Lesson 5: We can't expect rescue we don't deserve
If Canada can’t be bothered to defend itself, why should we expect others to do so?
Canada need only look to its own past outrage to find its rightful shame about how poorly we treat our allies in NATO. We expect them to be there if we need them, but we have no intention of being there for them. We’re a bad friend, an untrustworthy ally, and we shouldn’t be surprised if others in the club who’ve carried our dead weight for decades simply decide to ignore our calls.
Remember how outraged so many Canadians were in 2006 when 50,000 “Canadians of Convenience” demanded rescue from Lebanon when conflict returned to that tiny country. Few people realized so many passport-carrying Canadian citizens lived there. But, they did.
Many had sought refuge in Canada during earlier hostilities, became Canadian citizens here, then returned to the tiny Mediterranean nation once the coast was clear. Lebanon was “home.” They lived there, worked there, raised families there. They paid no taxes in Canada, didn’t contribute anything to the betterment of Canadian society, but dutifully renewed their Canadian passports just in case they needed an escape plan.
When they did, Canada rescued 15,000 of them. The other 35,000 either stayed in Lebanon or made their own way to safety. Many of those we rescued didn’t even come to Canada, having just needed a free ride out of the combat zone. Many returned to Lebanon as soon as things settled down again a few months later.
Canadians were rightfully outraged at being used like this. It’s wrong to join a club with no real intention of contributing to the betterment of club members, but expecting those members to be there when you need them.
“Canadians of Convenience” as outrageous as “Allies of Convenience”
It’s a wonder then that those Canadians, outraged by “Canadians of Convenience,” are not absolutely ashamed at Canada’s behaviour in NATO.
Canada maintains its NATO membership because we’re too small and too weak to defend ourselves if attacked. So, we’ve allied with other nations, many of whom are also too small to defend themselves, under a bond of mutual defence. An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us. If Canada is ever attacked, we can pick up the phone to call NATO and they will come to our aid.
In order for NATO to be ready to ride to our rescue, or the rescue of any member of the growing alliance, its members must collectively invest in their militaries so there are cavalry available when needed. Together, alliance members have decided that 2 percent of each nation’s Gross Domestic Product is the minimum amount each member nation should spend on readiness. Canada, like all other members, signed on to that pledge. We promised to do our part so we would be ready to assist our allies.
Canada is not doing its part. We are not honouring our pledge. We are breaking our word. We are not contributing meaningfully to the defence of our allies if called upon under the treaty we signed.
We’re bad friends, unworthy of the trust of our allies.
We’ve gotten away with it for a long time, because after the Soviet Union collapsed, we never thought we’d be called upon. In 1989, when the Berlin wall collapsed, Canada was a minor player in NATO alliance. So, we could ride on the coattails of our bigger friends relatively unnoticed.
Since then, the alliance has grown from 16 nations to 30. And now, NATO’s frontier abuts Russia once again. Today, there’s a full-scale war in Ukraine that threatens to bleed into NATO territory. Our allies are calling for our help to deter President Putin – and we are unable to answer.
We’re a bad friend.
If Canada can’t be bothered to defend itself, why should anyone else?
Ukraine has refused to surrender to a much larger, better armed and equipped Russian military. They are showing the world what tenacity looks like. They’re fighting evil with every ounce of will they can muster and every weapon, every tool, every rock they can lay hands on. They are all-in on the future of their nation.
They’re proving to the world they have the “right stuff,” worthy of any alliance. But, none of this changes the fact they’re not in our club.
Ukraine is not a NATO member and the western alliance has refused to join in its war with Russia. It may seem cold-hearted, but NATO is a defensive alliance and it is not under attack. Saying “no” is not easy. There are many who’d like NATO to join sides with Ukraine and fight the Russian Bear. But, NATO is standing firm. Not a member: not an ally.
What if NATO took the same cold-hearted approach with the perennial laggards within its own ranks? Slackers like Canada. We haven’t pulled our weight within the alliance for decades. Canada is an “Ally of Convenience.”
Contrast Ukraine’s response to Russia’s invasion with Canada’s approach to our national defence. Does anyone think Canada’s government would lead a fight to the death? Has Canada demonstrated one tenth of the commitment to its own sovereignty we see hourly on display in Ukraine? No.
Just as Canada changed its immigration and naturalization rules after 2006 to make Canadian citizenship “less convenient” for those who may want to abuse it, what if NATO decided it was no longer going to offer “unlimited defence” to members who don’t meaningfully contribute to the alliance? Where would Canada be then?
How can we reasonably expect our friends and allies to spend their money to maintain their military capabilities to come to our aid, if we won’t even bother to invest in our own defence?
It’s time Canada put its big boy pants back on and behave like a responsible adult when it comes to defence. It’s time we once again made a meaningful contribution to NATO. That means spending more on our defence – let’s start with the 2 percent of GDP minimum we’ve repeatedly promised – and fielding combat-ready air, ground and naval forces that can defend ourselves and assist our allies when needed.
It’s time Canada was once again a good friend and a trusted ally.
In reply to your conclusion that Canada is a leeching pariah when it comes to military spend and that we deserve to be slaughtered without rescue by allies, all due to us spending $26 billion on defence vs the requisite $38 billion - what could motivate you to write such irrelevant, provocative garbage? Huh?
The knee-jerk reaction that Trump got when he first began to yap about the shortfall (from most NATO members) was like most things he spews - bait for the tiny-minded to be aghast and rally around his schoolyard sandbox mentality. Good for you to take up his bait probably in an attempt to create more knee-jerks than that you think there is a problem here.
If anyone reading your nonsense wants to do more than knee-jerk, they may want to consider the following:
1. Actual total spend by NATO exceeds the 2% pledge by 30% or $280 billion and that's entirely due to the USA spending $300 billion more than their requisite share. So, using the 2% as the magic figure for military security, thanks to the USA, we're flush.
2. A bit of number crunching tells you that the USA is the only country in NATO which could in good conscience leave us to the slaughter is the USA. You might say Greece would hold back as well because of their claim to spend $8 billion on defence, but I doubt that would make much of a difference in the outcome (that's a joke Mark).
3. The USA would never sit back (for the decade it would take Russia or China to move their tanks from Vancouver to southern Ontario (where they could meet your threshold of slaughtering the majority of Canadians). Nope, before the tanks got off the boat, the Americans would move to destroy for no other reason than they wouldn't be chill with an adversary of theirs setting up shop 100 miles from our border with them.
4. Do you think that if all NATO members met the 2% hurdle that the USA would breath a sigh of relief and pull back on the $70 billion that they pony up for us laggards? I don't. I guess that they wouldn't because they are in the business of war and military, both strategically and as a driver of their economy. Heck, back to the math, there's another $280 billion they throw into NATO, 'just because'. The USA isn't some do-gooder nation stepping up to fill the 2% gap. Nope, right or wrong, their military defines them. [Don't get me wrong, they are generally good people].
5. This 2% rule is a 16 year old pledge that needs review amongst NATO. Seeing what gangsters like Putin will do to non-members, NATO has value when it come to peace and democracy. Unless there's a simpleton like you or Trump representing the US interest at the review, I doubt the only change would be to have us cut a $13 billion cheque to American military manufacturers to close the gap on the 2%.
I like (my own idea) of Canada dedicating its military spend [not to kill people, we have loads of that in NATO] to resources, skill, technology, research required to save lives and build/rebuild infrastructure for human survival. It could be directed to Ukraine, post-war, wildfires and floods in the USA or to plow tracker trailers off the road so I could buy milk for the kids.
Have a nice day, especially you Mark.