeping pace. China and Canada both spend approximately 1.3 per cent of their respective GDPs on defence spending. As such, both countries would be considered “laggards” by former U.S. president Donald Trump for failing to meet the NATO objective of two per cent GDP on defence. Speaking of NATO, if the U.S. and U.K. can undermine NATO ally France and create their own mini-alliance with Australia, maybe it is time for Canada to rethink our own membership in NATO? Canada was an original member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which was formed in 1949 to counter the post-Second World War threat of Soviet Union expansion in Europe. In response to the threat of NATO, the Soviet Union formed its own alliance, called the Warsaw Pact. Throughout the Cold War, the threat seemed real, and I’m proud to wear my NATO medal for my military service in West Germany during the 1980s. However, by 1991, the Soviet Union was dissolved and the former Warsaw Pact members began clamouring for admission into NATO. At the end of the Cold War, there were 16 members of NATO. Since the collapse of the entity they were collectively bound to defend against, that alliance now sits at 30 members. On the flip side, what was once a combined 15 Soviet Socialist Republics and seven Warsaw Pact members, is now the solitary Russian Federation. Of course, without the threat of a Soviet invasion, NATO has adopted a far more aggressive mandate than a simple pledge of collective defence by member states. In 1999, NATO waged a 78-day air war against Yugoslavia, took over the occupation of Afghanistan in 2002, bombed Libya for 10 months in 2011, and entered Iraq to combat Daesh in 2014. Of those four at bats, NATO has yet to squarely hit the ball out of the park. Kosovo declared its independence in 2008, but remains unrecognized by the whole European Union membership or the entirety of the UN. It remains a failed state in the centre of Europe. Afghanistan just recently fell to the Taliban after NATO’s 20-year failed occupation. Libya has been gripped by violent anarchy since the NATO bombing toppled president Muammar Gaddafi in October 2011. As for Iraq, I’ll predict right now that ain’t gonna end well either. I think it’s safe to say that NATO is fully capable of losing foreign adventures without Canada’s “laggard” contribution. Scott Taylor is the editor and publisher of Esprit de Corps magazine. The Hill Times

AUKUS alliance could mean it’s time for a NATO rethink

When it comes ramping up our collective defence forces to counter China’s burgeoning military muscle, Canada is in fact already keeping pace.

Time for a shift: Canada must treat Alzheimer’s like other progressive diseases

Between wars and fears of fascism in the U.S., there’s plenty to be scared about

Poilievre can’t just ‘cat-call from the periphery’: Tom McElroy

The problem of political homelessness

Liberals have fumbled green energy transition, and Conservatives have zero interest

Trump alienates women and Puerto Rican voters

Rethinking the NATO commitment

Want submarines? Canada should join AUKUS

NATO Summit a cluster of missed chances to prep for the future

Guterres has a good pencil, but NATO has a big hammer

Return of the alliances

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

AUKUS alliance could mean it’s time for a NATO rethink

When it comes ramping up our collective defence forces to counter China’s burgeoning military muscle, Canada is in fact already keeping pace.

Get The Foreign Policy Newsletter