Is Canada Free-Riding on Defense?
It is taken as fact that Canada’s is a “freeloader” or “free-rider” in NATO. I find this to be a particularly pernicious and troublesome myth. Dan Gardner presents it thusly
“remember, the Europeans have been complaining about Canadian freeloading for years, not only the Americans”
I find that this complaint readily upsets me. I find it to be totally unjustified. And it comes down to what a defence alliance is designed to accomplish, and why NATO exists.
NATO came into being as a response to threats posed by aggressive nations on the European continent, and solidified as a mutual defence pact against aggression by the Soviet Union. “A mutual defence pact” is the key phrase that is the likely cause of the free-rider complaint. But that prompts the question, mutual defence from what threats?
Canada is geographically isolated from Europe and Asia. Ignoring Hans Island, Canada only has one neighbour that it shares a land border with, the United States of America. This is an important point. When we look at the history of warfare, the majority of conflicts are between neighbouring nation states. The exceptions? The United States of America is one of the participants. Even Japan’s attacks on Pearl Harbor and Midway were about preventing the US from projecting military force in the Pacific, they were not about holding and occupying territory.
Occupying and holding territory is incredibly difficult. And the further away that territory is, the more difficult it becomes. The US Military relies on alliances and agreements that allows it to project force around the world, with strategic bases on foreign soil, and is the only military that can reliably project force with aircraft carrier groups. It’s instructive how many military campaigns to seize nation states have been failures. Incredibly destructive failures with consequences echoing for generations, but still failures.
Looking at Canada, what are the military threats it faces, that require an alliance to come to its aid?
Russia and China are often cited, but neither has the capability to transport a large military force overseas, and then sustain and supply that military force as it conducts operations. These were significant challenges to allied forces defending and retaking continental Europe in World War 2, and it has not become any simpler since. Even the mighty US military struggled to occupy and hold Afghanistan and Iraq.
So if the threat is not from overseas, where is the threat to Canada? Well… “the majority of conflicts are between neighbouring nation states.”
If Canada’s friend and ally, the United States of America, decided to turn a hostile eye north, Canada would be in for a short and decisive losing battle; in traditional military terms. There’s not much that would stop the US military from occupying the key population centers strung out along the Canada-US border.
Would Canada’s European allies rush to its defence? Not a chance. None of them have the military capacity, airlift or sealift, to deploy personnel and equipment overseas. There are no friendly third nations to stage and deploy from. Canada’s European allies would have to fight the Battle of the Atlantic in reverse, against the USA. They won’t do it. They quite frankly couldn’t even try if they wanted to.
To be blunt, Canada’s participation in the “mutual defence pact” that is NATO is entirely one-sided. Canada has been there for its allies in the past, and it will be there again if called. But it is a safe bet to say that it will never need its allies to come to its defence.
Quite frankly, Canadian membership in any military alliance is a gift to the other members, and all it gets in return is a bit of status. Those on the receiving end should be thankful and not grump about the size of the gift.
After all, if they don’t like the gift, they can just ask Canada to stop giving it.
Free-riding? That’s an insult to the gift freely given.
