Nouvelles

President Donald Trump appears to be getting his wish that U.S. allies pay more for their own defense, which begs the question: Is the victory worth the cost? Pushing allies to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense is not a new concept. Trump's predecessors George W. Bush and Barack Obama both argued for greater burden sharing, and Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine's Crimea region had allies starting to move toward that benchmark. Arguably, Trump's “America First” drumbeat is getting NATO allies to pay a bigger share of the cost of their defense three decades after the end of the Cold War. Military spending by European NATO nations and Canada has risen 4.6% this year, and the majority of allies have plans to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense by 2024, according to NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg. Meanwhile, the U.S. is on a path to dial back its contribution from 22% of NATO's total funding to 16%. “This is a direct result of President Trump making clear our expectations that these Europeans would step up to help secure their own people,” says U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Unfortunately, Trump has not stopped there, openly expressing disdain for an organization established to guard against the kind of territorial expansion undertaken by the former Soviet Union. He has hurled sophomoric barbs at steadfast allies such as the UK, Germany and Canada, while refusing to criticize Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, the architect of both the Crimea invasion and Moscow's campaign to interfere in U.S. elections. For the first phase of the Trump presidency, his cabinet tried to temper those go-it-alone impulses. Then-Defense Secretary James Mattis sought to reassure allies of U.S. support for their security. But more recent White House appointees have been less willing to cross their boss. Even more damaging was Trump's abrupt decision to withdraw most U.S. forces from Syria, disgracefully abandoning America's Kurdish allies to the benefit of Turkey, Russia and Iran and leaving Europe more exposed to attacks from Islamic extremists. “What we are currently experiencing is the brain death of NATO,” French President Emmanuel Macron told The Economist. Trump sees NATO in a transactional way, “as a project in which the United States acts as a sort of geopolitical umbrella, but the trade-off is that there has to be commercial exclusivity,” he added. “It's an arrangement for buying American.” While Macron is calling for a reconsideration of what NATO means in light of reduced American commitment, European nations are not waiting. They are building up their own defense industrial base. In 2017, the EU created the Permanent Structured Cooperation initiative, which is pursuing research toward new missiles, aircraft, missile defense and electronic attack capabilities. U.S. efforts to have its companies included in the work have so far been brushed off. Trump's hardball approach also is being applied to key allies in Asia that have long served as a bulwark against a rising China. The U.S. alliance with South Korea is now reviewed annually, instead of every four years. And after signing a deal in February that calls for South Korea to pay nearly $1 billion to maintain the U.S. military presence there, Washington is now demanding that Seoul pay $4.7 billion annually. Before an agreement was reached, the U.S. walked out of the talks. The Trump administration also is looking for more cash from Japan, calling for more than triple Tokyo's $1.7 billion contribution toward hosting U.S. troops in its country. These requests are straining longstanding alliances. South Korea is edging closer to China, while Japan, which has a strong industrial base, might partner with the UK on its Tempest fighter program. To be sure, U.S. defense exports remain near an all-time high. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced $55.4 billion in potential Foreign Military Sales in fiscal 2019, about the same as the prior year. But there are indications that Trump's pay-up-now methods may lead to an erosion in future sales. Asking allies to contribute more for their own defense certainly has merit, but the wider risks to U.S. global interests cannot be ignored. Can 70-year-old alliances survive if the leading partner vocally questions their value? And if the alliances crack, what would that mean for the U.S. military industrial base? “The more our alliances fray,” says Eric Edelman, a former U.S. undersecretary of defense, “the less interest people have in buying U.S. defense goods and services.” https://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-pressuring-allies-pay-more-defense-worth-cost

By: Sebastian Sprenger LONDON — U.S. President Donald Trump landed Tuesday in London with a splash, decrying French President Emmanuel Macron's recent description of NATO as brain dead, calling it a “nasty” assessment and unfair to the alliance. Trump's remarks on the eve of a meeting of government leaders here on Wednesday come as NATO members are already on edge about myriad internal differences. Clashing views have become so pronounced in the last few weeks that some observers fear the worst for what has been billed as NATO's 70th birthday bash. “You just can't go around making statements like that about NATO,” Trump said of Macron in a joint news conference with Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. “It's very disrespectful.” The U.S. president's words are remarkable not for their tone — he also delivered an en passant bashing of French politics and economy — but for the substance of the argument. Trump, who has shown a deep disdain for the mere principle of multilaterlism, appears to be shielding NATO from Macron's critique, which in turn was partly aimed at himself. Talk about the three-dimensional chess of geopolitics. Or something like that. Stoltenberg, for his part, sought to downplay any cracks within the alliance, arguing in typical fashion that healthy squabbling should be expected in any group of countries working together. “If you look at the substance, you can see that the alliance is delivering,” he said at the NATO Engages think tank event in central London. He named ongoing operations to secure the eastern flank against Russia, the training of security forces in Iraq and an uptick in defense spending by all allies in recent years as examples of an alliance that continues to be operationally relevant. Stoltenberg was noncommittal, however, on the latest curveball thrown by member country Turkey. The Turks want their perception of a terrorist threat posed by YPG Kurdish units to their border with Syria recognized by all of NATO as a quid pro quo for backing the alliance's bolstering of the Baltics. Such a deal could cause a significant rift. Trump is an admirer of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and will likely get more deeply involved in the issue during meetings here. “Turkey does not question the alliance, but rather Turkey expects an understanding of the threat of terrorism to one of its allies,” Gülnur Aybet, Erdogan's senior adviser on foreign policy, told the NATO Engages audience. “We don't question the credibility of Article 5. On the contrary, we expect it to be fulfilled,” she added, referring to the alliance's creed that an attack on one member will prompt a response by all. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nato-2020-defined/2019/12/03/natos-london-meetings-are-off-to-a-rocky-start/

By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — As the U.S. Air Force looks increasingly toward virtual reality for speeding up and cutting the cost of pilot training, Canadian defense firm CAE is stepping forward with own courseware and virtual reality system with the hopes of attracting interest from the U.S. and international militaries. CAE will debut its CAE TRAX Academy curriculum and Sprint Virtual Reality trainer this week at the Interservice/Industry, Training, Simulation and Education Conference. Throughout the show, the company plans to conduct T-6 flight demonstrations using both products. CAE was inspired by the U.S. Air Force's Pilot Training Next program, which uses virtual reality and other cutting-edge simulation technologies to immerse new pilots in flight training, allowing airment to move more quickly and effectively through training. But CAE is hoping to build on the principles of Pilot Training Next and package it to be purchased by the U.S. Air Force and international militaries, said Phillipe Perey, the head of technology for CAE's defense business. “With Pilot Training Next, everyone is looking with big eyes saying, ‘Wow, oh wow,' but [some generals] are sort of like, ‘Would you really embrace this and do that for your entire air force?'” he said. “So perhaps this is a way of taking the great mission of Pilot Training Next and bringing into that environment with many of the key capabilities that customers have been used to, [such as] true aircraft simulation and many other aspects like a force-feedback stick.” All of the Sprint virtual reality trainer's hardware — including the Varjo VR-2 headset — are commercial off-the-shelf products and can be modified or swapped with a different device to meet the customer's needs. The real value, Perey said, is the software and courseware of TRAXX Academy, in which students progress from mobile apps and VR trainers to a higher fidelity flight simulator. “I think it really drives efficiencies at two levels. One, it reduces costs because the students in there are able to progress at their own pace. Them being alpha personalities; they don't want to be average. They want to be top of class, and they will see how other students are performing and they will be able to pick up their pace,” he said, adding that a six month class could take four months or less to complete if students are driven to complete the coursework. Secondly, the use of self-paced tools and virtual instructors decreases the need for human instructors that could be filling other needed functions within an air force, Perey said. In developing the Sprint VR trainer, CAE started with same kit as used in the Pilot Training Next program, and tweaked it to create “a better self-paced learning environment," he said. CAE made a number of adjustments: Using the same software on the virtual reality trainer as the full flight simulator, substituting a joystick that better simulates G forces, and adding haptics so that pilots can feel vibration or other sensory feedback that they would normally expect while operating the aircraft. Perey said CAE is looking forward to briefing the U.S. Air Force on TRAXX Academy and the Sprint VR trainer during I/ITSEC and getting officials' feedback. “That's really the priority now in the next coming months, is to build out these devices, get them in the customer's hands, get their feedback and develop a solution that is tailored to their particular training needs,” he said. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/itsec/2019/12/02/cae-launches-new-virtual-reality-trainer

Grandes et petites entreprises doivent se plier aux exigences croissantes des États de produire sur place une partie de leurs gros contrats. Y compris Dassault Aviation pour vendre son Rafale en Inde. Enquête. Difficile d'y échapper. Les exigences de compensations industrielles, ou offsets, occupent une place croissante dans la négociation des grands contrats. Elles sont presque autant l'apanage de pays émergents, qui cherchent à accélérer la montée en gamme de leur industrie domestique, que de pays développés. Dans le seul secteur de la défense, le montant global des offsets a progressé de 25 % entre 2012 et 2016, pour représenter près de 2,5 % des dépenses militaires. Pour décrocher le contrat de 36 avions Rafale en Inde, Dassault a dû s'engager à réinvestir 50 % de sa valeur dans le pays, sous forme de fabrication locale et d'approvisionnement auprès de sous-traitants indiens. Il a ouvert un site pour produire ses avions d'affaires Falcon et le Rafale avec l'indien Reliance. DCNS a consenti à transférer une partie de sa production et de ses compétences en Australie, dans le cadre du "contrat du siècle" de 12 sous-marins. Politique du "make in India" en Inde, "Buy american act" aux États-Unis, droits de douane exorbitants sur les importations de véhicules pour forcer les constructeurs à réaliser l'assemblage sur place... Au-delà de la défense et de l'aéronautique, le parapétrolier, le ferroviaire et la filière nucléaire font aussi face à des contraintes similaires, plus ou moins structurées. "La plupart des nouveaux contrats en Afrique prennent en compte la volonté de transférer des équipes et de produire localement ", remarque Pedro Novo, le directeur de l'international de Bpifrance. Accompagner les PME et les ETI "Les compensations industrielles étaient auparavant supportées par les seuls intégrateurs. Mais à mesure qu'elles augmentent et que les grands groupes externalisent davantage, elles descendent de plus en plus dans la supply chain", pointe Philippe Advani, un ancien d'Airbus, qui préside le comité sur les offsets des conseillers du commerce extérieur. Avec le groupement des industries françaises aéronautiques et spatiales (Gifas), il a publié en juillet un guide pour aider ETI et PME à naviguer dans les contraintes de transfert de savoir-faire ou de production – souvent complexes – fixées par les gouvernements. Pour les sous-traitants, l'opération n'est pas sans risque. En Inde, le spécialiste de l'ingénierie aéronautique Ametra, qui emploie 700 salariés, a sauté le pas l'an passé en créant une coentreprise avec un partenaire indien à Hyderabad, dans le sud du pays. "Cela demande du cash, et un pillage de propriété intellectuelle peut être plus dramatique pour une petite entreprise", reconnaît Philippe Advani. "Devenir indien en Inde, par exemple, implique d'accélérer la structuration de sa société, de revoir la logistique et la gestion des flux de données, d'impliquer le conseil d'administration. Il faut un accompagnement pour mettre ces contraintes à la portée des PME", énumère Pedro Novo, qui a lancé il y a un an le fonds Build-up International afin de co-investir dans des filiales à l'étranger d'ETI françaises et étudie une vingtaine de dossiers. Certains ont fait de ces contraintes un nouvel axe de leur stratégie. Depuis deux ans, le fabricant de c'ble marnais Axon'Cable surveille les obligations de compensations industrielles des grands contrats militaires pour implanter ses nouvelles usines. "Il est plus facile de vendre à nos grands clients car ils ne trouvent pas leurs fournisseurs habituels et nous en profitons pour démarcher des industriels locaux", pointe son président, Joseph Puzo, qui a ouvert en 2016 une filiale au Brésil et prépare un bureau en Australie pour 2020. L'ETI, qui possède déjà une usine low cost en Inde, a créé en début d'année une deuxième coentreprise, Dhruv, avec un partenaire local, afin d'obtenir le statut d'"offset indien partner", qui permet de répondre aux demandes de compensation industrielle. Produire localement ne supprime pas pour autant tous les échanges. Seul l'assemblage final est réalisé à proximité du client. Les composants les plus sensibles restent exportés depuis la France. Le meilleur moyen de protéger ses innovations. Latécoère suit Thales et Dassault en Inde S'implanter en Inde ne faisait pas partie des plans initiaux de Latécoère. "Je savais que l'Inde était un pays compliqué et bureaucratique. Nous serions certainement allés dans un autre pays d'Asie s'il n'y avait pas eu les contreparties du contrat Rafale", reconnaît volontiers Yannick Assouad, la PDG de l'équipementier aéronautique. Son usine de c'blage de Belagavi, dans l'État du Karnataka, a démarré sa production en septembre. Pour vendre ses 36 avions de combat, Dassault a dû s'engager à des compensations industrielles, dont l'ouverture d'un site à Nagpur, dans l'État du Maharashtra, pour produire des pièces pour le Rafale et le Falcon. En 2017, Latécoère a décroché auprès de Dassault la fourniture de harnais électriques pour le Falcon 2000 en s'engageant à suivre l'avionneur en Inde. "Se localiser dans un pays d'offset n'était pas suffisant pour remporter le contrat car il faut avant tout être compétitif. Mais c'était la cerise sur le g'teau", reconnaît Yannick Assouad. Dans la foulée, sa nouvelle usine indienne a permis à l'ETI de décrocher un deuxième contrat auprès de Thales, lui aussi tenu à des offsets, pour son système de divertissement à bord. De quoi atteindre plus vite que prévu le seuil de rentabilité de l'usine de 300 salariés. En attendant que Dassault implante sa chaîne d'assemblage du Falcon en Inde, Latécoère exporte toute sa production indienne vers la France et les États-Unis pour Thales et se fournit en France. "Nous allons progressivement démarcher des clients locaux et essayer d'évaluer la supply chain", précise la PDG. https://www.usinenouvelle.com/editorial/produire-local-passage-oblige-des-entreprises-partant-a-l-international.N907464

COLIN ROBERTSON Colin Robertson, vice-president and fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute If we thought passage of the new North American free-trade agreement would get Donald Trump off our back, think again. We've been served notice that Canada has got to pony up more on defence and security. We should do so, not because the U.S. wants us to, but because it serves Canadian interests, especially in exercising Canadian sovereignty in our North. The Trump administration is close to a deal with Speaker Nancy Pelosi on congressional ratification of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on trade. The possible changes to the agreement signed last November will not trouble Canada. Tougher labour and environmental standards enforcement – “trust but verify” – are aimed at Mexico. Another change would shorten the patent-protection period for new pharmaceutical drugs. The USMCA could pass through Congress before Christmas. But even if the deal gets stuck, Mr. Trump's threat to rescind NAFTA is increasingly remote. The more Americans learned about NAFTA, the more they liked it, especially in the farming community and Mr. Trump needs their votes if he is to be re-elected next year. A new trade agreement does not mean complacency about trade. We're still paying tariffs on our lumber exports. Protectionism, especially in procurement, is endemic. We need to sustain the Team Canada effort with Congress, governors and state legislators. Rather than blame Ottawa, provincial premiers need to remind their neighbouring states why trade and investment is mutually beneficial. Premiers and governors should strive for a reciprocity agreement on procurement. But if our trading relationship is shifting out of crisis mode, defence and security will take that space. Continued free riding by the allies, as the Trump administration sees it, is not an option. With the end of the Cold War, Canada took the peace dividend and then coasted in our defence spending. But today's world is meaner with a rising China and revanchist Russia. The Trudeau Government thought its defence policy – titled Strong, Secure, Engaged – and its promise of new warships, fighter jets and active missions in Latvia and Iraq, would suffice. Wrong. For Mr. Trump, the bottom line is the 2014 commitment by the governments of North Atlantic Treaty Organization member-countries to achieve spending of 2 per cent of gross domestic product on defence by 2024. Canadian spending, according to NATO, is currently 1.27 per cent. It is scheduled to rise to around 1.4 per cent by 2026-27, well short of the allies' pledge. If we are going to spend more, then let's invest in northern sovereignty. Brian Mulroney persuaded Ronald Reagan to tacitly acknowledge Canadian sovereignty through Arctic waters. Since then, the Americans have pressed us to exercise that sovereignty. Stephen Harper instituted Operation Nanook and he made annual summer visits to the North. But the promised Arctic base in Nanisivik, Nunavut, has never materialized. The promised icebreakers are still to be built. In contrast to the American, Chinese and Russian policies, Canada's long-delayed Arctic policy framework, finally released in September, is sophomoric. It ignores both defence and security. The Americans want us to collaborate in updating the postwar North Warning System. Jointly managed as part of our NORAD alliance, its replacement will be expensive. But it's also an opportunity for us to lead in the development of innovative space and underwater applications that would buttress our Arctic sovereignty. We can take inspiration from HMCS Harry DeWolf, the first of our offshore patrol ships. The largest Canadian warship built in 50 years, it is now afloat in Halifax harbour. We are also an Indo-Pacific country. The almost year-old Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) gives us first-mover advantage over the U.S. in places such as Japan. But our Pacific partners expect us to demonstrate greater commitment to their security. This means more navy and air reach. Is our Pacific posture adequate? Does our capability, including our bases, meet the new threat assessments? Managing the trade relationship with the Trump administration is hard. David McNaughton was the right ambassador for the Trudeau government's first term and its focus on trade. Mr. MacNaughton's outreach strategy needs to become a permanent campaign. Our next ambassador will need demonstrated security chops in addition to political savvy. Handling defence and security is going to be really hard. But as a friendly ambassador, whose country faces the same challenge, observed at the recent Halifax International Security Forum, we Canadians are going to have to toughen up. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-canada-has-plenty-to-gain-from-upping-its-defence-spending/

BY MERCEDES STEPHENSON AND KERRI BREEN Canada has been officially called out by the United States over how much it spends on the military, Global News has learned. A “blunt” letter from the U.S. government was delivered to the Department of National Defence that criticized Canadian defence spending levels and repeated American demands that Canada meet NATO targets. Global News has not seen the letter — said to have a frustrated, critical tone — but multiple sources have confirmed it was sent and received. U.S. President Donald Trump has long called for members of the 29-nation military alliance to beef up their budgets for defence. His national security adviser Robert O'Brien, who spoke Saturday at the Halifax International Security Forum, said getting NATO members to meet the established target — two per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — is an urgent priority. “There are very serious threats to our freedom and our security and if NATO is going to be effective, and if we want to put our money where our talk is, we got to spend that money to defend ourselves,” he said. Nations including Canada agreed at the 2014 NATO summit in Wales​ to move towards the military spending target within a decade, he noted. “We expect our friends and our colleagues to live up to their commitments and their promises,” he said. He also praised Canada's plan to build and deploy Arctic patrol vessels. The North, he said, is going to be the new “frontline” of defence, as Russia and China have made it clear they are going to militarize the Arctic. One Canadian source told Global News that the U.S. is concerned that Canada does not take the threat from those countries in the Arctic seriously and wants the country to boost its contributions in that area. Just seven countries — including the U.S. and the U.K. — have met NATO's two per cent of GDP spending goal, according to figures released in June. NATO's estimates show Canada is expected to spend 1.27 per cent of its GDP on the military this year, up from about one per cent in 2014. Canada does fare better when you look at its defence budget in dollars and cents, said Dave Perry, vice president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. The country spends the sixth highest amount overall among NATO members on its military. As for meeting the percentage of GDP target, Perry's not optimistic despite planned increases in the defence budget. “Canada is not on a path to live up to the commitments that we were signing up for in 2014 in Wales,” he said. Last year, Canada spent about $22.9 billion on the Department of National Defence. But Ottawa intends to dramatically boost military spending in the coming years. In 2017, the government released a plan to increase the budget to almost $33 billion annually within a decade. Asked about the letter from the U.S., Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan touted this plan to strengthen spending. Discussions around “burden sharing” within the bloc have been happening for some time, he said. He noted that under the government's plan, the defence budget would see an increase of 70 per cent, a “significant amount.” “The relationship with Canada and the U.S., the defence relationship, I think, is even stronger now, because they see a tangible plan that we have created,” he said on an episode of The West Block that aired Sunday. “It's working, actually, extremely well.” The U.S. sending such a letter is an unusual, formal means of relaying a message, and it represents an escalation from previous attempts to get Canada to spend more on its military. That pressure has been increasing in recent weeks ahead of the NATO summit in London starting on Dec. 3. In fact, the same message has been conveyed in multiple ways to the federal government, a diplomatic source said, and NATO itself also wants to see more military spending from Canada. In July, however, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg suggested publicly he was happy with improvements in Canadian defence spending. “Under your leadership,” he said to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, ​​”Canada has stepped up its contributions to our NATO alliance including with forces for NATO missions and operations and increased spending.” But one former defence minister said the letter from the U.S. — NATO's leader in defence spending in relation to its GDP — was not a good sign. Peter MacKay said such a letter amounts to “a very serious diplomatic slap — not on the wrist, but in the face.” During his time in government, the former Nova Scotia Conservative MP said he had talks with defence secretaries regarding Canadian military spending and the country's goal of reaching two per cent. “Those discussions can be forceful and frank but they took place face to face,” said MacKay, who was defence minister for six years under former prime minister Stephen Harper. “Sending a démarche (diplomatic letter) is really ratcheting it up a notch.” https://globalnews.ca/news/6210623/canada-defence-spending-nato/

By James Careless How well is Canada's defence procurement actually working, and are industry-boosters like ITBs paying off? These and other questions were tackled at the ‘Defence in the 43rd Parliament' one-day conference on November 20, 2019. It was staged by the Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI) at the Chateau Laurier hotel, before a full house in the Adam Room. During the opening session, ‘Canadian Defence Procurement – The State of the Union', DND Associate Deputy Minister Claude Rochette was cautiously upbeat about the state of Canadian defence procurements. In the last year, DND has signed about 12,000 contracts and spent about $6 billion on procurements, he said. Most of these contracts were on time and on budget. 2019's defence procurement spending is up from $4.9 billion spent by DND in 2016, Rochette noted. In addition, this year DND will “close out its budget” by spending its allocated funds, he said. Despite some criticisms that Canadian defence procurements are not moving fast enough, “we are doing pretty well,” said Claude Rochette. But the process isn't perfect, he admitted. “We have more work to do.” Rochette's positive assessment was echoed by PSPC Associate Deputy Minister Michael Vandergrift. 2019 “has been a very busy time” in Canadian defence procurement, he said, During the past year, the federal government issued an RfP for the Future Fighter Capability project; sole-sourced Light Armoured Vehicles from General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada; and selected Lockheed Martin to built 15 Canadian Surface Combatant ships. Asked which defence procurements are going well and which are posing challenges, Rochette replied that smaller projects that fall within DND's $5 million spending authority are easy to manage. Where issues crop up is in large multi-million dollar projects with long time lines: Trying to cost them accurately and manage them effectively is akin to asking, “I want to have a car and buy it next year, so tell me how much I'll pay for it (right now),” he said. In a later morning session entitled, ‘Offsets – Is the ITB Policy Delivering?', the panel considered the impact of procurement bidders ‘overcommitting' to ITBs (promising financial benefits worth more than the contracts they are bidding for) on the Canadian defence industry. Such ITB overcommittments, which can be worth 300% or more than the contract being sought, are “introducing unnecessary risk” in the Canadian defence industry, said Rich Foster, Vice President of L3 Harris Technologies - Canada. The result of overcommitting is that contractors are “now focussed more on quantity than quality” in making their procurement decisions, he said. The real victims of ITB overcommittments are SMEs, which lack the resources available to large companies to pay for these big ITBs. The choice facing these SMEs is to directly/indirectly seek such contracts – which can run 20-40 years – “or you go out of business,” said Brian Botting, Director of Strategic Offsets at General Dynamics Missions Systems. “It is a terrible dilemma for them to be in.” The CGAI procurement conference ended with the panel discussion, ‘Defence Procurement Canada'. This is the name of the integrated procurement agency the Liberals proposed during the October 2019 election, to replace the multiple ministries currently sharing this responsibility. The common sense reason for having a single defence procurement agency comes down to human nature: “If you ask two of your kids to take out the garbage, it won't get done,” quipped Alan Williams, President of The Williams Group. “If you ask one of your kids, maybe it will get taken out.” He explained that sharing procurement among ministries causes requires agreement between multiple ministers and deputy ministers – which wastes time -- and that Canada's military allies manage their procurements through single agencies. Creating a separate Defence Procurement Canada (DPC) agency would not be easy, said Jim Mitchell, Research Associate with the University of Ottawa's Graduate School of Public and International Affairs. Speaking from his own government experience, Mitchell observed that such changes are “disruptive, costly, difficult, hard on people, and hurt efficiency and effectiveness for a few years.” Mitchell added that creating DPC would not prevent Treasury Board and other ministries from having a role in defence procurement afterwards. CGAI Fellow Gavin Liddy was just as pessimistic about the value of creating DPC when so many defence procurements are underway. If the government wants “to do one single thing to delay the procurement agenda in the next five to seven years,” then they should instruct defence bureaucrats to create the DPC, Liddy concluded. “Nothing would divert their attention more than doing that.” http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news?news/2765

OTTAWA — There are fears a brewing battle over the future of NATO could have major implications for Canada, which has relied on the military alliance as a cornerstone of its security, protection and influence in the world for decades. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is expected to travel to London next month where comments by French President Emmanuel Macron questioning the viability of NATO threaten to overshadow a celebration of the alliance's 70th birthday. Macron warned in an interview with the Economist magazine that the alliance suffers from a lack of U.S. leadership, and that Europe must stop relying on American guarantees of protection and prepare to defend itself. Robert Baines, president of the NATO Association of Canada, says he is concerned about the alliance's future, adding its dissolution would weaken this country's links to other western democracies and leave Canada reliant on the U.S. for security. Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute says NATO represents an important “counterweight” to what would otherwise be a lopsided Canada-U.S. defence relationship. Baines and Perry suggest Canada is well-placed to bring Washington and Europe together, and that saving the organization should be a priority. This report was first published by The Canadian Press on Nov. 19, 2019. https://lethbridgenewsnow.com/2019/11/19/brewing-battle-over-future-of-nato-creates-minefield-for-canada/

Richard Fadden said Ottawa needs to acknowledge the United States is withdrawing from global leadership Murray Brewster Canada needs to be "clear-eyed" about the threat posed by Russia and China — and the power vacuum at the global level left by the United States' growing isolationism — a former national security adviser to prime ministers told an audience of military and defence officials Friday. "The risks posed by these two countries are certainly different, but they are generally based on advancing all their interests to the detriment of the West," Richard Fadden, former national security adviser to both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his predecessor, Stephen Harper, said in a speech to the Conference of Defence Associations Institute (CDAI) Friday. "Their activities span the political, military and economic spheres." Fadden, who also served as the head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and as deputy defence minister, made the remarks at the CDAI's annual Vimy Dinner in Ottawa. He said his criticism was not political or aimed at any particular government, but was meant to prompt public debate about security and defence policies — a subject that was virtually ignored during the recently concluded federal election. Both China and Russia have demonstrated they are prepared to "use virtually any means to attain their goals," while the U.S. has effectively withdrawn from the world stage, Fadden said. That emerging vacuum means Canada will have to work harder with other allies to address global crises at times when the Americans are unable, or unwilling, to lead. 'Clear limits to what we will accept' But to do that, Fadden said, Canada will have to be "clear-eyed" about the way the world has changed over the last decade or more. Canada should "recognize our adversaries for what they are, recognize we have to deal with them, but draw clear limits to what we will accept," he said. Ottawa also has to recognize, he said, that the old post-Cold War world order "with comprehensive U.S. leadership is gone, and is not coming back in the form we knew." In some respects, Fadden's remarks are a more blunt and urgent assessment of the geopolitical landscape than the one Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland delivered in a landmark speech in June 2017, when she warned Canada could no longer depend upon U.S. protection and leadership. The comments by the former top security official came just as French President Emmanuel Macron also was lamenting the loss of American leadership, saying NATO is facing "brain death" without Washington's full involvement. When he was director of CSIS a number of years ago, Fadden warned about increasing Chinese influence over Canadian municipal and provincial politics. He said during his speech Friday that "the West does not have its act together as much as it could and should" and its response to emerging threats has been dysfunctional. Meanwhile, Fadden said, the rise in violent radicalism in the West is no longer being confined to Islamist extremism. "Right-wing terrorism is growing and, like its cousin jihadist terrorism, it is a globalized threat," he said. "We will ignore it at our peril." His speech also touched on emerging threats in cyber warfare. Many western democracies have not felt threatened in the globalized world of the last three decades — but that era is ending now, said Fadden, and Canadians have to face new sources of risk. "This issue is especially visible in Canada," he said. "We are surrounded by three oceans and the U.S., so we don't really feel threatened when, in a totally globalized world, that is unrealistic." https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-russia-china-fadden-trump-1.5357109