Boeing Launchpad Canada

Sur le même sujet

• 

  14 juillet 2020 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  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/

• 

  12 juin 2020 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Experts say COVID-19 hasn’t hurt Canada’s campaign for UN security council seat

  By Rachel Emmanuel. Published on Jun 12, 2020 12:00am Experts say COVID-19 hasn't negatively impacted Canada's bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), though the final result is still anyone's guess. The UN General Assembly will vote on June 17 on what countries will join the powerful body as non-permanent members for two-year terms. Canada is facing stiff competition from Norway and Ireland, who both entered the race earlier, to fill the two Western European and other states seats. Adam Chapnick, deputy director of education at the Canadian Forces College and a professor of defence studies at the Royal Military College of Canada, said the coronavirus pandemic has changed Canada's narrative in the race — it can now portray itself as a large, wealthy country capable of helping smaller, less affluent nations emerge from the COVID-19-induced economic downturn. “We have more money to give and as a result we can demonstrate, in a time like this, the value of having us at the centre of global power,” he told iPolitics on Thursday. “[The COVID-19 pandemic] has allowed Canada to highlight some of the factors that differentiate it from its competitors, in a way that it would otherwise not have been able to do.” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau first announced Canada would pursue a seat on the UNSC back in 2016, just months after the Liberals bounced the Harper government from power. An outline of Canada's campaign is displayed on the Global Affairs website and points to commitments like addressing climate change, promoting economic security and advancing gender equality. While Canada announced its campaign long before the global COVID-19 pandemic, Andrea Charron, an associate professor and director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba, said the crisis could end up benefitting Canada's bid. Coming out of the coronavirus pandemic, she said Canada can signal that they'll be there to help struggling countries as they recover from their own economic crises. “It does no good if some states recover beautifully and others fall hopelessly behind,” Charron said. Like most other public gatherings, the vote will also be impacted by COVID-19 restrictions. In other years, all delegates would show up to UN headquarters in New York City and vote in person, with each round of voting taking a couple minutes. But this year, because of the pandemic, Chapnick said delegates now have a designated time to arrive and voting in the first round will take around 10 hours. Because a country requires two thirds of the vote to be elected, Chapnick said delegates will likely be asked to return to the building to vote again the following day or days, in the case that two countries aren't elected in the first round, which he said is probable. At a certain point, Chapnick said delegates might stop showing up to cast their ballots, with the bid becoming a “get out and vote campaign” that would never happen in a normal election year. “We've never had anything like this before,” he explained. Charron, who's also a Canadian Global Affairs Institute fellow, said it will be interesting to see how countries revamp their second ballot strategy, which refers to a country's plan to win the second seat if they didn't win in the first voting round. She said in a typical election, all the delegates are milling around and candidates can easily speak with particular countries in a last minute push to win their vote. However, because of COVID-19 restrictions, countries won't have quick access to make their case to the 192 UN delegates in one room. Chapnick said this new process has major implications for the second ballot strategy. Traditionally, he said Canada has had trouble creating a second ballot strategy because, as a G7 country, it assumes it will win in the first round. He said Canada is committed to the UN and views itself as a country that belongs on the security council, whereas smaller countries may ask to be considered in the second round if they lost to a more powerful country in the first run. “For a G7 country normally to have a second ballot strategy would suggest weakness,” he explained. But, by entering the race late, he said Canada now has wiggle room to develop a second ballot strategy — it can ask countries who pledged support to Norway or Ireland before Canada entered, to vote for the country in the second round, if there is one. Chapnick also said the Canadian team can spend the longer gap in between rounds calling delegates and asking for their support. Still, he warned that there's a “discount rate” of 15 to 35 per cent of countries who promised the Canadian government they'd vote for them, but won't. He said even the Canadian government cannot be sure who's voting for them. “Countries lie all the time,” he said. In fact, Chapnick said part of the reason the countries are voting in-person is because a number of countries refused to participate in electronic voting at the risk that someone could hack the system and realize a country broke their voting promises. He said countries break promises in one of two ways; countries make individuals deals to support all three countries but can only vote for two, or the head of government makes a promise and the ambassador then goes “freelance” when it comes time to vote. “You can never actually tell how a campaign is doing,” he warned. “Really strange things happen in these elections.” Charron said the good news is that all the UNSC candidates are excellent. She said there's concern that Canada will let this election define itself, with lots of national “gnashing of teeth” and deciding on the fate of the government in general, which she said is overblown. “It's just one of the organizations to which we belong,” she said. “We've won six times, we've lost times, we've survived, carried on in all cases.” https://ipolitics.ca/2020/06/12/experts-say-covid-19-hasnt-derailed-canadas-campaign-for-un-security-council-seat/

• 

  29 juin 2023 | Local, Autre défense

  Analysis: Canada pressured by allies to up military spending

  Canada is expected to boost military spending after a government review next month, but the increase is unlikely to comfort allies facing new threats and it could further undermine the country's international military credibility, policy analysts said.