Our one certainty is that peace in our time has not arrived. At the end of last year, there were 24 major armed conflicts ongoing.

Clearly, creating an equilibrium in the international system—or, if you will, a balance of power—is a continuing, delicate and, at times, violent process. We can expect the international situation to be complex, fluid, locally unpredictable and increasingly dangerous.

The new millennium arrived burdened by conflict and random violence between the “haves” and “have-nots.” The now-and-future conflicts are becoming transnational and global.

Fundamentalists and terrorists have blurred the distinctions between crime and war, criminal and civil, combatant and civilian. Those with conflicting cultural or religious ideology are likely to challenge the democratic nation states—according to their rules and not ours.

Their actions will seek to exploit the seams of the modern state’s internal and external security structures. Their unconventional means have already resulted in casualties in the many thousands. Genocide in Rwanda, “ethnic cleansing” in the Balkans, feuding warlords in Somalia, hijacked airliners Sept. 11, 2001 in New York and Washington, and terrorist bombs in Bali and Moscow Theatre last October.

Canada is no longer immune from terrorist attack, whenever and wherever. Our major economic and geo-political umbilical with the United States—our integrated critical infrastructure and cross-border trade—makes us an open target. Our geography is no longer our “fireproof house” and some even believe us to be a haven to terrorists.

In much of this troubled world, terror dominates and too often only armed response can counter this state of affairs. More the pity then, that Canada’s political leaders have clearly failed to publicly recognize, or have chosen to ignore, the direct linkage between the diplomatic, economic and military elements of national power in global affairs.

The notion of an overarching national security strategy to define our vital interests and guide the component parts of our national power continues to be muted. Just perhaps, the present government has no stomach for a national strategy that could become the measure of its perceived ineptitude.

While Canada stumbles along with an incoherent national security strategy, the Canadian Forces are now so underfunded that they have been plunged into “relentless decline.” This same internal review also warns that the worst could be yet to come.

Other nations have not been so circumspect. The United States has openly declared war on international terrorism and those nations who are found to be harbouring international terrorists. Its defence budget is now the highest ever in peacetime. It is urgently restructuring its security resources to provide for homeland defence. To meet these new threats to stability and security, it is integrating the traditional emergency responders from police, the fire service, military and the medical and public health services.

In 2001 after a major strategic appraisal, Britain announced its defence budget was to rise by BR£3.5 billion ($8 billion Cdn) a year by 2005-06. This was to provide its Armed Forces with modern, battle-winning equipment and enabling their Armed Forces to operate more effectively alongside allies in the continuing campaign against international terrorism.

After the events of 9/11 and a further strategic appraisal, the Defence Ministry identified additional funding to respond to a changed world. Budget 2002 provides an additional £1 billion of new capital and £0.5 billion of new resources, to be able to react worldwide.

Moreover, prudent management of its finances has meant that Britain is able to find billions more for health and education whilst at the same time, finding billions extra to ensure that they continue to have one of best armed forces in the world.

The Australian government is also reviewing its foreign and defence policies. The drafting of the foreign policy White Paper runs in tandem with a major strategic review by the Australian defence department. Both will take account of the aftermath of Sept.11 and the war on terrorism. (Undoubtedly the terrorist bombing in Bali will figure prominently.)

The foreign policy white paper will show that the U.S. recently overtook Japan as Australia's major trading partner. Australian relations with the U.S. in defence and trade now surpass all others in importance. Their Defence Forces have confirmed that robust ground forces, highly trained, mobile and adequately equipped are needed to occupy and hold ground to create lasting change.

Canada, as the major trading partner of the United States, can no longer ignore the direct linkage between our foreign, economic and defence policies—including spending real money for national defence.

Our military could not sustain a one-battalion battle group in Afghanistan beyond six months; our naval task force in the Arabian Sea has dwindled to two ships. The air force is still awaiting the modernization of 80 CF-18 fighters and the replenishment of precision guided munitions expended over Kosovo back in March 1999.

Moreover, future expeditionary missions will be constrained by the lack of military physicians. (This year, barely half the medical officer field positions could be filled.)

The Canadian Forces are stretched beyond a sustainable limit. The Chief of the Defence Staff said so in his annual report. The Auditor General of Canada said Defence needed at least $1.5 billion more annually over the next five years to restore a credible combat capability.

The Senate Committee on National Security and Defence agreed and suggested a two-year respite to recover. The Commons Standing Committee on National Defence agreed with the auditor general but wants a $4 billion bump in defence dollars now.

It remains to be seen if Canada’s government will recognize in its February budget that resuscitating our military is its most urgent challenge and, just perhaps, its lasting legacy.

Without security there can be no health and wealth. Indeed, our government’s oft-touted pursuit of “soft power” instead, is turning into no power at all. A new national security strategy is long overdue.

      top
 previous article   |   News 1/03 index   |   next article