On March 21, we published an op-ed in the Globe and Mail arguing that Canada had to become less reliant on the United States in matters of national defence. We held that Canada should rely more on itself and build new partnerships and alliances. Since the op-ed was published, we have had pushback from many serving and retired military officers. Most of the feedback has focused on the need to stay the course on the F-35 fighter, which we did not address in the op-ed. But there is usually expressed a more general underlying sentiment that the defence relationship with the United States is too important and too inevitable for Canada to seriously question.
This is an important debate, and one we are glad to have played a part in fueling. Instead of responding to each interlocutor individually, we would like to offer our responses here. In so doing, we hope to stimulate further discussion.
Broadly speaking, our critics have focused on three lines of argumentation.
The first is that we should not trade the certainty of what we have now for an uncertain and amorphous future. The binational defence of North America under NORAD, the Five Eyes intelligence sharing alliance, and our uniquely high level of interoperability with the United States military are upheld as foundational and certain. Why dilute these arrangements for something that may never materialise?
This argument assumes that the present will always endure. Looking at today’s United States, that assumption does not look as solid as it once was. The U.S. is ripping up treaties and agreements and walking away from obligations. While Canada may want the foundations of our defence relationship with the United States to remain as they are, it looks increasingly doubtful that Washington will agree. If that is the case, we should get ahead of this issue and start thinking about what Canadian defence policy should strive for if these pillars are weakened or demolished.
Indeed, the Canadian defence community would do well to take Prime Minister Carney’s warning into account: Canada’s existing security and economic relationships with the United States are “over.” This does not mean that Canada and the United States will cease to trade or cease to be closely connected militarily, particularly in defence of the continent. But those political leaders who have been speaking with the Trump administration are telling us that the present will not last in the form we now know it. When we accept the premise that the present reality is slipping away, consideration of alternate futures becomes much more rational. Indeed, it becomes essential.
Second, many suggest that defence “independence” is a mirage. Our critics rightly point out that many alternative European and Asian capabilities rely on American components that will still give the U.S. a degree of control over allies who employ them; so how “independent” can we be by buying alternatives to U.S. equipment? This is true…today. But the future is not static and important changes are already happening. Our European and Asian allies are becoming as concerned with their dependence on the United States as we are. They will be looking for ways to build up independent capabilities and so should we.
Take for example, the Global Positioning System (GPS). Virtually every Western military relies on the US-run GPS for navigation and targeting. This means that no alternative capability will be divorced from a degree of reliance on the United States; even if we buy a European fighter, it will not work properly if the U.S. limits access to GPS. Fair enough…for now. But when a number of American allies all realize that they could be cut off from GPS, they will be compelled to develop their own alternative and we can be part of that. In fact, there already are alternatives, though they need further development to match GPS.
The third counter-argument that we have noticed is the appeal to the ‘working level’ or the ‘brothers in arms’ argument; no matter how erratic the U.S. political system may become, the senior leadership of the U.S. military will always have Canada’s back. Generations of close cooperation between the military leaders of our nations have bred an unshakeable view that there are loyalties and attitudes which will not succumb to transitory bouts of political madness.
Leaving aside the question of whether the MAGA trend in U.S. politics is really that transitory (we are not sure it is), there’s no doubt that most American officials and officers feel differently than the Trump administration about the value of alliances and the importance of countries like ours. But will this always be true? Many officials and officers who disagree with the administration may choose to leave or be pushed out. Promotions will become highly politicized to ensure that loyal MAGA leaders are in key positions. That process is already underway. Under these circumstances, can we always have faith that America’s military leaders will take the view that traditional alliances with democracies are essential (as opposed to dalliances with authoritarian regimes) and that the sovereignty of allies deserves more respect than President Trump has shown us? Prudence requires that we consider alternatives.
Our original op-ed did not argue that Canada should cut all economic or defence ties with the United States. This is not possible. We will continue trading and defending the North American continent with the United States. Rather, the question before us today is what those economic and defence relations should look like going forward. What we are proposing is a managed transition toward a less integrated defence relationship, not an irresponsible severing of ties. To bring it back to the F-35, which we did not specifically address in our Globe essay, the issue is not how to cancel the entire contract, but whether and how to complement that fighter with another fleet as part of an effort to build new partnerships and build redundancies into our core defence capabilities. We recognise that there are purely military arguments that operating two different fighters is less efficient, but there are broader political and economic considerations which need to be factored in regarding the need to diversify our defence and trade relations. The same is true of other equipment purchases which are either underway or being contemplated, and of the general training and orientation of Canada’s military.
Those who argue that we must cling doggedly to the present fail to recognise that the present is rapidly departing. A good analogy is the auto industry in Canada. It is going to undergo a rapid and profound change. We are going to have to imagine and implement the transition to an entirely new industry and do so quickly. And, like the auto industry, it is vital to admit that these changes are being driven by the United States, not a sudden Canadian change of heart. The Trump administration has decided to upend the United States’ alliances and economic partnerships, not us. In the face of this upheaval, the Canadian response cannot simply be to stay the course and hope for the best. That approach cedes control over our future to the uncertain winds of political fortune in the United States.
We need to start thinking about and pursuing our own future. And the first rule in that process should be that clinging to old certainties won’t do us any good in a world where those certainties are vanishing.
