Why two per cent makes perfect sense

Whether or not Canada should spend two per cent of its GDP on defence has been a matter of public debate off and on for years. As the chair of the Defence Committee in 2002, I tabled a report in the House of Commons that recommended: “The government increase the annual base budget for the Department of National Defence to between 1.5 per cent to 1.6 per cent of GDP, with the increase to be phased in over the next three years and continue to move towards the NATO average.” Last year, our defence spending was at 1.29 per cent of GDP, and with the most recent budget, the promise is to get us to 1.76 per cent by 2029-30. If it happens, this is a step forward. However, it still leaves us well short of where we should be if we want to pull our weight within the alliance. In March, former senator Doug Roche argued that Canada should avoid additional defence spending, calling the two per cent target “a great fraud perpetrated on the public by the military-industrial complex, which in turn drives NATO.” David Pratt is a former Liberal minister of national defence, and is the principal of David Pratt & Associates. Photograph courtesy of David Pratt Let’s go back to basics. Why does NATO exist? Following the Second World War, the western allies recognized that the Soviet Union was not interested in allowing democratic elections in the countries of eastern Europe, preferring rather to set up communist vassal states as a buffer zone against the West. NATO was established in 1949 to provide for collective self-defence against the possibility of further Soviet aggression into Europe. Over the last 75 years, NATO has established itself as the most powerful alliance in history, helping to ensure unprecedented human security and prosperity in the Euro-Atlantic zone. NATO did not keep the peace in Europe by sticking flowers in the barrels of Soviet guns. It was done with NATO allies contributing tanks, warships, fighter aircraft, and boots on the ground. The two per cent commitment by NATO countries was first made at the Wales Summit in 2014 in direct response to Russian aggression in Crimea and the Donbas. The most recent pledge was last year at the Vilnius Summit again in the wake of Russian aggression. As a founding member of NATO, when Canada says it is committed to getting to two per cent, it should honour the pledge. Canada’s word on the international stage and to our allies should mean something. Roche said the government should ignore “the booming voices of the militarists.” Are those who wish to stop the killing and the destruction in Ukraine militarists? With every passing day, the evidence is mounting that what we are seeing in Ukraine is a genocide in progress. How does Roche propose to stop that? United Nations General Assembly resolutions haven’t and won’t stop Russian aggression, and neither will the Security Council. Vladimir Putin and Russian state media have made it clear that Russia’s war aims are to erase Ukraine from the map. When Roche says that “NATO should be working with the UN peacebuilding systems,” there are no such instruments in place to do what he is suggesting—unless what he is suggesting is a complete capitulation by Ukraine to be overseen by UN officials. The most relevant UN instrument—which NATO is upholding by supporting Ukraine’s defence—is Article 51 of the UN Charter, which recognizes “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.” Roche’s anti-NATO stance unfortunately has him accepting Russian propaganda that blames NATO expansion into eastern Europe for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He describes as “plain truth” that “NATO’s constant aggrandizement … which now virtually surrounds Russia is a violation of the promises made after the end of the Cold War that NATO would expand not one inch.” Roche’s plain truth is plain wrong. Although there were diplomatic discussions in the 1990s about NATO expansion, NATO as an organization never gave Russia any undertakings to limit expansion. Russia never had and never will have a veto over who joins NATO. The rules-based international order is currently under threat from Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. Doing our share to contribute to collective security and global stability benefits Canada and Canadians. In the current geopolitical environment, getting our defence spending to two per cent makes perfect sense. David Pratt was minister of national defence under then-prime minister Paul Martin, and is the principal of David Pratt & Associates. The Hill Times

Why two per cent makes perfect sense

Doing our share to contribute to collective security and global stability benefits Canada and Canadians.

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

NATO stands stronger together 20 years after its biggest expansion

Trudeau may not be able to fend off NATO’s ceaseless demands for more money

Don’t ignore Russian threat amid Israel-Hamas war, urges visiting Finnish MP

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

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Why two per cent makes perfect sense

Doing our share to contribute to collective security and global stability benefits Canada and Canadians.

Get The Policy Briefings Newsletter