Trump is right about NATO - and probably NAFTA too

The reason Trudeau hasn’t contradicted Mr.Trump is because he knows he’s right

The liberal media (namely CBC) has painted Justin Trudeau’s lack of response in regards to presidential hopeful Donald Trump criticisms of NATO and NAFTA as a calculated and deliberate politeness on the part of the PM. The comments are PM is refusing to respond to are Trumps indication that he will “rip up NAFTA” and force countries in NATO to make appropriate contributions.

Being polite over this issue is stupid and the Liberals know it. NATO membership has been a thorn in the Canadian side for years, and NAFTA never really worked for us to begin with. The Trudeau government is being coy on this issue so as to separate themselves ideologically from US Republicans. However, more and more its looking like it will be difficult at best for Hilary Clinton to make it to the Oval Office, which means its time for Canadian politicians to truly act bi-partisan and agree with your ideological opposites by admitting that Canadians don’t want NATO or NAFTA anymore.

Since this article will likely exceed 2000 words if I combine both issues, today I will focus on the ludicrous nature of any Canadian politician supporting NATO. and when I next write, I will address the subject i’m less versed in (I need the chance to talk to an economist first), the economic policies of NAFTA and why they’re terrible for Canada.

All up in a tizzy, Canadian ministers says the dissolution of NATO would be bad for international peace, without much explanation as to why. 

"Sajjan said collective defence is central to the alliance, which itself has been instrumental in helping bring peace and stability to Europe and other parts of the world."

Even Ted Cruz has come out and said abandoning  NATO would be a preemptive surrender of sorts. 

Donald Trump is by no means the first to criticize NATO. Does anyone remember Robert Gates? Gates served as secretary of defence under both Bush 42, and Obama (not many secretaries continue after a president from the opposite party is elected) making he arguably one of the most based, centrist Secretaries of Defence in memory. So i’m sure such a centrist sits somewhere in between the blanket support Canadian politicians seem to have lately, and the polar opposition the Mr. Trump possesses.

"The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the US Congress - and in the American body politic writ large - to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defence … Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defence budgets.” 

It would seem that Donald Trump's proposal isn’t really new, or particularly controversial, save possibly his delivery of it. Funny he hasn’t got called out an plagiarism for basically repeating Mr. Gates sentiment,  but its likely the liberal media wouldn’t want to associate Trump with a based, centrist former Secretary of Defence.

Up here in Canada the coy nature of responses must because Canadian love the protection we get from NATO right? Well actually, we haven’t really been fans if you look through headlines from the last few years. Here’s a quote from a 2014 article about Canada’s withdrawal from the NATO mission in Afghanistan.

“On Tuesday, Canada officially ended its combat mission in Afghanistan. It should never have started.The war has been a dismal failure. It did not achieve its primary aim of capturing or killing terror chief Osama Bin Laden. … Nor has it defeated the Taliban. As Canadian and other NATO-led troops prepare for their final 2014 withdrawal, the insurgents remain dangerous, active and unbowed.”

Now keep in mind that Afghanistan is literally the only time the mutual defence clause has ever been used in NATO history, making the claim we need it dubious at best. That’s right, the very clause Canadian politicians and Ted Cruz want to retain has been used ONCE in NATO’s sixty seven year history. 

Furthermore, Trump is right about insufficient spending. Not only have Canada’s military contributions been abysmal (compare the number of troops we commit to NATO compared to a nation with similar population such Poland if you want to be shocked) but even after the Afghan mission we didn’t really want to pay up for our share of rebuilding the country we just helped destroy, because it was unpopular with Canadians. Even the Canada-NATO wiki page seems to say we might not be making much in the way of monetary contributions 

“Given the small size of Canada's military, the importance of Canada's contribution to NATO has primarily been political rather than military”

Oh yeah and more and more it looks like the Saudis, who we’re delivering LAVs to were actually more complicit in 9/11 than anyone thought, and Bush 42 should probably have invoked the NATO Collective Defence clause against Saudi Arabia rather than Afghanistan.

How have other NATO missions worked out? Well NATO helped with the UN no-fly zone around Libya during their uprising. Libya has basically been a failed state since 2011 and has become a serious breeding ground for groups like Daesh/ISIL.

So we’ve got massive spending and loss of life (significant enough to warrant its own wiki page) from the one time NATO’s collective defence clause has been used. Not only that but we likely went to war with the wrong state so the spending and loss of life was in vain. After that fact, Canadians didn’t have, or didn’t want to spend the money needed to rebuild the country we and the other NATO allies destroyed. It would seem to me that the result of NATO missions such as Libya and Afghanistan are pretty dubious. Not only are that, but Trump is right, we don’t spend enough on NATO. In 2016 we spent marginally more than (based on % of GDP) than Spain and Italy, who both had failing economies at the time. Canada hasn’t made it to the 2% contribution it promised, we’re at about 1% of half of what we said we’d spend, making Mr. Trump correct about our (lack off) spending.

NATO is bad for Canada, and we can’t afford it. If the Liberals had any balls they would stop subtly throwing shade at Donald Trump and in a wholly bi-partisan move, admit he might be right about the need for NATO in a world with the UN and some many other already costly treaty bodies. 

If The Liberals don’t release a White Paper on defence...

We’re in for a lot more of the same 

For those who don’t know, a White paper is is a repot issued by the government of a state that delivers a highly complex government policy in regards to a specific issue. It  spells out in immense authority: the government’s philosophy and it’s respective polices on the issue, a strategy for procuring or developing the necessary resources and infrastructure associated with the governments purported solution for the issue, and the necessary industry requirements and benefits that support the previous item. It seeks to do this in a way that helps the reader understand the issue, understand the solution, and hopefully agree with the later. 

When a new federal government takes office in Canada there is not a mandate to release such a paper, but often governments seeking to distinguish themselves from their predecessors choose to do so, usually with a paper written about the area in which they wish to make their differences apparent. When speaking of defence policy, according to the governments website, Canada has officially released six white papers on defence. The use of papers was started in Canada in 1964. The most recent paper put out in 2008 I discount for reasons I will defend shortly, but six papers in 52 years mean there is a paper released once every eight and a half years. If we count the 2008 paper, we are right up against that eight year window, and the time could not have come soon enough. 

If you don’t pay attention to defence issues, or Canadian politics (how are you here?) then I have some news for you, the Liberals have been making announcement after announcement regarding defence. Many of these announcements are extensions of campaign promises, such as reopening the bid for Canada’s new multi-role fighter (putting Canada’s role in the F-35 program in jeopardy for dubious reasons, even though it’s arguably the best aircraft available) and some of them are not even really announcements. Rather, they are small pieces of information, like the fact that Canada’s new Single Surface Combatant Vessel will de based on “off the shelf plans”. Most of these announcements are the finishing touch on many plans from the aforementioned 2008 white paper, named: The Canada First Defence Strategy. This policy by the Conservatives, was not in my opinion not a full white paper as it left out some crucial elements. It do not include for instance, any policy regarding industry requirements, or the benefits directly, it also left a few blanks over design specifics. What it did spell out in some depth with the Conservative policy and philosophy on recruitment, mission requirements, arctic sovereignty, funding, among a few other boilerplate defence issues such as global terrorism response. 

While the Canada First Defence Strategy did give specifics on the subjects I mentioned, its scope and authority was lacking as it did not set down industry requirements, nor did it fully spell out procurement in an authoritative way. This is why I defend it is not a true white paper, but I digress.

Despite its shortcomings, the paper followed through on most of its policy and philosophy statements. As well, Harper and the Conservatives completed several of their stated procurement items such as the C-17 Globemaster, C-130J Hercules, CH-47F Chinook helicopters, and Canada’s new Arctic Offshore Patrol Vessel (although the Liberals seem to be taking the credit even though steel had started cutting before Harper left office). It also spelt out funding for new Destroyers and Frigates, funding to update search and rescue aircraft, funding for land combat vehicles, and of course controversial funding for 65 new “next generation” fighter aircraft to replace the CF-18 by 2019. What was left with some ambiguity was the specifics as to what destroyers, frigates, and aircraft would be chosen to replace Canada’s current assets. 

My problem with the Liberals announcements to date, is so far as I can tell, they’ve been shooting from the hip. They have continued their election strategy of separating themselves ideologically from the conservatives, in the F-35 issue for instance they have said much about re-opening the bid, however when you consider the procurement of the F-35 is some eight years in the making, that the planes are both budgeted and scheduled to be complete in three years, slowing down the process by cancelling the contract now is some serious hip fire nonsense. Its not like previous Liberal governments did the same and left us flying 50 year old helicopters that are literately museum pieces to our American neighbours, causing severe monetary strain and seven Canadian military deaths in the process…

(A Seaking Helicopter that looks in better condition than Canada's -
on display at the USS Midway floating museum in San Diego CA.)

The politicizing procurement that has occurred is in my opinion, some serious hip fire bullshit for this new batch of Liberals. After Judy Foote’s missing announcement the other day, and various Harjit Sajjan releases, some about …drones? You can see how this apparently impulsive stagey begins to spread. 

If the Trudeau Liberals want to separate themselves ideologically, change Canada's procurement priorities, and overhaul our Country's military philosophy, a White Paper is the way to do it. 

(The pained  expression of Harjit Sajjan
as he conducts  public consultations
 on Defence Policy)

Shooting from the hip and politicizing procurement (an issue I will write about in greater depth in the coming weeks) is a bad decision, and can have dire consequences for our state. 

Lets hope the defence review that is ongoing, is a precursor to a new Liberal white paper, a decade without a real one is to long, and shooting from the hip, often has a way of hitting yourself in the foot. Its time Justin, its 2016 after all.