Defence in an Age of Austerity

To slay the deficit, and at the same time create jobs and sustain growth, is now the leitmotif of western governments living in an age of austerity. It is a tall order, especially given globalization and the competition from India, China, and Brazil, and, in most western nations, the challenges of an aging population.

Approaches vary. The British are applying a latter-day version of Thatcheromics. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy has rolled back benefits and the retirement age. The Greeks, Irish, and Portuguese are enduring IMF-imposed restraint – and they are likely to have more company in their misery. For now, grumbling German taxpayers keep afloat the idea of a European Union. A divided America is debating all options, but eventually its citizens will have to settle for a combination of fewer services and more taxes.

In this slough of western despair, the Canadian situation is comparatively better, but the Harper government’s deficit commitments mean hard choices.

The only federal program with some immunity will be the one related to First Nations, for whom most Canadians, including the prime minister, acknowledge an abiding obligation. The burden of spending cuts will be shared with the provinces and municipalities, but the effective counterweight lobby on local MPs of teachers, nurses, and the public will mitigate some of the pressure on the biggest spending programs.

Foreign and defence policy lack natural constituencies – although both development assistance and, especially, defence procurement account for billions in contracting for goods and services.

Surveys regularly tell us that Canadians care about the wider world. More so than people in most other countries, we derive our sense of national identity from our internationalism. In part, this is a reflection of the fact that we are increasingly a people with roots in every corner of the world. At one time, the tide of settlers flowed across the Atlantic, but since 1980, newcomers have crossed the Pacific and we now have a strong representation from the Indian and Chinese diasporas. Our pluralism is a source of pride and envy.

A strong defence and activist diplomacy should enjoy non-partisan interest and support. But the case has to be made. Joseph Nye once lamented that while we had demonstrated an abundance of “soft power,” we had forgotten that its successful application first required sufficient “hard power.” Comparatively, Canada does defence on the cheap, spending a little over one per cent of GDP. The Americans, by contrast, spend about five per cent and the British about two per cent.

Ours is the longest coastline in the world – enough to circle the equator six times. Always a sea-trading nation, we have become a nation of traders, with a record number of discussions underway to further trading opportunities with, for example, the European Union, China, and India.

There have been more changes to the ocean’s regulatory regime in the last three decades than in the last three centuries, as coastal states extend their jurisdiction. The oceans carry 90 per cent of global traffic, including over half of Canadian trade. The maritime estate on which we claim jurisdiction is about 70 per cent of our land mass, and the developments in the Arctic are a parable for what is taking place around the world.

We need to make the investments and break the keels on our promised icebreakers and the new destroyers that will put muscle into our eloquent words about how much the North means to Canadians. The federal government’s re-election should mean a reaffirmation of the Canada First Defence Strategy, including meeting new recruitment levels. These are good jobs that directly contribute to the national interest. Building supply ships and new fighter jets is expensive but necessary because no one knows the nature of the next threat, but when it comes we need to be ready.

We still need a sensible industrial defence policy to complement the strategy, and a first priority for both Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino must be to address the impenetrable and opaque procurement process because it is neither transparent nor cost-efficient.

And delay in defence puts lives at risk. In his elegant farewell remarks to the Department of Foreign Affairs, former foreign minister Lawrence Cannon re-enunciated the Harper government’s foreign policy priorities: the United States, the Americas, global economic opportunities, and Afghanistan, with special attention to the Arctic.

The most important of these priorities is the United States. Prime Minister Stephen Harper recognizes the wisdom of Brian Mulroney’s rule about good relations with the U.S. – it starts with a friendly and constructive relationship with the president. The Mulroney corollary is equally important: Our influence in the world is measured to a significant degree by the extent to which we are perceived as having real influence in Washington.

The Harper-Obama initiative to create a continental security perimeter to unplug the border and to take a machete to the tyranny of small regulatory differences that hobble business, especially small and medium enterprises, must proceed.

The imposition of drones, guards, and passports at the border has disrupted the benefits of the U.S.-Canada free-trade agreement and NAFTA. American tourism has fallen back to levels not seen since the 1970s. More dangerous to jobs and growth has been a disruption in the flow of goods and services from the once rapidly developing North American supply chains.

If President Barack Obama is to export his way out of recession, he must recognize that the place to start is with his two biggest trading partners: Canada and Mexico. The trade agenda remains the same: the Canada-EU free-trade agreement by 2012, and creating a formal framework with India by 2013.

We need a deal with China and, in the wake of the abortive BHP Billiton takeover of Canada’s Potash Corp., clarity around foreign ownership of resources and the role of the provinces and federal government. The test for International Trade Minister Ed Fast and the government will be their willingness to re-engage Canada as a leader, rather than a follower, in trade policy.

Harper’s commitment to re-engage with Latin America has been strong on rhetoric. Our relevance in the region will depend on our ability to participate in the broader social, political, and economic agenda. Minister of State for the Americas Diane Ablonczy has made a good start with a promise in Vancouver on May 26 to help with training for police, justice, and border management and to strengthen security co-operation.

Embracing the Americas should start with Mexico. Its growth rate, improving literacy, and location make it a prime market that Canadian companies are embracing, notwithstanding the drug cartels. As a recent study for the Department of Foreign Affairs reaffirmed, we need “more concrete evidence on the ground of Canada’s interest.”

Start with Mexico and move south. Aid to Latin America should become the new priority as we draw down in Afghanistan. The cabinet needs to revise our development assistance criteria to ensure that we can lend a helping hand to Mexico.

Unlike our Armed Forces, the Canadian Foreign Service has suffered from neglect and a management that has preferred process to policy. In its zeal for bean-counting and “accountabilities,” it has forgotten that foreign policy is about … foreign policy.

“Whole-of-government” should not mean a thousand miniature foreign services in every government department. The conduct of foreign policy requires coherence and consistency, with the Foreign Affairs Department empowered as a central agency of government in the same fashion as the Department of Finance, Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office.

While a National Security Council may make sense for the United States – with its checks and balances and separation of powers – efficiency, economy, and the exigencies of Westminster-style executive government argue against a similar experiment in Canada. But this does not mean a “Fort Pearson” with its back against the town reflecting on a golden age that has become more romantic than reality. Happily, there is considerable talent in the Foreign Service.

The challenge for Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird will be to cultivate it, encourage it, and then lead it on those issues that matter for Canadians and on those initiatives where Canada can make a difference.

Getting our way in a difficult world requires a coherent foreign and defence policy. It means investment in our Armed Forces and our Foreign Service. As a regional power, we should play off our geography. This means giving constant attention to the United States. But we also need to invest and intervene in our other regions of interest – the Americas, the Arctic, and those on the other side of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

In an age of austerity, everything becomes sharper in definition because the margins for error are too costly. It means looking through the right end of the telescope – that of the national interest. It requires recognition that foreign and defence policy is about power and the projection of power in the places that count.

Get this right and the rest will fall into place.

Photo courtesy of Reuters.