- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Monday, April 8, 2002
The Halifax Herald Limited
--------------------------------------------------
Lack of might cuts Canada's voice to a whisper
By Scott Taylor ON TARGET
AS THE ESCALATING Middle East violence temporarily pushed U.S. President George W. Bush's war on terror out of the headlines, Canadian politicians tried in vain to make their voices heard on the world stage.
First, it was Bill Graham, our newly minted foreign affairs minister, who naively called upon both the Israelis and Palestinians to refrain from using violence. With the suicide bombings mounting and the Israeli army mobilizing, Prime Minister Jean Chretien urged both parties to adhere to a hastily drafted UN resolution. This ceasefire proposal would entail a cessation of the suicide attacks in exchange for the pulling out of Israeli troops from the Palestinian-controlled West Bank.
While I agree in principle with Canada's non-partisan official approach to the current crisis, it is regrettable our position has become virtually meaningless to the big global picture. Despite being a partner in the G8 and founding member of NATO, Canada is no longer considered a major player in international policy-making. The reason is that we have long since lost the "or else" quotient necessary when making forceful peace demands upon belligerents.
By contrast, last Thursday, when President Bush uttered sentiments similar to Chretien's, he did so with the implicit threat of unleashing the mighty U.S. war machine and/or withholding vital military aid if American demands are not met.
While no one can hold a candle to the U.S. in terms of sheer military power, NATO countries such as France, Britain and Germany, which maintain credible fighting forces, retain a modicum of clout in the Middle East discussions. Despite what Defence Minister Art Eggleton may profess, Canada no longer possesses the minimum military ante to sit at the table with those power brokers. Our allies are well aware of this. The British declined our participation in the Afghanistan peacekeeping force in favour of Romania; the only way that our contingent could participate in the current American operation around Kandahar, was if the U.S. air force gave our troops a lift. But I digress.
For those interested in learning more about the woeful state of our military, the Conference of Defence Associations has just produced a concise summary of facts titled Did You Know?
Made up almost entirely of former senior officers, the CDA is a relative latecomer to the public debate about Canada's (lack of) combat capability. Until recently, this organization was subsidized by the Defence Department and, hence, often played the role of "unofficial" apologist for government policy.
However, after federal funding was cut, the CDA changed its collective tune. The Did You Know? aide-memoire is part of its new outreach program intended to educate Canadians about the "unacceptable state of our Forces." Concerned citizens are encouraged to read the report and then contact their members of Parliament to let them know that people do care about national security.
In quick form, Did You Know? compares Canada's defence spending with that of our NATO allies (on average, less than 50 per cent based on per capita and as a portion of our GDP).
Contradicting Defence Minister Eggleton's insistence that our Forces are more combat capable than at any time in the past decade, the CDA states that "over the last number of years there has been an erosion of operational skills at the tactical, operational and strategic levels."
In reference to the deployment to Afghanistan, the CDA criticizes Ottawa for its inability to deploy an entire battalion group and the fact we "should not be totally reliant on (our) allies . . . for strategic airlift."
The Did You Know? tales of woe cover all three service branches as well as the reserves. For those interested in learning more, I encourage you to visit the CDA Web site at Did You Know?
The Halifax Herald Limited
--------------------------------------------------
Lack of might cuts Canada's voice to a whisper
By Scott Taylor ON TARGET
AS THE ESCALATING Middle East violence temporarily pushed U.S. President George W. Bush's war on terror out of the headlines, Canadian politicians tried in vain to make their voices heard on the world stage.
First, it was Bill Graham, our newly minted foreign affairs minister, who naively called upon both the Israelis and Palestinians to refrain from using violence. With the suicide bombings mounting and the Israeli army mobilizing, Prime Minister Jean Chretien urged both parties to adhere to a hastily drafted UN resolution. This ceasefire proposal would entail a cessation of the suicide attacks in exchange for the pulling out of Israeli troops from the Palestinian-controlled West Bank.
While I agree in principle with Canada's non-partisan official approach to the current crisis, it is regrettable our position has become virtually meaningless to the big global picture. Despite being a partner in the G8 and founding member of NATO, Canada is no longer considered a major player in international policy-making. The reason is that we have long since lost the "or else" quotient necessary when making forceful peace demands upon belligerents.
By contrast, last Thursday, when President Bush uttered sentiments similar to Chretien's, he did so with the implicit threat of unleashing the mighty U.S. war machine and/or withholding vital military aid if American demands are not met.
While no one can hold a candle to the U.S. in terms of sheer military power, NATO countries such as France, Britain and Germany, which maintain credible fighting forces, retain a modicum of clout in the Middle East discussions. Despite what Defence Minister Art Eggleton may profess, Canada no longer possesses the minimum military ante to sit at the table with those power brokers. Our allies are well aware of this. The British declined our participation in the Afghanistan peacekeeping force in favour of Romania; the only way that our contingent could participate in the current American operation around Kandahar, was if the U.S. air force gave our troops a lift. But I digress.
For those interested in learning more about the woeful state of our military, the Conference of Defence Associations has just produced a concise summary of facts titled Did You Know?
Made up almost entirely of former senior officers, the CDA is a relative latecomer to the public debate about Canada's (lack of) combat capability. Until recently, this organization was subsidized by the Defence Department and, hence, often played the role of "unofficial" apologist for government policy.
However, after federal funding was cut, the CDA changed its collective tune. The Did You Know? aide-memoire is part of its new outreach program intended to educate Canadians about the "unacceptable state of our Forces." Concerned citizens are encouraged to read the report and then contact their members of Parliament to let them know that people do care about national security.
In quick form, Did You Know? compares Canada's defence spending with that of our NATO allies (on average, less than 50 per cent based on per capita and as a portion of our GDP).
Contradicting Defence Minister Eggleton's insistence that our Forces are more combat capable than at any time in the past decade, the CDA states that "over the last number of years there has been an erosion of operational skills at the tactical, operational and strategic levels."
In reference to the deployment to Afghanistan, the CDA criticizes Ottawa for its inability to deploy an entire battalion group and the fact we "should not be totally reliant on (our) allies . . . for strategic airlift."
The Did You Know? tales of woe cover all three service branches as well as the reserves. For those interested in learning more, I encourage you to visit the CDA Web site at Did You Know?
