(Ottawa) Let’s be clear. The Russian army will not land on Baffin Island tomorrow morning because Donald Trump has handed over NATO deadbeats like Canada to its grazing. The fact remains that the recent charge of the candidate for the Republican nomination should sound a new alarm signal to the Canadian government, where the equivalent of 2% of GDP is still not spent on defense.
The Kremlin can invade member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that do not devote 2% of their gross domestic product (GDP) to defense if it wants, according to Donald Trump, likely candidate Republican in the November presidential election. “In fact, I encourage them to do whatever they want,” he said recently at a rally in South Carolina.
PHOTO SEAN RAYFORD, THE NEW YORK TIMES ARCHIVES
Donald Trump attacked NATO deadbeats during a rally in Conway, South Carolina, on February 10.
Even if the American Congress adopted a law last December aimed at preventing any president from unilaterally withdrawing from the alliance, it would not be enough to limit the damage of a return of the real estate magnate to the House- Blanche, believes Justin Massie, full professor in the department of political science at the University of Quebec in Montreal (UQAM).
The most likely fear is that Canada’s adversaries – we think of Russia or China – will want to try to see: what is the American reaction if we try to penetrate Canadian airspace? What is the reaction if we send submarines or combat ships into Canadian territorial waters?
Justin Massie, full professor in the political science department at UQAM
“This is what the Chinese do in Taiwan on a daily basis. They put Taiwanese anti-aircraft defenses to the test. And there is no indication that they could not do the same thing with NATO allies,” underlines the man who is also co-director of the Strategic Analysis Network.
Ce n’est pas la première fois que le 45e président des États-Unis fait le coup : en 2018, l’animateur Tucker Carlson et lui se demandaient à voix haute sur les ondes de Fox News s’il faudrait se porter à la défense du « tout petit » Monténégro en cas d’agression russe.
En cause : l’article 5 du traité fondateur de l’OTAN sur la protection mutuelle. C’est cet article qui dit qu’une attaque contre un seul pays de l’Organisation sera considérée comme une attaque contre l’ensemble des pays membres.
« Déjà, ça a causé des dommages parce que l’OTAN repose sur un principe de dissuasion, et les États hostiles comprennent le fait qu’une attaque contre un allié, c’est une attaque contre l’alliance », relève à l’autre bout du fil Kerry Buck, ex-ambassadrice et représentante permanente du Canada auprès de l’OTAN de 2015 à 2018.
Mais encourager la Russie à attaquer les mauvais payeurs, je n’ai jamais entendu ça de toute l’histoire de l’OTAN.
Kerry Buck, ex-ambassadrice et représentante permanente du Canada auprès de l’OTAN
Un plan… en « temps opportun »
PHOTO JOHANNA GERON, ARCHIVES REUTERS
Le secrétaire général de l’OTAN, Jens Stoltenberg
La bonne nouvelle (si on veut) est que, pour 2024, les bons payeurs sont désormais au nombre de 18 pays sur un total de 311. Le secrétaire général de l’organisation, Jens Stoltenberg, en a fait l’annonce à la mi-février. « C’est un nouveau record », s’est-il réjoui à Bruxelles.
La mauvaise nouvelle (si on veut, bis), c’est que le Canada reste loin de la cible : en 2023, les dépenses en défense ont représenté 1,38 % du PIB2. Et encore une fois, le Norvégien a été contraint de demander des comptes au Canada.
Sur les ondes de CTV, il y a un peu moins de deux semaines, il a reconnu n’avoir aucune idée de l’échéancier du Canada en ce qui a trait à l’atteinte de la cible de 2 % – qui a été déterminée en juillet dernier à Vilnius3 comme un plancher, et non un plafond.
La réponse du premier ministre Justin Trudeau ?
Un plan viendra « en temps opportun ».
INFOGRAPHIE LA PRESSE
Il y a près de deux ans, alors qu’elle tenait les rênes de la Défense nationale, Anita Anand disait avoir proposé à ses collègues du Cabinet des « options agressives » qui verraient le Canada « potentiellement atteindre le niveau de 2 % », voire « le dépasser ».
PHOTO CZAREK SOKOLOWSKI, ARCHIVES ASSOCIATED PRESS
La vice-première ministre Chrystia Freeland et le ministre de la Défense, Bill Blair, assistent à un exercice militaire commun entre les troupes canadiennes et polonaises, dans le centre de la Pologne, le 25 février.
Son successeur, Bill Blair, n’a toujours pas présenté de feuille de route à cet effet. Pire, il s’est retrouvé dans la posture inconfortable de justifier des compressions de l’ordre de près de 1 milliard au poste budgétaire de la défense.
Ce serrage de ceinture n’est pas passé inaperçu, confirme la libérale Julie Dzerowicz, présidente de l’Association parlementaire canadienne de l’OTAN. « Les présidents des associations des États-Unis et du Royaume-Uni étaient inquiets, ils m’en ont parlé. »
La députée, qui était récemment au siège bruxellois de l’OTAN, a assuré ses vis-à-vis que les investissements en défense étaient « en croissance exponentielle » au Canada.
« [N’empêche]if you ask me what I want to see, I will tell you that I want the upward trend in spending to continue, and that I would like to see an action plan for reaching 2%. demands the Toronto elected official.
Sand in the gear
A Poilievre government would pursue the same objective. “The downside we have is that yes, we want to move towards that, but currently, with the financial situation of the country, we have to find the money elsewhere,” indicates Pierre Paul-Hus, Quebec lieutenant of the conservative leader .
Elsewhere as in the coffers of international aid4 which goes to “corrupt countries”, he says. “That’s a place to collect money, but there is also military supplies,” says the former reservist.
Because even if it is a dry subject, it remains no less fundamental: if we want to resolve part of the problem, the supply process must be reviewed from top to bottom, insist many elected officials and specialists.
People who work in defense acquisition offices turn over funds every year because they can’t spend what they currently receive.
Anessa Kimball, political scientist at Laval University
In 2021, for example, the Department returned $1.2 billion unspent to the Treasury Board. This sum could reach 4 billion for the 2023-2024 fiscal year, an analyst from the office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer told a Commons committee last June.
PHOTO MCPLC LAURA LANDRY, TAKEN FROM THE CANADIAN ARMY FACEBOOK PAGE
The Canadian Armed Forces are struggling to recruit.
Another pitfall: the shortage of personnel within the Canadian Armed Forces. According to data provided by the Department, as of December 31, 2023, the total deficit was 15,317 members (7,895 from the Regular Force and 7,422 from the Primary Reserve).
“Finland and Sweden, for example, have a lot of reservists. This means that they have more capacity to spend, because they need to equip these people who are reservists, even if they are not in the active force,” says Anessa Kimball.
And to make matters worse, partisanship often slows things down in Ottawa, leading to delays that increase the price of equipment.
PHOTO ERIC BARADAT, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE ARCHIVES
An F-35 fighter from Lockheed Martin
“We saw it with Justin Trudeau who ended the acquisition of F-35s and then bought F-35s. Jean Chrétien put an end to the acquisition of helicopters, so that they were then acquired by Stephen Harper,” recalls Professor Justin Massie.
Still far from the mark
While it is true that the Liberals have announced considerable investments in defense – the purchase of 88 F-35 fighter jets and 15 combat ships, the injection of nearly $39 billion for the modernization of NORAD (the Defense Command), aerospace defense of North America) over two decades – we are far from the mark.
PHOTO JOHN THYS, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE ARCHIVES
There are 18 of them, among the 31 member countries of the alliance (soon 32 with Sweden) to devote at least 2% of their GDP to military spending.
Money would be needed to join NATO’s club of good students. A lot. We are talking about approximately 13 to 16 billion more per year until 2026-2027, according to the calculation carried out by the Parliamentary Budget Officer in June 2022.
According to these budgetary projections, Canada’s military spending would reach only 1.59% of GDP in 2026-2027.
University of Calgary political science professor Rob Huebert says politicians of all parties should stop “convincing themselves that Canadians don’t want to spend more on defense based on internal polls.” .
A survey carried out last May by the Nanos firm5 tends to prove him right: 64% of those questioned responded that they were in favor of achieving the target set by NATO.
“The 2% is not a religious number, a holy number before which we prostrate ourselves. What was agreed in Wales in 2014 was that 2% represented a reasonable amount for member states to spend on defence,” he argues.
A now minimal amount, according to the Vilnius declaration, which will undoubtedly be at the heart of discussions at the next NATO summit. The meeting will take place in July, in Washington, approximately four months before the presidential election.
1. The number of NATO member countries will soon increase to 32, with Hungary giving the green light for Sweden to join.
2. Estimates contained in a report published in July 2023 by NATO. The next report is expected in mid-March.
Consult the NATO report (2023)
3. Read the Vilnius Summit Communiqué, Lithuania
4. In the 2023 budget, the amount of Canadian international aid stood at $6.9 billion.
5. The survey was conducted on a sample of 1,080 Canadians between April 30 and May 3, 2023. The margin of error is 3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Consult the Nanos survey (in English)