L'Australie, après les USA et le Canada, fournit six obusiers M777 à l'Ukraine

On the same subject

• 

  July 14, 2020 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  COMMENTARY: Canada should follow Australia’s example in defence, foreign policy

  By Matthew Fisher Special to Global News Posted July 13, 2020 7:00 am Updated July 13, 2020 11:32 am Those who follow developments in the Indo-Pacific often claim that Australia has a far more robust security posture there than Canada because of geographic necessity. The argument is that Australia must be especially vigilant because China is closer to it than Canada is to China. That perception may partially explain why Australia spends nearly twice as much per capita on defence as Canada does with little public discussion Down Under, let alone complaint. But here's the thing. It depends where you start measuring from, of course, but the idea that Australia is physically closer to China is hokum. By the most obvious measure, Vancouver is 435 kilometres closer to Beijing (actual distance 8,508 km) than Beijing is to Sydney (8,943 km). By another measure, Sydney is only 1,000 km closer to Shanghai than Vancouver is. Mind you, it must also be said that Australia is far more reliant than Canada on trade moving through the South China Sea and the Strait of Malacca. Canada has many more shipping lanes to choose from. Despite their similarly resource-oriented export economies, extreme climates and thin populations, there are startling differences in how Canada and Australia have tackled the security challenges of this century. The standard line from Ottawa these days is that the Canadian government cannot possibly consider any other issue at the moment because the government's entire focus is on coronavirus. Yet faced with the same lethal disease and the horrendous economic fallout and deficits that it's triggered, Australia has found time to address alarming security concerns in the western Pacific. Pushing the COVID-19 calamity aside for a moment, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison declared last week that because it was “a more dangerous world,” his country intended to increase defence spending by as much as 40 per cent, or a whopping $255 billion over the next decade. The money will pay for submarines, greatly improved cyber capabilities, and the establishment of military partnerships with smaller nations in the western Pacific, which are constantly bullied by China. The Canadian government has often seemed paralyzed by the COVID-19 crisis and China's kidnappings of the Two Michaels and has been slow to react to the rapidly changing security environment. This includes not yet banning Huawei's G5 cellular network, as Australia has done. Nor has Ottawa indicated anything about the future of defence spending in an era when Canada's national debt has now ballooned to more than $1 trillion. Faced with similar public health and economic challenges as Canada, Australian diplomats, generals and admirals have recently increased military and trade ties with India and are completing a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Japan that affords troops from the two countries legal protections and presupposes that they will collaborate more closely with each other in the future. Canberra also inked a deal with Tokyo last week to collaborate on war-fighting in the space domain and closer military ties. Despite complaints of “gross interference” in China's internal affairs by Beijing's foreign ministry, Australia has also agreed to let about 14,000 visitors from Hong Kong extend their visas by five years and will offer an accelerated path for Chinese students to obtain Australian citizenship. Perhaps most alarming from Beijing's point-of-view, the Quad intelligence group, which includes Australia, Japan, India and the U.S., could be about to add a military dimension. Navies from all four countries are expected to take part in joint naval exercises soon in the Indian Ocean. Even before announcing a huge increase, defence spending was already at 1.9 per cent of Australia's GDP. The defence budget in Canada has remained static near 1 per cent for years, despite a pledge to NATO six years ago by former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper, and repeated several times since by current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, that defence spending would soar to 2 per cent. As it is, the Australian Defence Force spends about $15 billion a year more on defence than Canada does. That money buys a lot of kit and capability. The ADF has two new fleets of frontline fighter jets, the Super Hornet and the F-35, has attack helicopters and new maritime surveillance aircraft, is building a dozen French-designed attack submarines, and already has two huge, new assault ships and other new warships. The Canadian Armed Forces are a very poor second to Australia with 40-year old CF-18 fighter jets and surveillance aircraft, 30-year old submarines that seldom put to sea and no assault ships or attack helicopters. Aside from the red herring of geographic proximity, there are other factors that account for the stark differences in how Australia and Canada regard defence spending and the threat posed by an ascendant China. Many Canadians believe that the U.S. will protect them so do not see why should they pay more for their own defence. Australia also has a longstanding all-party consensus that national security is a top priority. The two main political parties in Canada regard procurement as football to be kicked around. Neither of them has a declared foreign policy. A cultural contrast is that Canadians have bought into a peacekeeping myth that has never really been true and is certainly not true today, while largely ignoring the wars its troops fought with great distinction in. Australians remain far more focused on recalling what their troops did in the Boer War, the two World Wars and Korea. As well as finally working on some joint defence procurement projects, Canada and Australia should collaborate with each other and other western nations to prevent China from playing them off against each other in trade. For example, Canadian farmers recently grabbed Australia's share of the barley market after China banned Australian barley in response to Canberra's demand for an independent investigation into what Beijing knew and when about COVID-19. The Australians did the same in reverse when Canadian canola was banned by China. Australia has moved to protect what it regards as its national interests by calling out China on human rights and spending much more on defence with little apparent fear as to how China might retaliate. Ottawa has not yet articulated what its interests are and acts as if it is scared at how China might respond if it takes a tougher stance. What must be acknowledged in Ottawa is that the coronavirus has not caused China to abandon or even pause for a moment in pursuit of its goal of shaping a new world order not only in the western Pacific but wherever it can. Australia is seriously upping its game in response. Canada remains silent. Matthew Fisher is an international affairs columnist and foreign correspondent who has worked abroad for 35 years. You can follow him on Twitter at @mfisheroverseas https://globalnews.ca/news/7161890/commentary-canada-should-follow-australias-example-in-defence-foreign-policy/

• 

  December 24, 2018 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Mattis resignation not likely to damage Canada-U.S. security ties: experts

  THE CANADIAN PRESS OTTAWA — U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis' decision to resign creates a void for Canada, says former Defence Minister Peter MacKay, because of Mattis's deep understanding of Canada's role in joint NATO and UN missions and good ties with Canadian security officials. His years of experience in the U.S. military and on-the-ground understanding of the parts of the world where he served as a Marine general, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, are “virtually irreplaceable,” MacKay said. After serving for two years at the top of the U.S. military machine, Mattis announced Thursday that he'd resign as of the end of February, in a move widely seen as a rebuke of Trump's decision to abrupt withdraw U.S. troops from Syria. The retired general has been considered a moderating influence on Trump over his last two years as Pentagon chief, which is why concerns have been raised by ally nations about how his departure could affect U.S. security and foreign policy. These concerns are particularly focused on America's role in the NATO transatlantic alliance after Trump said this week that not only will the U.S. military pull out of Syria, but the number of U.S. troops will also be cut in half in Afghanistan, where the U.S. is part of the NATO-led joint mission Operation Resolute Support. “In spite of the moniker ‘Mad Dog Mattis' he was anything but. He was a highly intelligent, highly rational guy and he saw first-hand the integration of defence, diplomacy, development that Canada was doing and was very full of praise and admiration for that,” MacKay said. Mattis's departure is even more keenly felt in light of the departures of H.R. McMaster and John Kelly, who U.S. President Donald Trump also appointed to serve in his administration, MacKay added. McMaster was an army general who was Trump's national-security adviser for a year; Kelly is a retired Marine general who served as secretary of homeland security and then Trump's chief of staff. McMaster resigned last April; Kelly is to leave the White House at the end of this year. “Jim Mattis and the others have and feel an abiding respect for Canada and our role in NATO and in NORAD, for our niche capabilities, what we were able to do along with others in the coalition, both the UN and NATO coalition in Afghanistan, our support role in other missions,” MacKay said. “That, too, is in some jeopardy depending on who replaces Gen. Mattis.” But in spite of ongoing political tensions at the top, Canada's defence and security relationship with the U.S. is hardwired at the bureaucratic and institutional levels and has not materially changed with the election of Donald Trump, said Fen Hampson, director of the global security and politics program at the Centre for International Governance Innovation. Mattis' resignation will not alter those ties, he said. “There's a constant flow of exchanges and communication on, I would say, almost an hourly basis. That's not really going to change in substantive terms,” Hampson said. “I think where it's going to be probably felt most keenly is at the cabinet-to-cabinet level where our officials have met with Mattis and (Secretary of State Mike) Pompeo on a pretty regular basis and that's where the hole is going to be felt.” Dave Perry, a senior defence analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, echoed this, saying he has heard of little change on the ground when it comes to the day-to-day bilateral work and partnerships between Canadian and American officials. “It's a relationship that's pretty embedded at the working level in institutional agreements, exchanges, all the Canadians that work directly within the U.S. defence structure in the United States — so I think the degree of change has probably been overstated with this administration,” he said. “A lot of things on the defence front have continued to work quite well quietly and will likely do so in the future.” While many analysts agree that Canada should be concerned about losing an ally in the Trump administration like Mattis, who acted as a stabilizer at the highest levels, this concern could be eased depending on whom Trump nominates as his replacement. “The void now, within the defence and security world, will hopefully be filled with someone of his ilk and his acumen,” MacKay said of Mattis. “Hope burns eternal. I remain very optimistic about the resilience of the Canada-U.S. relationship. It'll survive this administration, but boy, there's a lot of damage being done.” https://leaderpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/mattis-resignation-not-likely-to-damage-canada-u-s-security-ties-experts/wcm/bead703a-ee27-44e6-8fca-31f19603259f

• 

  June 30, 2022 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  NATO embarks on greatest overhaul since Cold War, but Canada’s role remains uncertain

  MADRID - Russian troops poured into Ukraine on the morning of Feb. 24, invading by land and sea as airstrikes ...