Juno News - Americans slam Trudeau’s “shameful” failure to hit NATO target

00:00:00.000 I will tell you no one is cheering for Justin Trudeau in Washington DC this week where the

00:00:14.700 NATO summit is convening and Canada has nowhere to hide for its refusal to increase its defense

00:00:22.180 spending to 2% of its GDP. This is the commitment that NATO allies have made. It's something that

00:00:28.400 the U.S. has always had to bear a disproportionate share of, but we're seeing now a tremendous amount 0.95

00:00:33.840 of criticism that I've not recalled from recent years, even when that number that Canada is

00:00:39.420 spending has been low from Americans. This is a clip from Mike Johnson, who's the U.S. Speaker of

00:00:44.920 the House. Shamefully, Canada announced in the last few days or the last couple of days that

00:00:50.060 they won't be ponying up. They're not going to do their 2%. Why? Talk about riding on America's

00:00:56.640 coattails. They have the, you know, they have the safety and security of being on our border

00:01:00.040 and not having to worry about that. I think that's shameful. I think if you're going to be a member

00:01:04.600 nation and participant, you need to do your part. Some have a greater sense of urgency about that,

00:01:09.960 clearly. I wanted to discuss this and related aspects with former Vice Chief of the Defense

00:01:15.620 Staff, retired Vice Admiral Mark Norman, who it's a pleasure to have on the show. Admiral,

00:01:19.960 thank you for coming on. Good to speak to you. Well, good afternoon, Andrew, to you and your

00:01:24.560 your viewers. And thanks for taking a serious interest in this really important topic.

00:01:32.480 For people that have not been as familiar with this discussion over the years, and I'll be clear,

00:01:37.880 this is not a discussion that just began with Justin Trudeau. It's longstanding. Where does that

00:01:42.960 2% number come from? And why has it been determined to matter to NATO allies?

00:01:48.160 Yeah. So without dragging your viewers through the decades-long history of NATO, you know, basically

00:01:56.340 during the height of the Cold War, everybody was seized with the urgency and need, and it was a

00:02:04.960 smaller community. And then, you know, as NATO evolved, the member nations grew with the collapse

00:02:14.920 of the former Soviet Union, et cetera, et cetera. We would find ourselves in about the last decade or so,

00:02:21.000 as NATO was transitioning out of its enormous contribution to Afghanistan and looking into

00:02:31.000 an unknown future, it was becoming obvious that there was an enormous discrepancy across the member

00:02:37.900 of our nations with respect to defense spending. And this was agreed roughly a decade ago, in fact,

00:02:47.180 under Prime Minister Harper initially, that this was the right metric to define sort of a fair and

00:02:56.680 reasonable playing field, if you will, for defense contributions, recognizing, you know, of course,

00:03:03.220 that there were some incredibly small and relatively poor nations, and there were some large and

00:03:11.180 relatively wealthy nations. And that, you know, across the board, this was a good way of measuring

00:03:18.560 contribution in a way which was commensurate with your relative wealth and your capacity to pay.

00:03:25.280 And so that, that's kind of the background that got us to the last couple of years. And then we can

00:03:31.020 discuss, you know, where the wheels have come off the wagon, to put it bluntly.

00:03:35.660 And just on that note, I mean, there's a, there are some countries that are, you know, incredibly

00:03:40.160 disproportionate in what they're providing, the United States being a notable example, they're up,

00:03:44.920 I think, at about three and a half percent of their GDP. I think Poland is somewhere near four percent,

00:03:49.680 if I recall correctly, or has been. But spending money, there isn't really a guideline for how you're

00:03:56.300 spending it. I alluded to this earlier. I mean, the government could just, you know, hire, you know,

00:04:00.500 a bajillion consultants and, you know, say, great, we've spent this much on defense. It doesn't mean

00:04:05.060 they're providing something better than other countries. So has that actually been an issue where

00:04:11.180 you have countries that are spending money, but they're not really getting anything for it?

00:04:14.740 Yeah. So, yeah. And I heard your comments earlier, and I think you, you know,

00:04:18.820 you hit on a valid point. So there's, there's sort of two perspectives on this. One, you know,

00:04:24.800 ultimately, as, as taxpayers money here, this, it needs to be a responsible use of those funds.

00:04:32.560 I will add that in the last few years, a number of things which were previously not included in

00:04:37.680 Canada's calculation have been included, including support to veterans, Coast Guard, those kinds of

00:04:43.120 things. So in theory, those should, those should make us look better, but it speaks to the gravity

00:04:50.660 of the problem across the board, that, that, that there is a significant underspend here in Canada.

00:04:56.140 But the other part of it is that, you know, it's a bit of an imperfect metric. And, you know,

00:05:01.240 I've, I've, I've spoken previously about the fact that it is, it is not, um, an ideal metric,

00:05:09.080 but it is the agreed metric. And, uh, you know, to your point, um, NATO doesn't care how you spend

00:05:17.640 the money. They want you to spend the money efficiently. And ultimately the taxpayers of

00:05:21.260 Canada should insist that the money be spent responsibly and efficiently. Um, but the reality

00:05:26.860 is that, uh, in the Canadian context, there are so many things which are grossly underfunded that,

00:05:33.720 um, we could and should, uh, hit the 2% target. That the, one of the concerns I have is that our

00:05:41.840 internal mechanisms and processes are so dysfunctional for a variety of reasons that, um, it, it would,

00:05:49.420 it would really be difficult to spend that money efficiently, responsibly in the period of time

00:05:58.060 that our allies are looking for us to spend. So I'm not making excuses for anybody, but, um, you know,

00:06:05.060 this has been a problem that's been decades in the making. Uh, it has become, uh, an acute problem

00:06:11.700 in the last several years for obvious reasons. And, um, you know, we can't spend our way out of

00:06:19.300 this, um, just by throwing money at it, but that's what they want us to do. But you know what? There is

00:06:25.800 a legitimate shopping list of things that are required that are not currently funded. So that's

00:06:33.620 kind of my, my, uh, circular reaction. Well, and you're, you obviously came up through the Navy,

00:06:39.620 uh, in, in terms of your service to the Canadian Armed Forces. And as I understand it, that's always

00:06:43.640 been one of the most, uh, just notoriously underfunded aspects of the Canadian Armed Forces.

00:06:49.140 Yeah. Well, all of the, all the elements of the Armed Forces, uh, have their own problems. And,

00:06:55.120 and yes, to your point, one of the challenges with, you know, um, the Navy tends to be what we

00:07:01.580 describe as the most capital intensive. Um, everything is, it's big, it's shiny, it's very

00:07:09.040 expensive to buy. It's very expensive to operate. You need very sophisticated, uh, uh, facilities to

00:07:16.920 support it. Um, and, but it's a relatively small from a people perspective. The Army is kind of the

00:07:24.160 opposite. Um, it doesn't mean it's not a high tech organization because it is, but it tends not to have

00:07:30.980 the, the magnitude of equipment. And then the Air Force is kind of in the middle where,

00:07:35.560 you know, um, the, the fleets all need to be monitored, uh, and, and the staffing needs to be

00:07:41.100 appropriate. So, um, and, and what we've gotten at the moment is we've got a bit of a perfect storm

00:07:47.160 playing out here. Uh, the chronic underfunding of, of the last, uh, couple of decades in the last few

00:07:53.360 years in particular means that the capital fleets that should have been replaced, and by fleets, I mean

00:07:58.860 everything from trucks to, uh, destroyers need to be replaced. They're long overdue. That's causing

00:08:05.420 enormous problems in terms of maintaining, uh, the, the, the current capabilities, which are

00:08:12.160 in many cases, if they're not obsolete, they're rusted out. And then that has an impact on morale,

00:08:19.100 um, because, you know, a lot of people, um, if they are inclined to join, don't want to join to

00:08:26.020 operate equipment that's older than them. And the people that are in and have been in for decades

00:08:31.020 are growing increasingly frustrated with the fact that they can't do, um, what they know they need

00:08:36.900 to do on behalf of Canadians because they don't have the support, both in terms of material support,

00:08:43.140 i.e. funding. And you know what? There's, there's a significant lack of what I would call moral support,

00:08:49.800 particularly, um, with this, with this government who, although they're saying the right things, I'm not

00:08:56.020 convinced they actually believe that this is important. And I think this is part of the reason

00:09:00.520 why this 2% issue has been such a problem for them because I really don't think they believe 0.97

00:09:05.960 in the need for strong defense. They'll, they play along, they say the right things, they've got all

00:09:12.660 the right slogans, but deep down in their core, I don't think they, they genuinely think it's that,

00:09:18.120 it's that important. And, you know, ultimately all of the things that Canadians love and enjoy and,

00:09:24.760 and are struggling with on a day-to-day basis from economics to, to everything else are all

00:09:30.940 premised on a secure environment. And, and, and that goes beyond our borders. Um, the reason why the,

00:09:38.800 the, the issue in Ukraine is so troubling is because it's representative of a far bigger problem with

00:09:45.760 respect to a clash, not just a political ideology, but a, a clash of, of geo political systems. Um,

00:09:54.400 and if we want to continue to, to, um, try and rebuild the kind of Canada that, that, that we all

00:10:01.760 love, um, w we can't let other external forces determine what kind of global systems we're going to

00:10:11.020 operate under. I wanted to go back to that clip I played earlier of Speaker Johnson in the U S accusing

00:10:17.460 Canada. He said the word shamefully of, of riding on the U S uh, military's coattails and the U S

00:10:23.440 government's coattails on defense, because I mean, the Canadian and American armed forces have long

00:10:28.460 standing, uh, ties and connections, NORAD, one of the most, I I'd say incredible success stories in the

00:10:34.760 world, not just in North America, that attitude, is that reflective of an attitude that exists in the

00:10:41.300 U S military itself, or is that just an attitude in the U S political class? Cause I know you would

00:10:46.720 have had a number of dealings over the years with your counterparts in the United States. And I, and

00:10:50.720 I'm curious if that's just a political posture or if that's something that was a very real sentiment

00:10:55.600 from the Americans. Yeah, no, I, it's an excellent, an excellent question. So let me,

00:11:02.360 let me preface my comments by saying to you that, um, historically, uh, and I, I speak from historical

00:11:09.400 perspective because I'm no longer serving, but traditionally throughout my career, there was, um,

00:11:15.720 the, there was a, a, a heartfelt, genuine acknowledgement of the caliber of, of Canadians, be they at, at sea in

00:11:25.080 the air or, or, or, or on the battlefield. And, and, uh, it was, it was, um, enormous respect. And, um,

00:11:34.360 you know, it was kind of one of these things, uh, we love you Canadians. We just, we just wish there

00:11:39.480 were more of you, um, was the sentiment and more, not just in terms of the numbers of people themselves,

00:11:45.320 but more armed forces, uh, in essence. And, um, uh, I genuinely believe that that is the undertone.

00:11:53.960 I know that on a individual peer for peer basis, that, that, that level of respect is still, is still

00:12:00.600 there. However, I also know that in the last couple of years in particular, for, for a variety of reasons,

00:12:07.400 including what I would describe as the relative, if not absence, let's just say, uh, the infrequency or,

00:12:15.720 or lack of depth of Canada's presence around the world, um, has caused a number of allies to start

00:12:23.560 questioning our commitment. Not, not the competency of the individual, um, but our commitment. And then

00:12:30.600 that there's also been some issues with respect to some of the recent experiments around, um,

00:12:37.240 dress deportment and appearance, which have caused some of our allies to kind of shake their heads

00:12:42.440 and ask what the hell we're, what the hell we're thinking. But that, that level of, um, concern,

00:12:50.200 I believe is, is entirely, um, it's transitional, it's episodic. And, and I believe that there's a

00:12:56.840 substance there. The bigger concern is exactly what you characterize, which is at the political and

00:13:02.360 national level. And, um, you know, there, there's a, notwithstanding the politics of this in the current,

00:13:10.680 um, timeframe, there's also a bit of a societal issue here. Um, we have enjoyed, um, living under the

00:13:18.600 umbrella of the United States for decades. Um, we have enjoyed, uh, an incredible degree, um, at least

00:13:25.800 until recently of, of, uh, national prosperity. And, um, all of these have, you know, allowed us to

00:13:34.680 kind of invest in ourselves, if you want to put it that way, as opposed to looking at

00:13:39.960 our responsibilities, um, more continentally first, and then globally, as it relates to, uh,

00:13:48.360 defense and security is, is your sense. And this is, I guess, getting outside of your military

00:13:54.120 experience and more to your, your think tank and analytical roles that you have now. Do you think

00:13:59.240 that the public calculation on this changed with Russia invading Ukraine? Because all of a sudden,

00:14:05.640 you have a type of war that had seemed very abstract and very anachronistic for, you know,

00:14:12.040 basically 80 years. That's how happening in, in Europe. And I, I don't know if that sentiment has

00:14:17.320 necessarily translated to North America, certainly colleagues of mine, I know in, in Sweden and

00:14:23.160 Estonia, it's very real for them. Uh, and I think that for Canadians, I'm wondering if you think that

00:14:29.480 has changed anything at all, or if the idea of needing to have defense, the idea of needing to

00:14:34.120 protect against a war is still just a very abstract concept for people. So I think the needle has moved,

00:14:40.920 but I don't think it's moved significantly. Um, so the good news is that I genuinely believe

00:14:47.000 and, and certainly polling has shown that there is a heightened sense of awareness and, and concern.

00:14:54.440 Um, and whether that's translating into a belief or a commitment that more needs to be done,

00:15:02.840 um, uh, the polling would say, yes, I'm not really sure that, that there's a couple of challenges

00:15:09.480 with this. One of them is what you just alluded to in your question is that, um, you know, and the

00:15:16.040 speaker kind of joked, well, he didn't joke about it, but you know, there's the saying, the farther

00:15:20.120 you are from the sound of the guns, the less, the less the stuff matters. So if you're in Latvia 0.98

00:15:26.040 or Estonia where, and by the way, we have a battle group, Canada has a battle group in Latvia. And then

00:15:30.680 this is a very real problem for you. This, this is not a theoretical issue that this, this is real.

00:15:36.120 Um, and the same goes for, you know, Sweden and Finland, who, by the way, for your viewers are

00:15:42.360 the latest joiners in NATO in the last few months. It's a huge step forward. Um, but when you're far

00:15:49.880 away and you're living under the umbrella of the most powerful nation on the planet, and you've lived for

00:15:58.920 maybe a few years, or certainly like some of us for our entire adult lives in a system whereby you

00:16:06.280 never really had to worry about it because you just assumed that it was all going to be looked after.

00:16:11.960 Um, it has created a sense of apathy. So there's, there's a fair bit of inertia associated with that

00:16:18.680 apathy. But the reality is that the global security situation is incredibly troubling. And yes, I mean,

00:16:27.320 we've talked about Ukraine. We haven't talked about China. We haven't talked about the, the, the real

00:16:33.720 genuine concerns about the growth of China's military, um, and its expansionist, uh, philosophies and, and,

00:16:42.200 and behaviors. And, you know, I said this the other day in another conversation, do I believe that

00:16:50.120 somebody in the next few years is actually going to invade the territory of Canada? It's possible, but I

00:16:56.440 don't think it's very likely, but there's the problem. If that, if that's the limit of somebody's

00:17:02.840 willingness to accept or understand the scale of the problem, then, then you can't have the kind of

00:17:09.720 conversation we have to have. This is about our way of life. This is about how, um, our economies

00:17:17.080 function internationally. This is about trade. This is about, this is about all those things that we hold

00:17:22.280 near and dear. This is about our freedoms. This is about the rule of law. This is about all these things

00:17:27.960 and China and Russia and other, um, mal actors are looking to reset a system that they have watched,

00:17:39.720 observed, and bluntly, um, not liked for the better part of the 20th and 21st centuries. And they want to

00:17:48.840 reset the rules of the game. Um, now if people want to live under those new rules, okay, fine,

00:17:56.440 but this is why this is such a big problem for our, our peers, our allies, and those like-minded nations

00:18:04.200 that we like to, you know, cuddle up to and befriend. Um, but we're, we're not showing them that

00:18:13.240 we actually care. Um, you might say we do, but what they're looking for is, okay, come on, Canada,

00:18:19.880 take, take your own defense seriously. And that goes back to your question about how you spend the

00:18:24.520 money. Um, everybody talks about article five and NATO and, you know, the all for one and one for all

00:18:31.320 kind of philosophy here. Everybody forgets about article four, which basically says you will do

00:18:37.560 everything you can to defend yourself. And if something happens and you can't, then we will

00:18:45.000 come to your aid under article five. So where's Canada on article four? Um, that's kind of what

00:18:52.200 we're being reminded of is our obligations because we're not doing everything we can and everything we

00:18:58.200 should to look after our own territorial integrity and more importantly, um, our ability to do what

00:19:06.360 we need to do, um, in, in the continent in cooperation with the United States.

00:19:12.120 It's the old airplane, uh, safety announcement of put your own mask on before you help your neighbor.

00:19:16.840 If you can't protect yourself and aren't protecting yourself, you, uh, certainly don't have anything

00:19:20.760 left to help anything else. So, uh, the fascinating discussion, so many other areas we could go with it.

00:19:25.240 I hope we can get you back on, uh, Admiral, uh, Mark Norman, retired vice admiral, and also

00:19:29.720 fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. It's been a pleasure, sir. Thank you for your service

00:19:33.720 and for your time. Thank you, Andrew, to you and your viewers and you know where to find me.

00:19:37.800 Thanks for listening to the Andrew Lawton Show. Support the program by donating to True North at www.tnc.news.

Juno News - July 14, 2024

Americans slam Trudeau’s “shameful” failure to hit NATO target

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript