Paul T. Mitchell, College of Canadian Forces
The recently announced deal on nuclear submarines between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, known as AUKUS, probably seems irrelevant to many Canadians.
But AUKUS is about much more than submarines. And the exclusion of Canada from the pact represents growing suspicions on Canadian Commitment to Standards international order.
The problem comes from the unspoken “great strategy”Underlying our defense policy.
A country’s grand strategy generally describes geopolitical realities along with a plan to achieve its diplomatic goals.
In 1924, liberal politician Raoul Dandurand said famous “Canada is a fireproof house, away from flammable materials, ”To put into words Canada’s defense approach since 1867. Simply put, three oceans and a superpower protect us enough from having to think about how to achieve national security.
Canadian defense policy It has never varied from three priorities: defending Canada, defending North America, and contributing to international peace and security, which have appeared on every Department of Defense white paper since the 1950s, regardless of the ruling party. This attitude was evident in the recent election campaign, when discussions on defense were largely absent, despite growing threats from outside and turmoil within our own military.
Read more: Federal elections 2021: a campaign marked by failure and frustration
Canadian Army dwindled
Since the heyday of defense spending in the 1950s, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) have gradually shed critical capabilities – including long-range artillery, tanks, fighters that are now obsolete, submarine forces, destroyers and maritime logistics.
The current moment of #MeToo wiping out the military leadership, creating a tourniquet for key high-level positions, has not gone unnoticed among our allies.
Read more: Sexual misconduct, abuse of power, adultery and secrecy: what I witnessed in the Canadian military
And while CAF specifically faces new challenges in terms of diversity, its traditional approach to leadership has alienated thousands of people within the ranks, causing an avalanche of exits. especially among the more experienced staff. The lack of support for modern equipment has also contributed to this problem.
Canadians, meanwhile, remain blissfully unconcerned about these things.
Harper hesitated too
The need to replace CF-18 fighter jets It has been evident for more than two decades.
Governments have had all the information they need to make a decision. Yet even pro-defense conservatives under former Prime Minister Stephen Harper wavered.
Our fireproof home defense strategy encourages this antipathy. When you think you live in a gated community, the pressure to invest in home alarms goes away.
We remain firmly convinced that we are a long way from flammable materials. In recent weeks, some have even suggested that all Canada requires is some kind of police force whose primary responsibilities involve forest fire fighting or search and rescue missions.
Maybe so. In the foreseeable future, only the US it would probably have the ability to invade Canada. In that unlikely event, our policy would have to be in the vague hope that the international community would come to our rescue.
But what if the unthinkable happened? In the future, Canada’s geographic location will not save us from having to make difficult decisions, as it has not in the past.
We couldn’t help but go to war in either 1914 or 1939. In 2001 and 2003, circumstances forced us send Canadian soldiers to Afghanistan to prove our reliability as a partner. In 1941, 2,000 unprepared Canadian troops were sent with very little support to safeguard Hong Kong: 800 of them died in battle or from mistreatment as prisoners of war, a direct result of our fireproof mentality.
China and the future international order
The two recently released Canadian prisoners from China – Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, known as the “two Michaels” – paid the price over Canada’s arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou following an extradition request from the United States, another decision the Canadian government could not avoid.
Read more: Why have Canada and Australia taken such a different approach to China?
Australia clearly would have preferred not to have to choose between the world’s two biggest superpowers, especially given its proximity to China. The country is also Australia’s largest trading partner.
In 2018, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison stated: “Australia does not have to choose and we will not choose” between China and the US.
But a global order based on submitting to the whims of a renewed China would clearly have been intolerable for a liberal-minded Australia. In the end, the Australians really had no other choice.
Canada has skated on thin ice so far this century. You avoid facing the erosion of your strategic defense.
We can continue to drag our feet, but eventually the bill will expire when our government commits our forces to a mission that they can no longer accomplish because we thought we didn’t have to worry about the health of the military.
In recent years, the “unthinkable” happened when we engaged in a ground war in Afghanistan and a bombing campaign over Libya. These will not be the last surprises of this type.
An honest rethinking of our strategy is the first step out of this dangerous situation.
Paul T. Mitchell, Professor of Defense Studies, College of Canadian Forces
This article is republished from The conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the Original article.
Reference-ygknews.ca