That Canada has no ambition to meet NATO’s military spending target is hardly surprising. That Justin Trudeau confesses this to his allies is more cause for eyebrows, even if the latter were probably not surprised either. Because the global climate has greatly evolved, in Europe as in our American neighbours, and Canada no longer enjoys the same latitude from its partners.
THE washington post quoted a secret Pentagon document last week that Justin Trudeau confessed to Atlantic Alliance officials that Canada “will never reach” the 2% threshold of gross domestic product that NATO asks its members to spend to their defense spending.
This target — although imperfect, in the opinion of all the experts — has become “a political norm” by which member states are held, observes Kerry Buck, Canada’s former ambassador to NATO. And the figure has reached, over the years, “a kind of fetish value”, adds Thomas Juneau, of the University of Ottawa.
Both note, however, that by ignoring this target, however subjective it may be, Canada is making people unhappy. “And the mere fact that it irritates our allies poses a risk in the future,” says Professor Juneau.
Justin Trudeau did not deny having thus warned his North Atlantic partners. “I keep saying and will always say that Canada is a reliable partner in NATO, a reliable partner around the world,” he said. His defense minister, Anita Anand, for her part argued, in the Senate committee on Monday, that the “commitment [du Canada] towards Euro-Atlantic security is unshakable”.
In the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014, NATO member countries agreed to stop “any reduction” in their defense budgets and to seek “to come closer to 2% in the next ten years. recommended”.
A goal that has become an obligation
The target has never been binding. Stephen Harper’s Conservative government was spending 1% of GDP on military spending at the time, and that proportion hovered around that same figure throughout the term. While the Trudeau government reached 1.4% in 2017 and 2020, its own investments have since fallen to 1.29% last year. This puts Canada at 25e rank of the 29 member countries. Only seven of them reach or exceed 2%.
However, the size of the economy of these countries is not equivalent. Greece ranks first in percentage of GDP, but in the middle of the pack in terms of expenditure in absolute terms (Canada ranks sixth in this respect). The Greek army also lacks the capacity to contribute generously to NATO missions.
The Trudeau government is therefore not wrong when it repeats that it is making its share of efforts with Ukraine. Minister Anand also recalls having promised tens of billions of dollars for the overhaul of Canada’s defense policy, the announced modernization of NORAD and the purchase of F-35s.
There are however downsides. The Americans grew impatient waiting for Ottawa to specify the timetable for investments in NORAD. The Canadian army is slow to build up its contingent in Latvia as promised. And it would have “difficulty” assembling the military capabilities necessary to lead a mission in Haiti, the Chief of the Defense Staff, General Wayne Eyre, recently admitted to Reuters.
The observation drawn up in the document of the washington post was similar. Germany is worried. Turkey, “disappointed”. And Haiti, “frustrated”.
NATO and the Americans are pushing
Canada’s reputation remains “credible”, according to former ambassador Kerry Buck. Except that these contributions from Canada are sometimes lower or behind the hopes of its allies.
And beyond the 2% target, Professor Juneau points to Canada’s “lack of seriousness in matters of defence, foreign affairs and national security” which has not gone unnoticed by our allies.
Calls to see Ottawa improve its military spending will therefore not disappear anytime soon. Quite the contrary.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has warned that he expects alliance members to agree at a planned summit in Lithuania this summer to make the 2% target “a floor, not a ceiling “. Many have already adjusted the situation by committing to get there. “It leaves Canada far behind, if we don’t even have a plan to get us to 2%,” says Ms.me Buck, who served in Brussels from 2015 to 2019.
This pressure is also increasing from the side of the United States, on which Canada has traditionally relied for support and help to protect it. Donald Trump had argued, during his time as president, that it would be “increasingly difficult to justify” that some NATO countries did not contribute as much as others.
This same Donald Trump is again running for the presidency of the United States. And his speech is now taken up by Democrats, like the former ambassador to Canada under the administration of Barack Obama David Jacobson, who himself worried that Americans were fed up with “profiteers”.
“Our negligence so far has not cost us dearly,” explains Thomas Juneau. But can we continue not to pay a heavy price for this negligence? I am much less confident. »
Justin Trudeau may well choose to rely on the opinion of Canadians rather than that of foreign countries. In the spring of 2022, following Russia’s renewed attempt to invade Ukraine, few Canadians (18%) wanted the government to invest more in defence. Nearly half of Léger survey respondents thought its investments were adequate, while 34% wanted them to be scaled back. To meet the NATO target, Ottawa would have to spend an additional $18 billion a year on this portfolio, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Mr Trudeau will pay no political price at home if he ignores pleas from his allies, but Kerry Buck argues that the international consequences of such a move should not be underestimated, as Russia eyes also the Arctic, at the gateway to Canada’s Far North, and that the United States has not invited Canada to its new alliances, the Quad and AUKUS.
If Justin Trudeau stays the course, he will one day have to recognize that Canada, despite the ambitions at the start of the Prime Minister’s mandate, may have to settle for no longer having the same influence on the international scene.