Op-ed

Defence_policy_review_Montages.jpg

Defence policy review: what's Canada waiting for?

by Lindsay Rodman

The Hill Times
May 31, 2017

OTTAWA—The Department of National Defence once again seems set to release its long-overdue defence policy review.

A number of recent moves by the Canadian foreign policy establishment indicate that the defence policy review (DPR) may be somewhat underwhelming. The release of the budget earlier this year without any major allocations or shifts for defence priorities is the biggest clue that the DPR is not likely to be earth-shattering. Also significant is that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has made clear that he is waiting to take cues from the United States. Shuffling the cabinet was proactive, but this government has otherwise chosen to wait for U.S. President Donald Trump’s first moves.

The DPR delay seems consistent with this wait-and-see foreign policy posture. From an American perspective, Canada is ceding a lot of territory in the defence and foreign policy space by hesitating in this way. Giving up the first-mover advantage is not likely to yield the best policy outcomes for either country, for two major reasons.

First, President Trump is not likely to articulate a clear policy for Canada to react to, especially in the defence policy arena. As we have seen with his treatment of NATO thus far, the message will be muddled. Trump may make strong statements, but the actions of the rest of his cabinet—those who will execute American foreign policy—indicate that the actual take-away might be subtler. 

To be sure, every American administration wants to see Canada (and the rest of NATO) meet its obligation to put two per cent of GDP toward defence spending. But observers are all still trying to figure out exactly how the Trump administration intends to hold the line on this matter. Clarity does not appear to be forthcoming.

Second, the Trump administration is not staffed to address Canadian defence priorities, and will not be any time soon.

This past week, the U.S. Senate confirmed the second political appointee (after Secretary James Mattis) to the Department of Defense. There are dozens of these positions, and very few of them have been nominated, let alone scheduled for hearings on Capitol Hill. It will take many months for the administration to fully staff up.

Even once the new leadership is in place, it will take another few months for it to get up to speed. Near-crisis priorities such as Russia, North Korea, and Syria are likely to take officials’ immediate attention. Matters of priority for Canada are not going to be top of mind, without some deliberate action on Canada’s part, or without some truly disastrous cross-border crisis. 

In fairness, Trump’s election was disruptive to the global foreign policy establishment. But his election in the U.S. did not fundamentally change what is right for Canada in the defence arena.

The two countries remain inextricably intertwined, and the relationship will transcend individual personalities. Canada’s commitments to NORAD, NATO, and peacekeeping priorities, just to name a few, should not change depending on the leadership to the south.

American observers will be looking to see if the DPR signals any first moves on Canada’s part; in other words, whether there is any fundamental change in how Canada views its relationship with its partners and its bilateral or global obligations.

From the American perspective, especially, a procurement plan is not a defence strategy, nor does a shift in buying priorities establish a defence policy. American policy-makers will be looking instead to see whether Canada has broader principles in mind, including an articulation of how Canada sees its role in the world. Canada should not be shy about making such statements. 

If the status quo is acceptable, or even desirable, then it does not make sense to make the first move. The status quo is likely to endure for now. But if there’s anything in particular that Canada wants to see come out of its relationship with the U.S. or the world, it might be time to take the first step.

Lindsay L. Rodman is a former Obama administration appointee in the U.S. Defense Department and White House National Security Council official. She now resides in Ottawa and is a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

Image credit: Jake Wright

Showing 2 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • followed this page 2017-06-02 11:18:51 -0400
  • commented 2017-06-02 09:28:02 -0400
    Canada spends far more than we should on defence. What should come out of a review:

    1) The Cold War organization of the army should end. While the size should remain about the same (~ 40,000) the ratio of part time reservists to regulars should go from about 1: 1 to 3: 1 with reserve training days doubled annually. Recent operation shown shown that there is more than enough time to train troops for scheduled missions- usually at least six months. Reserve unit O&M budgets should be issued by NDHQ avoiding skimming by various intermediate army HQs.
    2) Air force fighters should be removed from NATO operations. This will reduce the number we need to about 48 and remove the need for “stealth” for bombing missions.
    3) The navy should have it’s CSC buy cut by 50% and cease operation outside of the western hemisphere and south of the equator. The sub fleet should be scrapped.
    4) The number of flag officers (substantive, acting and WSE) should be cut by 50%. Colonels/ Captains and CWOs by 40%. LCols/ Cdr by 30%. This will have a knock effect with their supports staffs with significant savings in HR, travel and unnecessary studies and admin costs. Similar reductions in DND civilian staff ranks would occur.
    5) CANSOFCOM HQ and CSOR should be disbanded. The JTF-2 move to Trenton should be cancelled and the unit returned to being a small CT capability.
    6) RRMC and CMR should be closed. The CFC and Army Staff Colleges should be moved on the RRMC grounds.
    7) All regular and half of reserve bands should be disbanded as should all display teams.
Donate to Canadian Global Affairs Institute Subscribe
 

SEARCH


 

EVENTS

 

IN THE MEDIA


Canada should join ballistic missile defence system, but it will cost us: experts
by Vassy Kapelos & Monique Scotti (feat. Colin Robertson), Global News, September 17, 2017

Should Canada join U.S. ballistic missile defence program?
by Levon Sevunts (feat. Rob Huebert), Radio-Canada, September 16, 2017

Analysis: U.S. would let a nuke missile wipe out a Canadian city - then maybe it's time for a new ally?
by David Pugliese (feat. Stephen Saideman), Ottawa Citizen, September 15, 2017

VIDEO: North Korean missile tests are about 'regime survival'
by Mercedes Stephenson (feat. Marius Grinius), CTV News, September 15, 2017

The ISIS leader who once received Canadian military training
by Adnan R. Khan (feat. Andrew Rasiulis), Maclean's, September 8, 2017

 

LATEST TWEETS


Donate | Submit | Media Inquiries
Making sense of our complex world. | Déchiffrer la complexité de notre monde.
 
HEAD OFFICE
Canadian Global Affairs Institute

Suite 1800, 421 7th Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada  T2P 4K9
 
OTTAWA OFFICE
Canadian Global Affairs Institute

8 York Street, 2nd Floor
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada  K1N 5S6

Phone: (613) 288-2529 
Email: contact@cgai.ca 
Web: cgai.ca
 
2002-2015 Canadian Global Affairs Institute

Charitable Registration No.  87982 7913 RR0001