Canada ‘lives off’ U.S. military protection while Australia forced to fend for itself
Matthew Fisher
National Post
13 Dec 201
CANBERRA — Australia is to spend $30-billion on defence next year.
For Canada to match that, on a per-capita basis, the Harper government would have to dole out close to $42-billion, instead of the planned $20-billion.
Fat chance of that happening, of course. An increase in defence spending of more than $1-billion or $2-billion a year by Ottawa is most unlikely, especially with an election in the offing.
The reason Australia has opened its wallet so wide with little dissent can be summed up in one word: China.
Despite concluding a huge trade deal with Beijing only last month, Australia feels compelled to continue ramping up defence spending because it feels threatened by its proximity to the blue-water navy, and other medium- and long-range strike capabilities Beijing has been quickly building.
Thanks, ironically, to massive amounts of cash China has forked over in exchange for massive amounts of Australian iron ore, Canberra has been buying big, expensive warships and a formidable air attack and logistics capability that dwarf anything Canada’s few hawks could imagine.
To explain the national consensus on making investment in the military a priority, while other government programs have been slashed, Mark Thomson and Andrew Davies of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) point to the Australia-centric world map that dominates the wall of the conference room in their office.
To the north lies the Strait of Malacca, the choke point through which so much global commerce sails. Beyond, and looming over everything is China, with ambitions to dominate the western Pacific and an economy that may or may not become a juggernaut.
Vancouver is only 2,000 kilometres further from China than Brisbane, but the Second World War shaped the Australian psyche in a way Canada never experienced. There were raids by Japanese warplanes and mini-subs, and Australian troops defended their homeland from the Japanese just over the horizon in Papua New Guinea.
Another overarching strategic reality is while Canada borders the United States, Australia is nearly 12,000 km from the West’s global guardian. Like Canada, it joined the U.S. in both world wars and Korea; Canada sat out Vietnam and the second Gulf War, while Australia, despite considerable opposition at home, took part.
“If I lived in the northern approaches to the continental United States, I would probably be very happy spending 1% on defence because at the end of the day what is the worst that can happen?” said Mr. Thomson, ASPI’s economics expert.
Added Mr. Davies, the director of research, “You would have Americans on your territory defending you.”
Neil James, executive director of the Australian Defence Association used blunter language to describe how Canada has ended up being almost dead last among western nations in defence spending, while his country seems destined to end up third, behind the U.S. and Britain.
“In a way, Canada has been a bludger,” he said, using an Australian term used to describe a loafer or sponger. “You live off your bigger neighbour next door.”
Canada gets away with it because “it is inconceivable that the U.S. would ever allow an existential threat to Canada whereas with us, it could happen,” he said.
“Canada and Australia are a lot alike, but geostrategically they are totally different. Until Canada faces a major strategic scare you won’t have a serious debate about defence spending.”
What Australia “has to worry about is remaining serious allies of the United States to encourage them to stay committed to playing a role in our part of the world,” he added. “Buying F-35 [fighter jets] and P-8s [anti-submarine warfare] aircraft is a great way to do that.
“I think a significant mishandling of our relationship with China would carry a political cost. The only thing worse than that would be a mishandling of the strategic relationship with the United States.”
While the security dilemma posed by an ascendant China remains paramount, Australia is also spending tens of billions of dollars on military procurement because, unlike Canada, it is a regional power. Military operations it might have to undertake without U.S. help include dealing with renewed instability in states that are “between fragile and moribund,” such as East Timor, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Fiji.
Then there is Indonesia, which has often had serious differences with Australia over Timor and other issues.
“The United States is not going to buy into a fight between Australia and Indonesia,” Mr. Davies said. “But I believe that that is not worth worrying about because these days everyone in Southeast Asia is looking north.”
Still, if problems arise closer to home “and we find ourselves in conflict with one of our neighbouring states, where the United States steps aside, we want to have the ability to comprehensively overmatch them to avoid having them come into conflict with us,” Mr. Thomson said.
“These are not problems that Canada has.”
