http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/westview/story/2079182p-2406480c.html

Whither Defence (1)

Sun Jul 18 2004

By JAMES FERGUSSON

At first glance, the new (old) government does not bode well for Canadian defence. While all the major parties pledged to increase military spending and re-equip the armed forces, most pundits suggest that Paul Martin, dependent upon the Bloc and the NDP, will be driven to spend most, if not all, his surplus dollars on a left-wing agenda.

Leftover money for defence is likely to be invested in areas seen as appropriate to the leftish image of Canada as a peacekeeper, rather than a nation with modern, combat-capable forces able to operate in high-threat environments alongside the United States. The prime minister made this perfectly clear during the campaign, and especially in the leaders' debate. Condemning Stephen Harper for lavish promises to build aircraft carriers, he portrayed the Canadian Forces as international social workers, building and keeping the peace.

The hidden message, consonant with Bloc and NDP defence thinking, is that the peacekeeping agenda is a uniquely Canadian vocation. The other unmentionable military function, warfighting, is -- by default -- un-Canadian.

In one fell swoop, peacekeeping became wrapped up in the Liberal fight to protect Canadian values against the Conservative (read American and Republican) barbarians. If this is truly reflective of Martin and Liberal thinking, as it is for the NDP and the Bloc, then the results of the ongoing defence, foreign and aid policy reviews, as well as future defence investments, are not difficult to predict.

However, if pre-election behaviour is any indication, the future for Canada's military may be completely different. Many have forgotten that Martin used defence, security and the poor state of relations with the United States to distance himself from Jean Chrétien. He pledged to rebuild the Canadian Forces and announced several major equipment programs, including a new direct-fire support vehicle for the army and joint supply ships (which may end up looking like carriers).

Most importantly, Martin promised to repair relations with the U.S., a promise that was strategically linked to defence and security. Significant problems in the relationship, such as softwood lumber and mad cow disease, were linked by the Martinites to a series of actions and statements by the Chrétien administration on defence and international security. Iraq was simply the last straw. Of course, reversing Canadian policy by sending troops to Iraq is highly unlikely. Forget about the Bloc and NDP -- given the situation in Iraq, neither the public nor the Liberal caucus would stand for such a decision. However, all of them, including the Conservatives, support more spending on defence, and such an investment is likely seen as one of the best ways to improve relations with Washington.

Successive U.S. ambassadors have regularly called for greater Canadian defence spending. Most Canadians, especially since 911, see America as a society that highly values security and a strong military. The Liberal-left takes this further to see the United States, especially under Bush and the Republicans, as militaristic.

These combine to create an image that re-equipping and modernizing the Canadian Forces to ensure inter-operability with the U.S. military will have a significant positive impact in Washington. This strategy holds that the route to improved relations across the board is through a defence policy that builds a warfighting, and not just a peacekeeping, capability -- the agenda of the right, not left.

But this will not be enough. It takes time to translate dollars into actual equipment and capabilities. Policy decisions will have to be made that go beyond spending plans, which can change over time.

Some such decisions were made in the first days of the Martin government last December. The creation of the Department of Public Safety, a Canada-U.S. relations cabinet committee, a national security advisor, and the release of Canada's first and only national security policy were partly designed to signal Canada's serious commitment to North American defence and security cooperation, and thus improved relations.

In short, Martin's pre-election behaviour suggests that defence will do reasonably well, and that the government's defence and security policy -- at least when it comes to spending and North America -- will look more like that of the Conservatives and the right than those of the NDP, Bloc and the left. The first clear example will be the announcement this fall that Canada will participate in the U.S. missile-defence system. Martin spoke in favour of Canadian participation in the spring of 2003, and his defence ministerinitiated formal negotiations with Washington in January to provide a role for NORAD and Canada. During the leaders'debate, Martin carefully sidestepped NDP leader Jack Layton's attempt to get him to commit one way or another on Star Wars.

Of course, a decision to participate does not necessarily mean that the government will move fully to the right on defence and security, especially outside of North American cooperation. For now, a pro-Star Wars decision will simply indicate that thestrategy of using defence to improve the state of relations with Washington remains feasible.

Despite the 'line in the sand' drawn by Layton and Blocquistes, neither is likely to try to bring the government down over missile defence. Not only can Martin make the decision without reference to Parliament, but the Conservatives fully support participation.

And neither NDP or Bloc want to be blamed for precipitating a premature election, especially over a defence issue.