New Defense White Paper??

[Edward Campbell]

Well, I'm certainly not a resident academic,â ? but I am familiar with Welsh (   http://www.politics.ox.ac.uk/about/stafflist.asp?action=show&person=71 ) and her book and I do pontificate now and then, so ...

Her central thesis: that Canada can and should 'grow up' and play a self-defined role in the world is OK.   I take issue with the role she advocates ... a 'Model Citizen' state.   I find it neither practical nor desirable.

I agree with her that we, as a nation, must announce and promote both our vital interests and our values as a â Å“constitutional democracyâ ? (she, in turn, agrees with political theorist Jeremy Waldron - http://www.columbia.edu/cu/philosophy/Faculty/_facultypages/jeremywaldron.html )   I, personally, find Fareed Zakarias (http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/articles.html ) more persuasive, at least clearer but all three try to get at the same idea.   The Liberal, constitutional democracies â “ and there are damned few of them â “ exist in an untidy tangle of overlapping principles including, but not limited to: rule of law, elections (government with the consent of the governed), freedom of information (government with the informed consent of the governed), independent judiciary which, somehow, balances the executive/legislative 'branches,' regulated capitalism, which includes respect for (if not, always, constitutional protection of property rights) and so on ...

Being a 'model' is not, in my view, sufficient.

I also agree with Welsh that we are not going, cannot go back to the 'glory days' of St. Laurent's foreign policy ... we are no longer the leader of the middle powers but, despite the best efforts of Pierre Trudeau (certainly the very worst leader of any Western democracy in the 2nd half of the 20th century ... a petty, provincial, pumped-up poltroon and an economic and foreign policy ignoramus to boot) and Jean Chrétien (a cheap crook interested only in his own parish pump politics) Canada remains, as I have said before, one of the 'top ten' nations at the turn of the millennium.   Even after China and India and maybe Brazil and Indonesia and Spain and, and, and 'develop' (and not all will) we will remain in the top 10% of all the nations in the world by mid century.   We may not recover our 'glory' but we will, still, have power and influence and we must use it or lose it.   (I have expressed this concern elsewhere; plus, I argue that 'soft power' only exists for nations which have (and can use) hard power.   It does not exist in a vacuum â “ Pink Lloyd Axworthy is (as usual) wrong ... dead wrong.   We can have an use soft power only after we have rebuilt and have demonstrated a willingness and ability to use our hard power ... soft power exists in the minds of those to whom it is applied and they only take note of the soft power after they are aware of the hard stuff.)

I also believe that Welsh, like many scholars, misinterprets what Trudeau tried to do with the 1969/70 Foreign Policy for Canadians (White Paper) fiasco.   She, citing others - e.g. Granatstein, argues that Trudeau was placing interests ahead of values.   I believe it was quite the opposite because Trudeau failed to understand Canada's interests and, instead, he imposed on set of small Canada, provincial values on our foreign policy, called that interests and went back to his only area of interest: the problem of Québec nationalism.

I believe we have interests; I have summed them up, elsewhere, in two words: peace and prosperity.   Peace, I have explained, is more than just the absence of war and prosperity is more than just a favourable trade balance.   We need to protect and promote those interests which contribute to our peace and our prosperity so that we can, then, promote both, and our values to others.

Welsh is popular, very popular right now and we, those who support an effective military for Canada, should support her over the wet noodles in DFAIT but we must, also, understand that she is promoting something which is neither practical in the 21st century nor, in my personal opinion, even desirable.   That being said, it is a start and if the government listens to her and starts down that path then our interests will have been served before public interest fades, again.

 

[Kirkhill]

So ROJ when ARE you going to run for office? I'd like to have someone to vote for.

Interesting commentary on Trudeau, Chretien and Axworthy.  I find myself in agreement.

History is replete with discussions of behind the scene's manoeuvring.  I wonder what the story the books will tell a hundred years from now.

I ran down to the local bookstore and got a copy of "At home in the World".  Couldn't help but wonder if her scholarship hadn't been paid by the Liberal Party.  Norway is the Model and we should emulate Norway.  Soft power, rapid response and niche forces as well as necessary domestic security capabilities seems to be the Coles Notes version.

The only faults she seemed to find in the general tendency in Defence policy seemed to be:

a) go ahead and support NMD because it seems unlikely to work, the Americans are going to do it anyway, and it won't cost us anything to support them.
  (On the otherhand not supporting them might have costs)

b) she understood McCallum not buying C17s and "would probably have made the same decision" herself, but Paul Martin is going to have to invest in Strategic Lift.

No quibbles on the lift, but what does she plan to lift.  She also praises Norway because it shifted defence priorities without having to increase the budget.  (No mention that I could see that Norway puts  about 1.8% of GDP into defence and 0.7% into foreign aid - Canada 1% and 0.2%?) 

It will be interesting.

And on the subject of the White Paper and the Foreign Policy review, it sounds as if some of our "Notables" in Foreign Affairs who wish to be unnamed might be getting their noses a bit out of joint.  Perhaps understandable if an outsider has been brought in to do their job.

Cellucci effectively signalled that a Rapid Reaction Force with Heavy Airlift ( so a light force) and an ability to take over security duties in Haiti would be just fine with the US.  He encourages this.

That seems to jibe fairly well with my quick appreciation of Welsh.

U.S. suggests Canada adopt complementary foreign policy

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=1837793

Canada's latest foreign policy review, which began last year, is now in the hands of Oxford University scholar Jennifer Welsh, author of a book that encourages Canadians to stop defining themselves in relation to the United States.

One top Canadian official attending the conference of politicians, scholars and others debating relations between the two countries said Saturday he found Cellucci's foreign policy suggestion "patronizing" and thought it might raise some hackles in Ottawa.

"The words are offensive. The sentiment behind it is not that offensive. It's largely a truism anyway."

But the emphasis on Canada's role as it relates to the U.S. is symbolic of the emotional tussles of the four-day conference, he said.

 
"It always seems to be about what we're doing wrong toward the U.S. and how we can kiss up and make it all better."

His words were echoed by a former top Canadian politician during one of several sparring sessions on everything from missile defence, Nafta and Canada's clout south of the border.

"What difference does it make whether we have any influence in Washington? I don't understand why so many of our fellow Canadians are so preoccupied with this question."

In a speech late Friday, Cellucci fleshed out his longstanding pitch on Canada's defence capabilities, saying more money should be spent on intelligence gathering, a rapid-reaction strike force and heavy-lift aircraft to whisk soldiers to world hotspots.

Some of our Foreign Policy types don't seem to think that Washington matters. 

How are our beef and lumber sales doing these days?  Any word on the auto industry?

Gawd 'elp us all.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This may part of the delay ... it doesn't bode well for an easy ride for any defence white paper ...

From today's Ottawa Citizen see: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=7f2ddaaf-d16a-4fb8-9a4c-eca271f45fe6

Foreign policy review delayed 'to get it right'

Pettigrew aide blames changing world; critic says report sent for dose of 'pizzazz'

Mike Blanchfield
The Ottawa Citizen

February 8, 2005

Canada's foreign policy review has been delayed because it's based on an ever-changing world, filled with elections and disasters, says a Liberal MP.

Dan McTeague, the parliamentary secretary to Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew, offered up that explanation yesterday in the face of Conservative attacks on delays in completing the long-anticipated policy statement.

"The world has changed in the past 35 to 40 days," Mr. McTeague said, answering for Mr. Pettigrew, who is out of the country. He referred to the recent elections in Ukraine that brought new hope for democracy "and, of course, the tsunami."

"It is important that we consult with all individuals in the world, with all experts, and that we get this right," Mr. McTeague added.

Prime Minister Paul Martin ordered a rewrite of the review of Canada's new direction in the world, including calling on Canadian-born Oxford scholar and author Jennifer Welsh, because the latest -- and what was meant to be the final -- draft of the document hasn't met expectations.

"After a year of in-house bureaucratic work on a foreign policy review, the prime minister has sent the long awaited document back and brought in a Liberal academic to give it more pizzazz," Conservative critic Dave MacKenzie said in the House of Commons.

"We are still waiting for the prime minister's own version of what Canada's foreign policy should look like. ... Can the prime minister tell the House when the pizzazz will be ready for delivery and what it will cost?"

A senior federal government official said Ms. Welsh has been brought in by Foreign Affairs to consult on the international policy statement, "but she is not directing" it.

The official declined to say whether the statement would be ready before the Feb. 23 federal budget, in which the government will have to address how it plans to spend to support its international efforts, including funding for the Canadian Forces.

"We're not setting artificial deadlines," said the official. "It will be released when the prime minister is satisfied it meets the standard of articulating a compelling, challenging and comprehensive view of Canada's role in the world. ... But better that it take longer than be lousy."

Meanwhile, the Conservatives pressed Mr. Martin and Defence Minister Bill Graham on whether the upcoming budget will increase defence spending.

The attack followed Friday's public plea for more funds by the new Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier, at his swearing-in ceremony.

Mr. Graham, who cancelled a planned news conference following Gen. Hillier's remarks, said he is working closely with Finance Minister Ralph Good-ale to ensure there is money for the Forces to "move forward to fulfil the prime minister's objective of making sure that we are capable of helping in a world which needs Canada's help."

© The Ottawa Citizen 2005​

Personally, I can do with a little less pizzaz and a little more substance in government policy papers but then, what the heck, I'm only a citizen ...

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

UNCLASSIFIED



IT IS A PRIVILEGE AND AN HONOUR TO BE ADRESSING YOU AS YOUR NEW CHIEF OF THE DEFENCE STAFF. I ASSUME THIS NEW POSITION WITH GREAT PRIDE IN THE CANADIAN FORCES, AND EVEN GREATER HUMILITY FOR BEING OFFERED THIS OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD THOSE WHO I BELIEVE REPRESENT THE VERY BEST OF CANADIANS - THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE CANDADIAN FORCES.


I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE CF LEADERSHIP AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE CF AND DEFENCE TEAM TO ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES THAT WILL FACE OUR ORGANIZATION OVER THE COMING YEARS.


I BELIEVE THE CF IS ENTERING AN EXCITING TIME WITH AN EXCEPTIONAL OPPORTUNITY AT HAND - TO FOCUS EFFORTS FOR RELEVANCY TO BETTER PROTECT THE SECURITY OF CANADIANS AT HOME AND ABROAD.


THE GOVERNMENT S REVIEW OF CANADA S DEFENCE POLICY IS THE FIRST MAJOR STEP IN THIS DIRECTION. THE NEW POLICY WILL PROVIDE THE CF WITH A FOCUS AND DIRECTION.


THOUGH RECENT MEDIA REPORTS SPECULATE WIDELY ON THE OUTCOME OF THIS REVIEW, AND THIS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL THE NEW POLICY IS TABLED, I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT MY INTENT IS TO KEEP YOU AS WELL INFORMED AS POSSIBLE AS WE MOVE CLOSER TO POLICY RELEASE.


THE DEVELOOPMENT OF THE DEFENCE POLICY STATEMENT HAS BEEN A COLLECTIVE EFFORT INVOLVING SENIOR MILITARY LEADERSHIP FROM ALL ELEMENTS OF THE CF. THE POLICY WILL CLEARLY OUTLINE THE ROLE THAT LAND, SEA, AIR AND SPECIAL FORCES WILL PLAY IN DEFENDING OUR COUNTRY AND HELPING THOSE IN NEED ABROAD. MY VISION IS A NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR FORCE WORKING AS ONE INTEGRATED TEAM TO ENSURE THE CF IS EFFECTIVE, RELEVANT AND RESPONSIVE TO THE SECURITY REQUIREMENTS OF CANADA AT HOME AND OVERSEAS.


I WILL ENGAGE CF LEADERSHIP IN ONGOING DIALOGUE AS WE MOVE FORWARD. WE HAVE A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY TO IMPLEMENT THE NEW DEFENCE POLICY AND TO ENSURE OUR SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN, AS WELL AS ALL CANADIANS, UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CF IS DOING TO BETTER DEFEND OUR COUNTRY AND ENHANCE OUR EFFORTS ABROAD.


I AM EXCITED ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE CANADIAN FORCES AND LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU TO FOCUS OUR EFFORTS FOR RELEVANCY TO BETTER PROTECT THE SECURITY OF CANADIANS.

 

[P Kaye]

I've been on the edge-of-my seat in anticipation of the result of this reveiw.
I recently read "While Canada Slept" by Andrew Cohen... has anybody else read this book?  I recommend it, although it may put you in a bad mood...

 

[Edward Campbell]

Thanks CFL for agreeing to ask the Mods to merge the CDS message (up above) with this Defence White Paper thread   ...

I think the progression is going to be:

"¢ The integrated 3D (diplomacy, development, defence) policy review/statementand

"¢ A defence white paper; and

"¢ Finally - some major changes to force structure based on a new budgetary base

The trick, for Graham/Hillier and their successors - such as it is a 'trick' - will be to ensure that the new budget base enables the forces to do what the white paper says ... there's many a slip, etc ...

 

[Good2Golf]

Hmmmm...democracy in a former Easter Bloc nation?  Wow...that really did sneak up on us!  Last time that happened was....oh, I don't know...1989! :

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

You would think that the writers would use some loose or generic language that while it may not name countries by name ie Ukraine it would still have a general all encompassing theme.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The real reason for the delay is to incorporate Welsh's new language and, according to the rumours, new ideas into a pretty dull, pedestrian (How else? It was written by committees and then edited and revised by another committee!) paper.

We (Canadians) went through this with Trudeau's pathetic, even disastrous '69 white paper â “ it was all style and fancy presentation and it was absolutely, 100% devoid of ideas and ideals ... the worst effort of Canada's worst 'leader.'

 

[P Kaye]

Perhaps we should reserve judgement until the paper is released... perhaps we will be surprised...

 

[Kirkhill]

"The world has changed in the past 35 to 40 days," Mr. McTeague said, answering for Mr. Pettigrew, who is out of the country. He referred to the recent elections in Ukraine that brought new hope for democracy "and, of course, the tsunami."

"It is important that we consult with all individuals in the world, with all experts, and that we get this right," Mr. McTeague added.

Hmm, interesting concept.  Policy development by consulting with 6 Billion people, individually, every 35 to 40 days.  Kind of sets a new standard donchathink.

Snide comments aside....

Perhaps we should reserve judgement until the paper is released... perhaps we will be surprised...

Agree entirely P Kaye.

Cheers.

 

[a_majoor]

Some ideas that should be considered in the policy review/white paper...

The Conference of Defence Associations (CDA) would like to bring to your attention several articles (see links below) that address the changing nature of threats and warfare in the shadow of Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the need for defence doctrines in the Western world to adapt accordingly (see Colin Gray's article). For instance for Canada, the lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq may provide good rationale for certain capabilities the Canadian Forces now lack (or are in the process of discarding): main battle tanks (MBTs) for urban warfare/warfighting operations; close helicopter air support and expeditionary ships big enough to carry and support these items.



Graham Fraser in the Toronto Star reports that the new CDS argues that the threat has changed from "The Bear" - the former Soviet Union - to "a ball of snakes," a danger that ranges from terrorism and organized crime to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.



An article in the Christian Science Monitor emphasizes how the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan have pushed the Pentagon toward new strategies and a transformation in US forces.  There is now a new emphasis on mobility including increased need for C-17s according to General Abizaid , guerilla-fighting skills, and Special Forces. The US Quadrennial Defence Review (QDR) 2005 is expected to be released shortly (see David Isby's article).



The recently released National Defence Security Strategy of the US outlines 4 defence objectives:

Secure the United States from direct attack.
Secure strategic access and retain global freedom of action.
Establish security conditions conducive to a favorable international order.
Strengthen alliances and partnerships to contend with common challenges.
The underlying tone is the fact that the US is a nation at war.  How this vision will come into effect is outlined in the National Military Strategy of the United States.



An article by Gen Klaus Naumann, former German CDS and Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, outlines steps that European countries must take with respect to the defence which would "produce European armed forces which tie European capabilities to American global projection capability."  According to Naumann "Europe must concentrate on the capabilities which really matter: France, the United Kingdom and Germany develop division-sized intervention forces. Spain and Italy could jointly develop together a similar bi-national force. Turkey and Poland remain focused on territorial defence. The remaining European countries should concentrate on specialized roles." He also mentions the issues of declining demographics in Europe and the impact this will have on defence spending and military recruitment.



Alain Pellerin

Executive Director, CDA

613-236-1252



"A Changed Military emerges from Iraq War," Christian Science Monitor, March 21, 2005

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0321/p02s01-usmi.html



Colin S. Gray, How Has War Changed Since the End of the Cold War?

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/05spring/gray.htm



NATO General (Ret.) Klaus Naumann: What European Defence Capability Requires

http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/showArticle3.cfm?article_id=11109&topicID=32



Graham Fraser, Forget `The Bear' - now, it's `snakes' Top general says military still focused on Russia But terrorists, criminals new security threat",Toronto Star. March 19 2005

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1111186208968



National Defence Security Strategy of the United States of America

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/d20050318nds2.pdf



National Military Security Strategy of the United States of America

http://www.dod.mil/news/Mar2005/d20050318nms.pdf



2005 Defence Review, David Isby, Washington Times, March 24, 2005

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050323-091220-4090r.htm

 

[NMPeters]

Just to let you all know, we are not getting a Defence Policy Review or White Paper. What we will be getting, sometime, whenever, is a Defence Policy Statement. That's what it's called now. Don't ask me what that means because I just don't know.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Just to let you all know, we are not getting a Defence Policy Review or White Paper. What we will be getting, sometime, whenever, is a Defence Policy Statement. That's what it's called now. Don't ask me what that means because I just don't know.

Anyone who votes Liberal should be shot with a ball of their own feces.



Matthew.    :

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"Anyone who votes Liberal should be shot with a ball of their own feces."

And the PC's did such an outstanding job when they were in power.
They are all the same patronage lovine, big business controlled, special interest following parties with a little different window dressing.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

"Anyone who votes Liberal should be shot with a ball of their own feces."

And the PC's did such an outstanding job when they were in power.
They are all the same patronage lovine, big business controlled, special interest following parties with a little different window dressing.

Off the top of my head, since Mulroney was in power from 1984 to 1993 (9 years) was he not responsible for:
Halifax-class Frigates
TRUMP upgrade
Arcturus P-3's
MHP-percursor
Nuclear Submarine Program (either British Trafalgar or French Amethyst) which would've allowed us to monitor the artic

In the subsequent 10 years, what has the Liberal government actually funded and delivered:
SMP?
MILCOTS?
Victoria-class?

Seriously, you keep bad-mouthing the PC's, but that doesn't negate the fact that the current PC supporters are far more in favour of a strong military (and using it) than Liberal supporters and because of that if we actually elected a PC government, we might actually get something done.




M.  :

 

[Edward Campbell]

In fairness some (most, actually) of the major re-equipment projects started under Liberals and finished under the Tories.   That is a sad reflection of the time necessary to move from approval to hardware in the field.

Neither party wanted to get too far away from the Canadian mainstream which is â “ and has been since the early '60s â “ wary of too much defence spending.   Canadians, broadly, see budgets as zero-sum games â “ if there is more money for defence then there must be less for more important programmes (more important to them, as individuals).

There was no great public outcry in '68 and '69 when Trudeau, supported by some in his cabinet, wanted to withdraw from the NATO military command structure â “ as France had done just a few years earlier.   Canadians were offered guns or butter but were told, and believed, that one must come at the expense of the other.

Mulroney, supported by some in his cabinet, too, wanted to modernize and expand the military but he produced a Cold War plan just as the Cold War ended, despite warnings from the professionals (civilian bureaucrats) in NDHQ about both the changing strategic situation and overly optimistic cost figures from the Tory outsiders* who crafted the Beatty White Paper.    P!ss poor planning, etc ...

There is not too much to choose between the Liberals and the Tories; it tends to revolve around leaders.   Trudeau mistrusted and, actively, disliked the military; Mulroney liked the idea of robust, capable armed forces â “ even though he, too, did not much like his senior defence staff (nor they him, I think).   Chrétien distrusted the admirals and generals â “ thinking them all Anglophilic Tories â “ even the French Canadian generals.   In both cases the centre in Ottawa (Privy Council Office and Finance Department) think poorly of DND and of the senior people in it.

----------

* Mulroney relied upon outsiders because he, and many of his political advisers, were convinced that the bureaucrats and the admiral and generals were all unreconstructed Liberals.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I bad mouth all politicians.  I'm bi-partisan that way.

 

[a_majoor]

Just to let you all know, we are not getting a Defence Policy Review or White Paper. What we will be getting, sometime, whenever, is a Defence Policy Statement. That's what it's called now. Don't ask me what that means because I just don't know.

It means all those notional billions of dollars we are supposed to get 5 years from now will be "Dithered" away........