Ploughshares into swords

"He who troubleth his own house inherits the wind."

Proverbs 11:29

Canada is treating the U.S. like a threat, not an ally.

Well, of course.

Canadians are just being realistic.

It is possible that Donald Trump really does want to annex Canada. Canada, plus Greenland and the “Gulf of America,” would round out some pieces of a map of North America. Trump is a builder and he sees these pieces as underdeveloped land. His strategy isn't courtship. It's pain. If Canada is miserable enough being our neighbor and ally, maybe it will join us. It might be voluntary -- or not. A bold president might decide it is a military necessity, a matter of "self-defense" for us. That's how Trump would sell it to the world, and Americans might buy it. Canadians wouldn't, but what does Trump care? How many divisions does Canada have on the border?

Canada is responding to this new era.

Classmate Sandford Borins is Canadian. He regularly shares his understanding of the Canadian perspective on events in the USA. He is Professor of Public Management, Emeritus, at the University of Toronto. He writes and posts regularly at www.sandfordborins.com, where this comment first appeared yesterday. This photo, with the class-deprecating T-shirt, refers to a comment by Harvard's president about our class, spoken amid the turbulent times on college campuses during the Vietnam War. Borins, photographed here among some of his awards and diplomas, recently received the King Charles III Coronation Medal, in honor of Borins' public service.

Guest Post by Sandford Borins

Beating our Ploughshares into Swords

I was surprised to see that NATO so readily embraced the target of member nations spending five percent of GDP on defence and defence infrastructure and that Canada was part of this consensus. And there does not appear to be much public debate here as to whether this is an appropriate goal. By inverting the prophet Isaiah’s vision of the messianic age, I want to raise questions about NATO’s new vision.

The US and NATO

The impetus for the increase from a target of two percent of GDP to five percent of GDP came from US President Donald Trump’s call on NATO members to increase their defence spending as well as his veiled threat that the US would reduce its spending on European defence, for example by withdrawing its troops. Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine is also an implicit threat against the sovereignty of NATO members contiguous to it. (If quoting scripture, we could set Ecclesiastes against Isaiah: “to every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven … a time of war and a time of peace.”)

Trump’s 5 percent target was not the product of any comprehensive analysis, but, as is always the case with him, an eye-catching number. Trump has long argued that other NATO members have “ripped off” the US by spending a smaller share of GDP on defence. While the stationing of US troops in Europe has substituted for European troops, the US has benefited from its large defence budget by developing advanced technologies that enabled it to be a prime supplier of weapons to other NATO members. In addition, US military technology has often been transferred to US-based businesses. Thus, the US’s leading role in NATO has given it substantial industrial benefits in defence and other sectors of its economy.

Perhaps Trump’s call on other NATO members to increase their defence spending is an attempt to reap double benefits: first, from a reduction in the cost of US troops stationed in Europe, and second from other NATO members purchasing more US military equipment and technology. If this was Trump’s thinking, he immediately undermined it by expressing his lust for the territory of NATO members Canada and Denmark. Given the complexity and ongoing maintenance requirements of military equipment, Trump’s avarice is making the US an untrustworthy supplier of military equipment. Other NATO members are working to increase their own defence production capacity, not only to avoid relying on the US but perhaps even to defend themselves against the US.

Negotiating Sovereignty

A dramatic increase in defence spending in Canada will involve difficult tradeoffs. I don’t think the Government of Canada and Canadian society are so inefficient that increased defence spending will be funded simply by cutting waste. More defence spending will involve less spending on health, on housing, on education, on culture, and on support for other Canadian industries. Or it may involve a huge increase in the government’s deficits and debt, which only delays the tradeoff. Perhaps the increase in direct defence spending to 3.5 percent of GDP (and defence infrastructure spending to 1.5 percent of GDP) will be phased in gradually over 10 years, even backend-loaded, so that the current commitment can be revisited after the Trump presidency ends on January 20, 2029.

But “Liberation Day” is more than three years away. The renegotiation of Canada’s economic and security relationship, which is intended to produce an agreement, or at least a framework, in three weeks poses stark challenges to our government and society. I assume the worst about the Trump Administration, namely that they want to weaken us, with a long-term goal of absorbing Canada. From this perspective, tariffs and defence spending are two arms of a pincer. Tariffs are intended to weaken the Canadian economy by shifting industrial production — particularly autos, steel, and aluminum – to the US. Pressuring us to increase defence spending – especially if it involves procurement from the US – is intended to weaken us by forcing our public sector to reduce spending in other areas. (A recent historical analogy is the Reagan Administration’s enthusiastic commitment to an arms race that ultimately bankrupted and destroyed the Soviet Union.) Two hugely expensive military systems – completing the contract to purchase 88 F-35s and participating in the Golden Dome missile defence system – contribute to the Trump Administration’s objective of putting financial pressure on Canada and ultimately undermining our sovereignty.

If Canada is to dramatically increase defence spending, we need a careful study of the objectives we want to achieve and the best systems to achieve them. One important objective would be to maximize defence production in Canada. The war between Russia and Ukraine has demonstrated the importance of warfare using inexpensive drones, and Canada should be able to produce its own.

I await the results of the current negotiations with deep concern. The Canada Day celebrations are over. The battle for our sovereignty against our formerly closest ally continues.