Canada’s Defense Spending: Why Tony Abbott is Only Half Right

I read with interest the former Australian Prime Minister’s National Post article on Canada’s defence spending.

My initial reaction was satisfaction that such a prominent politician from a Five-Eyes country was giving it to the Canadian government. However, my opinion changed as I considered the viewpoints of a number of pundits and their take on Abbott’s categorization of Canada as a nation of “early quitters.”

Abbott’s thesis about Canada and its defence spending and foreign policy is only half right. Here’s why:

First, without question, Abbott is entirely correct on Canada’s defence spending.  

Canada’s defence spending over the past twelve years or so has been a national shame.

I would go so far as to say it has been a dereliction of leadership by both the Trudeau and Harper governments.

Both governments played starring roles in letting the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) get to its current state, though I will say that the Harper Government did do right by the troops in Afghanistan. If only the Conservatives had applied that same level of commitment to the whole of the CAF during their tenure in government.

As Abbott is right to point out, successive Canadian federal governments have underfunded the military to the advantage of social programs – this butter over guns argument is well understood by most Canadians, so I’m not going to rehash it here.  

Instead, I want to spend my time on the “early quitting” slur put forward by Abbott.  

Early Quitters:

When Abbott uses the term “early quitter,” what is he talking about?

In addition to its paltry defence spending, Abbott contends that Canada’s status as a good ally has been damaged several times over when it refused to get involved in the Vietnam War and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (Australia fought in both conflicts). He also contends that we left Afghanistan too early. We left in 2015; Australia was there until 2021.

While he besmirches Canada’s reputation by calling us early quitters, what I think is going on here, plain and simple, is ignorance.

Canada’s foreign policy and defence decisions are driven by two crucial factors Mr. Abbott seems unaware of.

Factor #1: We Know the Yanks Better than Most (or all)  

Now, I know this will sound high and mighty, but hear me out.  

By virtue of our geographic and economic closeness, Canadians understand Americans better than anyone. We live, breathe, and soak up their politics and culture on a daily basis. Any Canadian who watches the American news is a casual expert on all things American. Beyond the average Canadian, there are tens of thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, and academics who make whole careers out of watching and engaging with the United States.

In sociological terms, what I’m referring to is the Wisdom of the Crowds.

What am I suggesting here? Well, I’m suggesting that by 1965, when Australia was fully engaged and committed to Vietnam, Canada, because of its extensive and intimate relationship with the United States, had enough information to know that the Vietnam War was a futile effort and chose to stay out of it.  I would put forward the same argument for America’s invasion of Iraq.

Think of this. In the two years leading up to that war (Iraq), how many Canadians working in or visiting Washington had meetings, went out for lunch, or had drinks with an American colleague, friend or contact? Or how about the numbers who attended each other’s weddings, slept with one another, or got married? Indeed it’s thousands, if not tens of thousands, of interactions.

This is what I mean when I say our relationship with the US is intimate.

Here’s what Pierre Trudeau said of our relationship with the Yanks: Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.

Well, over the decades, because of our aforementioned connections, we’ve become pretty good at interpreting all of these twitches and grunts—so good that it allowed us to pass on the disasters that were Vietnam and Iraq. It also allowed us to see the writing on the wall regarding Afghanistan. And I would argue it enabled us to say no to leading a mission in the perpetual disaster that is Haiti.

Factor #2: Distances Matter

The other point concerning Abbott’s thesis is my contention that Australia’s vast distance from the US and its closeness to the Pacific Rim endow it with natural independence from the American political juggernaut. This separation makes it easier for Australia to sign onto major US policy initiatives without being labelled an American shill or lackey.    

In 2023, 663,000 Americans visited Australia. In that same year, 11.3 million Americans visited Canada. The number of visitors alone tells you how much more connected Canada is with the US than Australia is with our southern neighbour.

This closeness – both geographic and cultural, comes with consequences for Canada’s foreign policy.

The distance between Australia and the United States affords Australia the opportunity—both perceived and actual—to be seen as distinct and apart from the US. This physical separation from the US and its geographic closeness to nations across the Pacific serves the Aussies well in their bilateral relations with many of the region’s countries.

Because of its geographic isolation from the rest of the world and its intimate and unique relationship with the US, Canada isn’t afforded this same degree of independence, particularly by developing nations.

Due to this handicap, Canada must work harder than most Western states to convince the world that when the US says ‘jump,’ Canada doesn’t automatically say, ‘How high?’

I would argue that Australia, because of its distance from the US, receives a natural benefit of the doubt when it supports US policy or action. For Australia and its neighbours in the Pacific Rim, the United States is always going to be 12,000 kilometers away.  

Canada is less likely to catch this kind of break because of its location and because of our longstanding and intimate connections with our American friends.

In Conclusion…

Let’s bring things back to Tony Abbott.

Again, he’s half right.

He’s right that Canada is a laggard in defence spending. There’s no arguing that. He’s right that this low defence spending has put Canada on the outside looking in for things like AUKUS. It has also greatly affected Canada’s ability to make the world a more secure place where the values and principles that Australia and Canada believe in can thrive.

This is Canada’s national shame.

I fervently hope that this situation changes when a new government is formed in Canada, but only time will tell if the right investments are made and the proper leadership is brought to bear on the CAF and Canada’s foreign policy.  

Where Abbott is half wrong is on his ‘early quitters’ comment.  

Mr. Abbott would be well served to consider that Canada’s relationship with the US gives us insights that Australia and many other countries may not be privy to and that these insights have helped Canada avoid some of the world’s most disastrous and costly conflicts.

So good is Canada’s record on these foreign policy debacles Mr. Abbott and other Australian PMs may wish to have a long and serious chat with the right people in the Canadian government before Australia commits to the United States’ next foreign policy adventure—namely, Iran.