Canadian Foreign Policy & Affairs II

[casper]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Better look into some of the provisions of the NAFTA agreement when it comes to energy, especially the renegotiated terms from Trumps time.
Mr Trudeau has diminished the real and perceived strength's of this Nation. He is not respected, nor should he be. That's why the Indians thought they could take out a Sikh activist. Clearly his Canadian citizenship meant nothing to the Indians. It was the Yanks that told us what happened btw and it was not until the Americans had the talk that Modi paid attention.

India did the same thing on US soil. I think India does not care. A different PM is not going to change that.

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Canada will have to invest in real sustained capabilities to start to regain respect from our allies. It will take a decade or more to gain respect from our adversaries.

Agreed. That said, I don't see the conservatives wanting to make that investment. That investment is going to come from a future liberal government.

Originally Posted by Dartguard

I wonder if the Yanks will ask/demand that we send troops to Haiti? Again. Real capabilities could attempt to calm that situation down but naah we are just Canadians .

They, probably will. They can't go into Haiti themselves.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by savevp

+1

As someone who isn't involved in the Forces, I've struggled to justify the level of spending that we'd need to join AUKUS, or to achieve certain capabilities advocated by Truenorth and others. I find myself really wanting to agree but being unable to see how its worth it. Certain things like Arctic defence, sure.

But if it comes down to billions of dollars, I don't think the average Canadian can see the benefit of 'keeping up with the Joneses' in Australia, or trying to be seen as not mooching off the Americans. Respectfully, I don't think most people care about those things if they're not in the military, and I'm not sure many of us can see the value in changing that. Telling taxpayers we need to spend billions on, say, nuclear subs, so we can better patrol Taiwan and be respected by other country's militaries...tough sell.

Again, certain things like a basic degree of control of the northern border and having ships that don't leak, I think most can support.

To be clear, I don't think we can or will ever hit 2%. I personally don't think we should have signed on to commitments we didn't intend to keep. Be that NATO, Paris Accords or Millennium Development Goals. But if we sign on, I think we should make a good faith attempt to meet these.

That said, as far as avoiding rust out goes, I think going from 1.4% to 1.6% would be enough. And I think if we were even at 1.8%, we would probably be included in these forums. I don't think we necessarily have to get to 2%. It's just that we're so far below target and our actual output is pretty much useless, given the rust out.

On the benefit of access, all I'll say is that the average person will never understand them because the average person has no idea what these technologies are (maybe you're an AI or quantum computing scientist so I could be wrong). But really the defence sector driving major technological change is not a new idea. And a good chunk of our manufacturing sector did arise from wartime spinoffs. For a country of 25M (Cold War era population) to have auto and aerospace manufacturing was exceptional. And not an accident.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

On the benefit of access, all I'll say is that the average person will never understand them because the average person has no idea what these technologies are (maybe you're an AI or quantum computing scientist so I could be wrong). But really the defence sector driving major technological change is not a new idea. And a good chunk of our manufacturing sector did arise from wartime spinoffs. For a country of 25M (Cold War era population) to have auto and aerospace manufacturing was exceptional. And not an accident.

You don't have to convince me. There are real and tangible benefits to being part of the club. Of course, there is an admittance fee..........

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Pay the oilsands to stop producing oil which is easily shut of unlike most oil and gas prices would spike immediately in the US.

Cause that would be cheaper than simply raising the defence budget? You're getting into some silly suggestions here. Also, there's zero chance that the Feds could afford this silly idea, that the companies would agree, or that Alberta would sign up to this.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Given how we responded to a basically inconsequential relationship with India after they killed someone on our territory word salad might be the more likely outcome sure.

Likely? Guaranteed outcome. We don't have the leverage to win this. Heck, we didn't cut off trade with China after everything that has happened with that country either.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

We got a good deal on NAFTA after all the bluster by imposing cotervailing targeted sanctions. That's probably most effective policy but starting a full blown trade war with government funds to prop up the losers would be a winning strategy politically. Canadians are desperate for strength.

You seem to be misremembering. We thought we had a common front with Mexico and refused a bilateral deal with the US and then caved hard after the US and Mexico announced a bilateral deal. I can't imagine another trade war will yield better results.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

To be clear, I don't think we can or will ever hit 2%. I personally don't think we should have signed on to commitments we didn't intend to keep. Be that NATO, Paris Accords or Millennium Development Goals. But if we sign on, I think we should make a good faith attempt to meet these.

That said, as far as avoiding rust out goes, I think going from 1.4% to 1.6% would be enough. And I think if we were even at 1.8%, we would probably be included in these forums. I don't think we necessarily have to get to 2%. It's just that we're so far below target and our actual output is pretty much useless, given the rust out.

On the benefit of access, all I'll say is that the average person will never understand them because the average person has no idea what these technologies are (maybe you're an AI or quantum computing scientist so I could be wrong). But really the defence sector driving major technological change is not a new idea. And a good chunk of our manufacturing sector did arise from wartime spinoffs. For a country of 25M (Cold War era population) to have auto and aerospace manufacturing was exceptional. And not an accident.

For sure there are benefits though of course it doesn't pay for itself and we end up with a lot of benefits anyway just by proximity and connection to the US.

There are lots of international goals. .7% to foreign Aid. A bunch of unrealistic climate targets. Not invading sovereign countries being the biggest one. These are not contracts which is why countries go along to get along.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

For sure there are benefits though of course it doesn't pay for itself and we end up with a lot of benefits anyway just by proximity and connection to the US.

Again. You're assuming that the future will be exactly like the past. Recency bias is a bitch. But that's unlikely to hold. There's specific bipartisan intention across two administrations now to tie security and economic development together. Could this trend change? Maybe. But right now there's nothing to suggest why this would happen.

Also, this isn't the 1940s. Physical proximity isn't necessary to cooperate on AI and quantum computing and hypersonics. We benefited from proximity when it was about building large physical things. Like nuclear reactors at Chalk River. Or large aircraft plants near Toronto. Most of what we're talking about in the 21st century doesn't require proximity for cooperation. Proximity isn't needed for what is being worked on today.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

There are lots of international goals. .7% to foreign Aid. A bunch of unrealistic climate targets. Not invading sovereign countries being the biggest one. These are not contracts which is why countries go along to get along.

You're right. These are commitments and norms. We don't have to live up to them. But we shouldn't expect that decision to be consequence free. You may not understand this. But even the Liberals get this. It's why they are lobbying to get into AUKUS.

If we're being strictly utilitarian than arguably, we're better off trying to get into AUKUS and cutting foreign aid spending instead. There's no evidence it's doing enough to win our industry more business. Likewise for climate commitments. Though, this may end up actually attracting trade penalties later. But that's another discussion.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You're right. These are commitments and norms. We don't have to live up to them. But we shouldn't expect that decision to be consequence free. You may not understand this. But even the Liberals get this. It's why they are lobbying to get into AUKUS.

If we're being strictly utilitarian than arguably, we're better off trying to get into AUKUS and cutting foreign aid spending instead. There's no evidence it's doing enough to win our industry more business. Likewise for climate commitments. Though, this may end up actually attracting trade penalties later. But that's another discussion.

AUKUS is basically dead. AUS isn't getting a sub anytime soon. UK will have election soon and likely shelve a lot of military spending. Of course it's nice to get some contracts and I know DND hates being left out of anything the Americans are hawking but we don't need to jump just because they say so.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

AUKUS is basically dead. AUS isn't getting a sub anytime soon.

Not sure where you come up with stuff or whether you just pull it out of your six. The Aussies are getting Virginia Class SSNs from the US, to cover them while all three countries work on the design of SSN-AUKUS and while the UK and Australia build the infrastructure to build and support those subs. The first class of RAN officers just graduated from nuclear submarine training in the US. They also have plans for joint crewing and rotations through Australia to help Australia build up their capacity and capability to operate a nuclear submarine fleet.

So where are you hearing "AUKUS is dead", beyond the hopeful whispers of some Canadian politicians in denial?

Originally Posted by YOWetal

UK will have election soon and likely shelve a lot of military spending.

Again. Where do you get this stuff? I haven't seen British Labour advocating for large defence cuts. Some have even argued to raise spending. Either way, they are at 2.5% now. Even if they went 2%, they'd be a whole league above us.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Of course it's nice to get some contracts and I know DND hates being left out of anything the Americans are hawking but we don't need to jump just because they say so.

You really don't get it. This isn't about what DND wants. Nobody at DND cares about operationalizing quantum computing 10-15 years from now. I assure you, nobody has that luxury, when we're worried about avoiding rust out 5 years from now.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Not sure where you come up with stuff or whether you just pull it out of your six....

I'm guessing they're reacting to the recent news that the US may cut Virginia-class production:

Australia confident about receiving nuclear submarines despite U.S. funding cut
The number of attack submarines in the U.S. Navy is already falling, raising concerns that deliveries promised to Australia under the AUKUS deal could be delayed or scrapped.

NBC News

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

I'm guessing they're reacting to the recent news that the US may cut Virginia-class production:

[/I]
NBC News

If, for some reason, the Virginia SSN deal is scrapped (and that's still not something that can be assumed because the US was musing about transferring older subs), there's still the joint crewing, training and rotating of nuclear subs through. Australia is even building a gigantic east coast sub base for nuclear submarines to host them from all three countries. And of course, none of this means "AUKUS is dead.". Nuclear submarines are just one part of AUKUS. Indeed, we keep trying to get into the other part.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Not sure where you come up with stuff or whether you just pull it out of your six. The Aussies are getting Virginia Class SSNs from the US, to cover them while all three countries work on the design of SSN-AUKUS and while the UK and Australia build the infrastructure to build and support those subs. The first class of RAN officers just graduated from nuclear submarine training in the US. They also have plans for joint crewing and rotations through Australia to help Australia build up their capacity and capability to operate a nuclear submarine fleet.

So where are you hearing "AUKUS is dead", beyond the hopeful whispers of some Canadian politicians in denial?



Again. Where do you get this stuff? I haven't seen British Labour advocating for large defence cuts. Some have even argued to raise spending. Either way, they are at 2.5% now. Even if they went 2%, they'd be a whole league above us.



You really don't get it. This isn't about what DND wants. Nobody at DND cares about operationalizing quantum computing 10-15 years from now. I assure you, nobody has that luxury, when we're worried about avoiding rust out 5 years from now.

Let's check back in 3 years. If UK goes to 2% they will have to sacrifice a lot. Ahead of us or not isn't the standard.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Let's check back in 3 years. If UK goes to 2% they will have to sacrifice a lot. Ahead of us or not isn't the standard.

If AUKUS is officially killed in the next 3 years, I'll leave SSP. Will you do the same, if it's active?

Same deal if the future Labour government offers 20% defence cuts taking the UK down to 2%. I don't think that is likely either.

By the way, you still haven't shared where you heard "AUKUS is dead".

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

You don't have to convince me. There are real and tangible benefits to being part of the club. Of course, there is an admittance fee..........

It's rather amazing that so many people both, take our current relationships for granted, and don't understand that a lot of what we have wasn't just a happy function of geography. There's countries much bigger than Canada that don't have the industries we have. We could have very easily just been a resource colony for the US with a lot less industry. Significant wartime manufacturing gave us a substantial industrial base to build on. This kind of advantage doesn't just sustain itself if we're out of the club.

More strange is the argument that AUKUS is irrelevant or dead. I get why Liberals might say that. Why is everybody else falling for it, when the Liberals are lobbying hard to get in (albeit without the prime if admission)? They clearly don't think it's dead or irrelevant.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's rather amazing that so many people both, take our current relationships for granted, and don't understand that a lot of what we have wasn't just a happy function of geography. There's countries much bigger than Canada that don't have the industries we have. We could have very easily just been a resource colony for the US with a lot less industry. Significant wartime manufacturing gave us a substantial industrial base to build on. This kind of advantage doesn't just sustain itself if we're out of the club.

Australia and Canada make for interesting comparisons. We have a significantly more developed manufacturing base than Australia. A significant factor to that was war time industrialization.

Chalk River came about out of a fear the UK was at risk of falling during the war. The British scientists were moved out of the UK to Chalk River where they were combined with the Canadian program. The Canadian nuclear power program was the off-shoot of those programs. Many of the companies in that supply chain went on to become key suppliers in other industries.

Same thing with aviation in Canada.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

More strange is the argument that AUKUS is irrelevant or dead. I get why Liberals might say that. Why is everybody else falling for it, when the Liberals are lobbying hard to get in (albeit without the prime if admission)? They clearly don't think it's dead or irrelevant.

I think a good number of Liberals are concerned that Canada was not asked to be part of AUKUS.

What is yet to be determined is how AUKUS pans out. The Australians clearly see it as critical to developing their industrial capabilities. Will the Americans stick to it or will it be one of several different partnerships. Hard to say. Either way it is concerning we are not in it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by casper

What is yet to be determined is how AUKUS pans out. The Australians clearly see it as critical to developing their industrial capabilities. Will the Americans stick to it or will it be one of several different partnerships. Hard to say. Either way it is concerning we are not in it.

People who say this are clueless about what kind of cooperation actually happens today. We get a ton of access through TTCP today, which is essentially S&T part of Five Eyes. I've attended TTCP meetings right before NATO meetings on the same topic. The level of rigour and cooperation is on another level. The fear is that more and more S&T will get locked up under AUKUS as TTCP gets deprecated to just the crumbs they want to share with Canada and New Zealand. Meanwhile, Australia is basically getting elevated under AUKUS to the kind of access normally reserved for the Brits.

[savevp]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Meanwhile, Australia is basically getting elevated under AUKUS to the kind of access normally reserved for the Brits.

And the end result is Australia developing some sort of military - industrial complex that we won't develop here? They'll start building subs? Sounds like this is mostly about the Aussies buying a US design. The US will foster an Australian aerospace industry?

It might help if those in the know take a shot at walking us through the tangible benefits of AUKUS, and why it matters that we aren't in it. Aside from the embarrassment / keeping up with the Joneses factor.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by savevp

And the end result is Australia developing some sort of military - industrial complex that we won't develop here? They'll start building subs? Sounds like this is mostly about the Aussies buying a US design. The US will foster an Australian aerospace industry?

It might help if those in the know take a shot at walking us through the tangible benefits of AUKUS, and why it matters that we aren't in it. Aside from the embarrassment / keeping up with the Joneses factor.

How do you quantify the benefits of access to high end research to the average person? If this was the 1940s, would you have understood the benefits to spending money building a nuclear research program at Chalk River? We got a nuclear sector out of it. But that wasn't exactly understood when Chalk River was stood up.

People get way too hung up on subs. Sharing development of the subs is just one pillar. And it's as much about the UK (helping them reduce development cost for the next generation of submarines) as it is about helping Australia build them. But the second pillar of the deal is pooling research and developing the industrial base and supply chains on key technologies that the partners agree will be strategically vital to the future. Right now that list includes Cyber, AI and autonomy, Quantum Computing, Undersea Acoustics and Hypersonics. Of that list, 3 of 5 (cyber, AI, Quantum Computing) are going to be essential for the economy in the 21st century, and are important well beyond military applications.

What this means now is that the best researchers, engineers and planners in those fields (and let's hope the AUKUS partners don't add more fields) will have the best shot for their work in an AUKUS country. Those will be the countries that can provide the must funding, access to the best labs and access to other scientists and engineers who are similarly in the loop. Right now, we enjoy some of this access under TTCP. Canadian scientists will get access to American funding and facilities, if their work is considered relevant enough. That kind of cooperation and access ends as domains migrate from TTCP to AUKUS. So, for example, Montreal's substantial talent base in AI will probably be lost to AUKUS countries in the years to come. Silicon Valley have already poached a fair bit.

I'm going to presume you can Google the technologies mentioned and understand why they are important for the future. So I won't bother explaining those.

By the way, Australia actually brings something to the table. They are selling advanced autonomous drones (Boeing Ghost Bat), AWACs (Boeing Wedgetail) and possibly hypersonic missiles, developed in Australia, to the US. Much of this was planned before AUKUS was announced, but this is the kind of work that AUKUS will bolster. So it's not some one way deal where the Aussies just but expensive American gear, as the typical sour grapes argument from Canadian conspiracists assumes.

[MonctonRad]

I appreciate how you bring educational clarity to the less well informed members of SSP!

[kwoldtimer]

Off the current topic, but I've been a bit surprised that Canada's decision to restore funding to UNRWA has not generated much controversy. I think it was the right decision, but the opposition to UNRWA is very well organized.