"What is Canada's Role in a World that Increasingly Ignores Us..."

[MarkOttawa]

What sort of foreign policy does Canada need moving forward? David Mulroney, former ambassador to China, calls for a full review like the one 50 years ago--a post:

What is Canada's Role in a World that Increasingly Ignores Us–China, Scarily, Aside?
...

...
On the other hand, one wonders if the practical effect of such a review would be worth the monumental bureaucratic and public consultation efforts that it would necessarily entail...
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/02/17/what-is-canadas-role-in-a-world-that-increasingly-ignores-us-china-scarily-aside/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Jarnhamar]

Gotta admit, the beard looks good on him.

 

[cavalryman]

Gotta admit, the beard looks good on him.

Trudeau with a beard reminds me of Sheldon Cooper's nemesis Wil Wheaton in The Big Bang Theory...  ;D

 

[brihard]

There’s an implicit assumption in the very title. Does the world ‘increasingly’ ignore us, or merely ‘still’ ignore us? We’re a nation of 40 million with negligible weight on the world stage. We are not a country that anyone needs to really heed. That’s not a new thing.

 

[CBH99]

Our role, in my opinion, should be that we accept being a small country that has the potential to offer a lot. 

We elect someone with the ability to put their foot down, be a strong leader, and get our internal affairs sorted out.  No more roadblocks and bulls**t because of this or that, no more selling the Canadian Wheat Board to places like Saudi Arabia, no more bailouts to companies like Bombardier without a serious change in management, etc.


Control our resources responsibly, so we can be a benefit to the world & use it to our financial advantage, obviously.

We have plenty of natural resources to offer a world that is always going to be in increasing need of food, fuel, etc.


We have plenty of good universities that - if the out of control PC nonsense is curbed - could really help keep us competitive in terms of global education

We have a great quality of life with professional police, fire, EMS, and health services.  While we tend to complain about our health care system being "3rd world" - nobody who has ever seen a true 3rd world hospital would ever say that. 



Foreign policy? 

Lets shoot to be able to deploy a useful battle formation in support of our true allies.  What that formation looks like can be discussed in another thread.  That's it.

A strong NORAD commitment, the ability to deploy ships in support of the operations we have now, the aircraft required to patrol/fight/transport what we need, and the ground forces that can handle a decent-sized AO on their own. 

Most importantly, the forces we do have need to have the ability to kill things.  That doesn't make us PC incompatible, it makes us responsible, relevant players.  (Most flakey-Canadians who get upset about that will also get upset about something else next week, so they can f**k right off)

 

[Kirkhill]

We might gain some credit if we can demonstrate an ability to keep the weeds down in our own back yard and maintain our fences.

"NORTHCOM: ‘The Arctic Is the New Frontline of Our Homeland Defense’
Susan Jones, CNSNews February 15, 2020"

https://www.realcleardefense.com/2020/02/15/northcom_lsquothe_arctic_is_the_new_frontline_of_our_homeland_defensersquo_312113.html

(CNSNews.com) - "The Arctic is the new frontline of our homeland defense," the commander of the U.S. Northern Command told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday.

Air Force General Terrence O’Shaughnessy said that both China and Russia are "investing heavily" in the Arctic, "determined to exploit the region’s economic and strategic potential."

"Russia has steadily expanded its military presence in the region, and by fielding advanced, long-range cruise missiles -- to include land attack missiles capable of striking the United States and Canada from Russian territory -- Russia has left us with no choice but to improve our homeland defense capability and capacity," O'Shaughnessy said.

"In the meantime, China has taken a number of incremental steps toward expanding its own Arctic presence."

According to the general, "China's rapid military modernization and efforts to extend its military’s global reach demonstrate a growing willingness to challenge the United States."

(Sen. Angus King wryly noted that China designating itself as a "near Arctic" nation is like Australia doing it.)

Arctic as an ‘avenue of approach’ to U.S.

Sen. King (I-Maine) asked O'Shaughnessy, "What does China want in the Arctic?"

O'Shaughnessy said China is interested in the Arctic's natural resources. But on a more "nefarious" note, the general said China has sent scientific research vessels to the Arctic that could pave the way for "increased submarine activity."

"And so we're looking at it clearly to understand what is it they're trying to do, but from our perspective, we're concerned about that as an avenue of approach" (to attack the U.S.).

"Do you have adequate sensors to determine if something's coming over the top (Arctic Circle)?" Sen. King asked.

"We do not, sir," O'Shaughnessy responded.

King told the general, "That's clearly a gap that needs to be addressed."

"It is, Senator," the general agreed.

....

Arctic and Alaska now a ‘battlespace’

Later in the hearing, Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) told Gen. O'Shaughnessy, "It sounds like you're saying that the Arctic and Alaska are no longer a sanctuary from which we can safely project power. But it's more of a battlespace area. Is that correct? And what are the implications from your mindset as a NORCOM commander?


"That's exactly correct, Senator," O'Shaughnessy replied, repeating that the Arctic "is clearly an avenue of approach to our great nation."

We clearly see that avenue of approach as being critical, so we have to, one, have awareness of what's going on in that space. And then we have to be able to defend in that space. And the time that will be required to respond is short because of the pure geography.

And so, I think what we really need to think about in Alaska is how do we invest to have that awareness, that the main awareness, having the right sensors and ability to understand what's happening, but also the ability to defend immediately and what are the systems that we could invest in that would allow us to have that persistent defense in Alaska, because it is key terrain that would be important to us as a nation in any conflict, whether that be with Russia or China going forward.

Sullivan asked the general, "What specific capabilities are you advocating for to ensure that we can both protect the homeland in these avenues of approach that you talked about, but also to continue to project power from Alaska...?"

"First I'd say we have to complete the next generation interceptor,” O’Shaughnessy said:

We have literally holes in the ground right now that we need to fill with capabilities. So, we need to bring that left. And we need to bring that as fast as possible.

We need to augment that with additional ballistic missile capability that we could put in Alaska, whether that be SM32A's, whether that be the potentially THAD deployments there. We need to bring that into Alaska. And we need a sensing capability that'll be persistent, that'll be steady stake that will always be there, that we have the technology today -- we just have to deploy it to Alaska.

O'Shaughnessy also said the U.S. military "needs to train in Arctic conditions."

"If you are not training, if you don't have the right equipment and if you are not versed in operating in the Arctic, you will not effectively be able to operate there. And our adversaries are operating there. And, therefore, we need to be able to operate there as well."

O'Shaughnessy told the committee that the Arctic "is now a battlespace," which requires "continued investment."

"And so we need to be able to operate in Alaska, in the Arctic, in cooperation with Canada from the NORAD side."


O'Shaughnessy said one of his main concerns in the Arctic is "basic communication," since satellites don't operate at those latitudes. He said the military has been working with commercial companies to find a solution.

"It is my number one priority to have Arctic com's, and I think the proliferation of LEO (low earth orbit satellites) and a Starlink or a One Web type solution is the way to get it fastest.”

What do the Yanks want?  Comms and Sensors.  What does Canada need?  Comms and Sensors.  And the F35 is a sensor platform and a comms relay.  As is the AOPS.  As are UUVs  and SOSUS type systems.  As is a North Warning replacement.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

People around the world generally like Canadians, but we are basically immaterial to their lives, unless they have an Uncle in Toronto I must have met.....

 

[daftandbarmy]

People around the world generally like Canadians, but we are basically immaterial to their lives, unless they have an Uncle in Toronto I must have met.....

Well, our national economy is the size of New York's so at least we're not, like, Indonesia (Florida) or something  :facepalm:

https://fee.org/articles/us-states-renamed-as-countries-with-similar-gdps/

 

[Underway]

Well, our national economy is the size of New York's so at least we're not, like, Indonesia (Florida) or something  :facepalm:

https://fee.org/articles/us-states-renamed-as-countries-with-similar-gdps/

It depends on how you measure ignored and what sort of company we are in.  What countries are truly not ignored?  I would argue ones with either too much money, military or geographical position which forces others to pay attention to them.

Canada rates about 10th in world GDP.  Below us are South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Turkey.  These countries are not ignored generally because of their geopolitical realities, or important resources.  Above us sit Italy, Brazil, UK, US, France, Germany, Japan, China, India. One could argue that Italy and Brazil have little to no impact on the world stage outside of their own local area.  Germany has a huge impact because where Germany goes the EU goes.  France has a global colonial system and military to match.  UK also large military and worldwide obligations.  India is not ignored but is similar to Brazil, its own neighbourhood is important but on a global scale, not much impact. China and Russia have a huge impact because of military, wealth and location.

Canada sits in the enviable spot of not needing or being forced into a global impact.  Our geopolitics are such that we are strategic to exactly nothing (currently).  Our wealth though impressive is dwarfed by our neighbour so any move Canada makes doesn't really impact markets locally or globally.

So the questions are:

1) Do we care?  We are literally located in the best spot in the world for security reasons.  Why not just mind our own knitting?
2) What will it cost/take to be globally influencial?  Money for sure, and then an interventionist military with a will to use it.
3) Is that cost worth it?

 

[daftandbarmy]

It depends on how you measure ignored and what sort of company we are in.  What countries are truly not ignored?  I would argue ones with either too much money, military or geographical position which forces others to pay attention to them.

Canada rates about 10th in world GDP.  Below us are South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Turkey.  These countries are not ignored generally because of their geopolitical realities, or important resources.  Above us sit Italy, Brazil, UK, US, France, Germany, Japan, China, India. One could argue that Italy and Brazil have little to no impact on the world stage outside of their own local area.  Germany has a huge impact because where Germany goes the EU goes.  France has a global colonial system and military to match.  UK also large military and worldwide obligations.  India is not ignored but is similar to Brazil, its own neighbourhood is important but on a global scale, not much impact. China and Russia have a huge impact because of military, wealth and location.

Canada sits in the enviable spot of not needing or being forced into a global impact.  Our geopolitics are such that we are strategic to exactly nothing (currently).  Our wealth though impressive is dwarfed by our neighbour so any move Canada makes doesn't really impact markets locally or globally.

So the questions are:

1) Do we care?  We are literally located in the best spot in the world for security reasons.  Why not just mind our own knitting?
2) What will it cost/take to be globally influencial?  Money for sure, and then an interventionist military with a will to use it.
3) Is that cost worth it?

The amount we invest in our military, economy, and other 'power' enablers, is somewhat proportional to the strenght of our sovereignty, which is really, really important - viz:

The Issue of Sovereignty 

State sovereignty is the concept that states are in complete and exclusive control of all the people and property within their territory. State sovereignty also includes the idea that all states are equal as states. In other words, despite their different land masses, population sizes, or financial capabilities, all states, ranging from tiny islands of Micronesia to vast expanse of Russia, have an equal right to function as a state and make decisions about what occurs within their own borders. Since all states are equal in this sense, one state does not have the right to interfere with the internal affairs of another state.

Practically, sovereignty means that one state cannot demand that another state take any particular internal action. For example, if Canada did not approve of a Brazilian plan to turn a large section of Brazil’s rainforest into an amusement park, the Canadian reaction is limited by Brazil’s sovereignty. Canada may meet with the Brazilian government to try to convince them to halt the project. Canada may bring the issue before the UN to survey the world’s opinion of the project. Canada may even make politically embarrassing public complaints in the world media. However, Canada cannot simply tell Brazil to stop the rainforest project and expect Brazil to obey.

http://www.globalization101.org/the-issue-of-sovereignty/

 

[Underway]

@draftandbarmy:

Not arguing sovereignty.  Global role or importance?  Not necessary outside of the margins of the great powers.  There's a role there but Canada will never be more than a good ally, who shows up with helpful capabilities and leadership for things the US doesn't want to do.