1  2  Next

Cause the crackpots are aiming to take it all away.

After years of not enough, group says Ottawa now spends too much on defence STEPHEN THORNE
Tue Oct 25,10:11 PM ET



OTTAWA (CP) - After years of hearing complaints that it wasn't spending enough on defence, the federal government was told Tuesday it is spending too much.


In an eight-page report to the Commons finance committee, the socially oriented Polaris Institute urged Ottawa to freeze the "alarming amount" of public funds designated for the military.

Canada has all but abandoned its traditional UN peacekeeping role in favour of NATO peacemaking and U.S.-led offensive operations, said report author Steven Staples, the think-tank's director of security programs.

Last February, the federal budget promised $12.8 billion in new defence spending over the next five years, much of it one-time expenditures rather than cumulative.

Still, the annual defence budget is expected to increase to almost $20 billion from about $13 billion by decade's end.

Staples warned that much of the promised new spending is ill-planned, designated for programs and equipment that meet a U.S. agenda, not Canadian.

"We are witnessing the Americanization of the Canadian Armed Forces," he said.

He said last spring's defence policy statement, which charted a new course for the military, is not acceptable. The federal government needs to consult Canadians before deciding what to do with its Armed Forces, he said.

He called on Ottawa to freeze defence spending until it produces a full-blown white paper on defence.

Defence officials defended the course laid out in the policy statement.

Military spending is surpassing anything since the Second World War, Staples said. Yet Canada has become a "freeloader" in the United Nations.

"In 1992-93, participation in UN-led missions accounted for more than $9 of every $10 Canada spent on international military missions," Staples said.

"A decade later, in 2004-2005, the United Nations has virtually been abandoned, accounting for a mere 30 cents of every $10 Canada spends on military missions abroad."

In July, the UN had more than 61,000 soldiers conducting peacekeeping missions worldwide, he said. Canada's contribution was just 216 personnel.

Canada currently ranks 36th on the list of UN peacekeeping nations, roughly on par with Peru and Guatemala.

Canada's military has, however, contributed thousands of soldiers to U.S.-and NATO-led operations in Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf. A spokeswoman for Defence Minister Bill Graham said Canada is concentrating its efforts in areas where it can make a difference - namely failed and failing states.

"In fact, the defence statement says on this point that the suffering posed by failed and failing states is 'an affront to Canadian values' and we have an international responsibility to act," noted Renee Filiatrault.

The defence policy statement itself also states "the government believes that the UN continues to have an important role to play in peace support operations, particularly the legitimacy that it confers on these missions," she added.

"Most of our recent operations were undertaken by NATO and mandated by the UN," said Filiatrault. "In fact, providing security that allows the UN personnel to do their job."

She said the Defence Department heard the views of Canadians at parliamentary committees and during in-house consultation with experts.

As far as equipment is concerned, she said: "We equip our forces with what they need to do the job."

Staples acknowledged that military requirements have been evolving since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, but he said those changes should be addressed through the UN.

"Nothing gives legitimacy to a military mission like the United Nations."

His paper focused on Canada's role in intervention but did not address Canada's domestic defence and security requirements.

Some other findings about defence spending:

-Canada's defence spending ranks seventh of 26 NATO countries.

-The figure is triple Denmark's and more than double that of either Norway or Belgium; it is more than the 12-lowest NATO spenders combined.

-Annual global military spending is over $1 trillion, approaching the Cold War's peak.

The Polaris Institute is a non-profit organization dedicated to economic, social and environmental issues.

   

The Canadian public needs to make up its mind. You cannot ask the military to go out and do all of these flavour of the week humanitarian aid missions, (US Hurricanes, Middle East Earthquakes, Tsunami's) and then complain about how much money they are spending.

Moreover, in today's global economy, it is dangerous to believe that Canadians (and their allies) are safe from terrorist attacks. As well, when Canada's largest trading partner is directly attacked, it is assumed that it is in the Canadian interest to offer support (Afganistan). You cannot ask the military to do these things, and then literally take the wheels out from under them by cutting their funding to the point of break.

You cannot ask Canadians to go into these dangerous situations poorly equipped and then complain when they return injured or... God forbid, dead. Guess what Joe taxpayer, equipment costs money, militaries and humanitarian missions cost money, shut up and buck up.

   

Thanks for the postive reply Avro, it's about time the Canadian military got some sort of recognition from the people it takes its orders from and essentially protects.

   

I'll second that

   

Ditto. Nice to be on the same page with you for a change.

   

[quote="BartSimpson]

Ditto. Nice to be on the same page with you for a change. [/quote]

Well when it all comes down to it, protect the boys that are protecting you... who can argue with that?

   

You would be suprised

   

Sorry, had a bit of a brain fart there....

Case in point... Liberal Government of the 1990's-2004.

   

First off, this is a Socialist private institute who have pulled a recommendation off a Ouija board.
Second, this is not the fault of the Canadian people. If the government did what the people wanted, we might not have incom taxes and we sure wouldn't have the GST!


Ottawa's forgotten why we have armed forcesKevin Libin - October 31, 2005
Why does Canada bother having a military at all? There are no conflicts today that necessarily involve us. Our foreign policy has been off-loaded to the UN. We have no imperialistic designs. And the national mythology of Canada as a "peacekeeping" nation is just propaganda. Sure, we used to be the number one contributor to peacekeeping efforts. But that was ages ago. Today, we're something like 34th--even Ghana plays a bigger peacekeeping role than we do. Geographically, Canada's arguably the most secure country in the world, with oceans on three sides and a single land border shared with the world's most powerful ally. As one military scholar put it to me a few years ago, "Canada's defence problem is it doesn't have a defence problem."


So it's understandable the feds don't consider our men and women in uniform a high priority. It probably doesn't seem pragmatic to allocate resources to building a respectable fighting force when no one's being asked to do any real fighting. We send our troops on the odd mission--they're currently fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. But those are ad hoc and optional adventures. Little wonder that, as a percentage of our GDP, Canada's military spending has dropped by 62.5 per cent over the past 15 years. The only reason we bother with missions like that in Afghanistan is to hang on to some shred of legitimacy in the eyes of the U.S., the U.K. and other countries that influence the unfolding of history on a daily basis. It's a public-relations exercise.


But that's exactly the point. A strong army is the best tool a country can have to influence its friends and foes. As the Senate committee report "Wounded: Canada's Military and the Legacy of Neglect," released a few weeks ago, points out, in the current Canadian context, having a solid army isn't "about pushing people around." Rather, "it is about making sure that Canadians and their values and interests don't get pushed around." It's about sovereignty.


By running our once strong military into the ground, the Liberals have forgotten Cardinal Richelieu's cardinal rule of international politics: states have no principles, only interests. Ottawa may (naively) believe that it faces no imminent violent challenges, but how many other nations are so convinced of their permanent security? When other countries pick their friends, they don't look at our multicultural bona fides, our commitment to fighting global warming, or the fact that we're the home of this year's Miss Universe. They want to know how much heat we're packing, in case they need help getting out of a jam.


Whether we like it or not, earning a place on the world stage requires us to get serious about our military. Some observers, like those on the Senate committee, say that means more money. Perhaps it's just a case of resources being deployed more efficiently. Norway, a world leader in mountain reconnaissance and mine clearing, is a highly prized ally to the U.S.--despite its opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Poland has trained top-notch anti-terrorist commandos and has been favoured with billions of dollars in U.S. military investment as a result.


But while other countries create armies that earn them respect and repute, Canada's is getting weaker. The latest revelations that the Canadian Forces are further lowering entry standards to better attract women as part of an affirmative action program (see this issue's cover story) only proves that Ottawa is unsure of our military's role.


An army is either worth having or it isn't. Having a watered-down force makes as much sense as having no force at all. Until the feds are prepared to fire the troops and surrender our sovereignty to the UN, they might as well get serious about building a highly regarded fighting force. Maybe once we have that, more women--and men--will be interested in becoming a part of it.

Thanks to Western Standard.

   

A few names come to mind, actually. Or should I say, sadly.

   

Ridenrain,

It's up to the Canadian public to lobby the Government (NGO's, thinktanks etc) on behalf of the military, as military lobbying can be construed as mutiny. Your article from the Western Standard says, in ways beyond my linguistic abilities, what I was trying to say... Canada has to make some tough, concrete decisions about its military.

In the interm Canadians need to curb their criticisms of what the military is doing, and how it's going about doing it. The current military is doing the best they can with what they've been given, and they're out-performing even their own expectations, which can only be attributed to the resolve, leadership, and personal mettle of the men and women of the armed forces.

   

I'd second that, but it's already been done.

You make an excellent point. Very soon I think we, as a country, are going to have a discussion about what role we want for our military. Despite our short history, Canada has a proud military tradition. Also entrenched into the collective Canadian conciousness is the notion of peacekeeping.

Will it be one or the other? Armies are exspensive. Always have been, always will be. We need to decide what we're going to use our army for.

   

The good news on the horizon is that currently, there's a lot of positive academic discussion going on about that very question. More good news is that the new CDS is bang on, he's got a clear mission in mind, and he's leading/preaching from the top down, and doing so by personal example.

   

I think we're on the same page here.
My point was that absolving the government of this flies in the face every defense report since the Korean war. Even the Senate woke up long enough to report on this.
Aside from the loony -left, that this rant comes from, and the occasional quip "we have a warship?", I've heard nothing but praise for our people. Yes, people should write their MP's and demand a strong military. We also need a solid foreign policy that shows us where Canada stands in the world. Our troops and our peace-keeping/making have to be instruments of a solid foreign policy, not just a commitment to something undefined.

   

1  2  Next