Front Burner - Has NATO outlived its purpose?

Episode Date: July 12, 2024

As the NATO summit wraps up in Washington, D.C., this week, Canada has finally committed to spending two per cent of its GDP on defense, as required by the treaty. But NATO is an alliance forged in a post-WWII world at the dawn of the Cold War. Is it still relevant in a modern, post-Soviet world? Or has Russia's increased aggression in recent years given the alliance a renewed purpose?Andrea Charron, director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba, explains how NATO got to this point, what could be next, and Canada's role in it.For transcripts of this series, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson. The NATO Military Alliance Summit in Washington this week was supposed to show strength and a united front in the face of Russia's war on Ukraine. And we did see some big commitments, like dozens more air defense systems for Ukraine. But we also heard a lot about the pressures threatening to crack this alliance open. I mean the risk of another Donald Trump presidency after his many comments against NATO,

plus the rise of nationalist right-wing parties around the world. And there was a lot of anger at Canada's failure to meet the 2% spending target on defense. Given all the threats from both outside and inside NATO, it begs the question, why do we still need this alliance? And since it was formed 75 years ago in a very different world for an enemy that no longer exists, can it and will it still serve its purpose? no longer exists, can it and will it still serve its purpose? Andrea Sharon is the director of the Center for Defense and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba, and I reached her Thursday morning. Andrea, hi, thank you so much for coming on to FrontBurner. Thank you for the invitation. So to understand the questions that NATO is grappling with right now, I'm hoping we can start back at the beginning of the alliance. After the Second World War, why and in what context was NATO actually formed in the first place?

in the first place? Well, after two world wars that began in Europe, it was obvious to the United States that it was going to have to play a pivotal role in making sure that Europe remained stable. And so 12 states came together to ensure that an attack on one would be an attack on all. Remember, after World War I, when the League of Nations was set up, the United States didn't join. And so it was really important for the Europeans that the United States was part of this military alliance to be obligated to come to their aid. And likewise, the United States wanted to make sure that it could preempt another attack in Europe by being part of this military alliance and really the big reason that NATO focuses on deterrence. And just talk to me a little bit about the role that the Cold War played in this. was focused against one aggressor in the Soviet Union, which also had nuclear weapons.

They were able to create a kind of peace. Of course, there were sort of proxy wars throughout the world. But most importantly, the United States and the Soviet Union, the great powers of the Cold War did not come to direct blows. And we know from history that whenever the great powers come to blows, it often leads into a wider world war. But I know after the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union collapsed, and we saw this different face emerge for Russia, maybe a bit a friendlier face at the time. What kind of questions were there about why or whether or not NATO should still exist, whether it had kind of served its purpose?

Well, that was one of the big questions. I mean, the NATO alliance had been focused on this one aggressor that was the Soviet Union, and it didn't exist anymore. In fact, there were such high hopes in this new Russia that it was given automatic position at the UN Security Council, and it was invited to join NATO in the Partnership for Peace arrangement. And so the question was, well, what do we do now? Because we've sort of solved the Soviet Union aggressor problem. And they started to go what we call out of area. Now, one thing that's important to remember is that the whole reason NATO has the authority to use force to defend its allies is anchored in the UN Charter in Article 51, which confirms the right of self or collective defense of any state. And so what we saw in the 1990s was there wasn't a clash of great powers, but there was a number of ethnic conflicts. Think about Bosnia, the massacre in Srebrenica, Rwanda, Somalia. These conflicts that had an ethnic component to it, the UN really struggled to manage because it doesn't have a standing military. And so what the UN did was give NATO Chapter 7 authority to use force to help get peace and security in these other conflicts. What would you say, maybe as succinctly as possible, what would you say the goal was of NATO in the 90s and even up through the 2000s? Well, I think they saw, you know, institutions have a momentum of their own, but there are all sorts of side benefits

that we don't think about, like the opportunity to train together, to bulk buy together, to be able to, if you're a smaller military, provide a niche capacity so you don't have to be, you know, the all-purpose military in every context. So all of those other reasons that are important to NATO still made sense even in the 1990s. So then let's take these questions about NATO's purpose to the present day then, with the war in Ukraine and the summit this week. Russia is the aggressor in this war, but Ukraine isn't actually a member of NATO, at least not yet. How has that created divisions in NATO over how and how much the alliance needs to be supporting Ukraine? And how is that a continuation or even a departure from how NATO has been operating in past decades? Well, Ukraine is the clearest indication of boldface aggression by Russia against a state, attacking it in 2014 and then again in 2022. And the recent bombing of the Children's Hospital just shows that Russia is an aggressor.

Rescuers and dozens of volunteers, including medics, wearing scrubs and lab coats, forming a human chain, combing frantically through the rubble for survivors. As children undergoing life-saving treatments were forced to sit on the sidewalk, IVs still in their arms. States like Ukraine absolutely need the support of NATO allies. And one of the things we saw coming out of the Washington Summit declaration was confirmation that Ukraine would eventually become a NATO ally, a full member. And also there was a pledge of long-term security assistance for Ukraine. The work we are doing together now will ensure that when the time is right,

Ukraine can join without delay. It is not a question of if, but when. The thinking is that if Ukraine falls, one, it shows aggressors around the world that you need only attack and everybody folds their tents and goes home. But it also might encourage Russia to continue in a westward direction and go after some of the Eastern European NATO allies. But there have been sticking points, right? Like there has been disagreement in NATO over how involved they should be in Ukraine. Oh, absolutely. And it's not only within NATO, it's even within states within NATO, you get splits, especially in the United States. On the one hand, people say, why are we spending so much money to support a state like

Ukraine, which is not a NATO ally? We have no requirement to help them. And might this, you know, pull NATO into a wider war? I think Russia is hostile to the United States, but I think their threat, Europe is a more pressing part of their threat. So we need to have the Europeans step up. Some have done it. No blank check on Ukraine. You're saying the United States, so no blank check. Other people are saying if NATO is going to stand for deterrence, it has to help defend states everywhere from this bold-faced aggression. An authoritarian government, a dictator like Vladimir Putin winning in Ukraine will make every American less safe. I mean, Ronald Reagan has to be twisting in his grave when you've got a wing of the Republican Party that's so isolationist and so unwilling to step up. And just maybe flesh out for me those concerns that we're hearing, particularly coming from

the United States, people talking about how this summit this week is really happening under the shadow of, you know, Donald Trump and for many, the worry that Donald Trump will come to power and what he will do vis-a-vis NATO. What are people really worried about here? Well, you're right. When Trump was president, he sort of questioned the importance of NATO and whether the foundation of NATO, which is this Article 5 commitment that an attack on one is an attack on all is really needed anymore. And I'll note that this is a longstanding narrative in the United States. They've always argued that we want to avoid, quote unquote, entangling alliances that require Washington to come to the aid of others. And so what NATO has been trying to do under Jan Stoltenberg

is to, quote-unquote, Trump-proof NATO, so that the benefits of NATO and U.S. active participation is upfront, articulated, so that Trump can perhaps be persuaded that NATO is really important to the United States. But we know that, you know, Trump has made some wildly inappropriate comments about should NATO allies not spend 2% of GDP? He doesn't think that they deserve protection and would encourage the likes of Putin to attack them. They asked me that question. One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said,

well, sir, if we don't pay and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us? I said, you didn't pay? You're delinquent? He said, yes. let's say that happened. No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills. But we've NATO has had a history of having huge disagreements. I mean, let's not forget in the 1960s, France left the military side of NATO. There have been long-term disagreements

between the Greeks and the Turks. So having these individual conflicts within NATO is not new. Trump, however, has been the most vocal about disbanding NATO. You know, the other thing I wanted to ask you about is the expansion of NATO. You mentioned how Ukraine would like to join. In the last two years, we saw two countries officially join that are right on Russia's doorstep, Sweden and Finland. And both times there were concerns that this could actually lead to global war, right? That it would do the opposite of what it was intended to do. And just, can you explain those,

where were those concerns come from and whether or not you think that they're legitimate? Well, in many cases, I think this is the narrative of Russia that if NATO expands, it is a direct threat to Russia. And therefore, the only way to avoid future conflict is for new states not to be allowed to join. Vladimir Putin put forward his plan for a ceasefire in Ukraine. As soon as Kiev declares that they are ready for such a decision, begin withdrawing troops and officially abandon plans to join NATO, we will immediately, at the same moment, order a ceasefire and start negotiations. This is patently false.

Russia and China, for that matter, are the first to defend the principle of state sovereignty in the UN Security Council. And the idea of state sovereignty is that no state will violate the territorial integrity of another state, nor will they dictate the foreign and defense policy of other states. And that's exactly what Russia is trying to do by saying, if Ukraine were to join NATO, this is some sort of violation of Russia's security. State sovereignty means every state has the right to join whatever alliance they would like, and no other state can dictate that. And the Washington Treaty says that membership is open to any European state so long as they meet a few criteria, which Ukraine is working to make sure they realize. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection.

Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization. Empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to,

50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo, 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. You mentioned before the money, right, which is something that Trump has been hammering on about. And I don't know, maybe besides the looming threat of Trump, perhaps this is the biggest source of division right now. And this week, actually, Canada seems to be the target of it. So as you mentioned, NATO expects member countries to spend 2% of the value of their

economy on defense. We're talking Thursday morning, and as of now, Canada remains the only member that hasn't revealed a plan and timeline to reach that target, though I'll note there is reporting that some kind of plan may be released later today. So we would need to spend some $18 billion more a year to get there. And why has Canada been spending less? And why is that seen as such a threat to the alliance? that was just announced. It even suggests that this 2% of GDP annual defense spending, which is a floor, is likely to be raised in the future, that in fact allies will have to spend more than this.

I'll note, though, that Canada was actually mentioned in the declaration in sort of a positive light that Canada and European allies had actually grown by 18% in 2024 in terms of increases in defense spending. But the reason Canada hasn't spent 2% of GDP, I think are twofold. First, for many decades, we thought that we were sort of fireproof. And especially because we were attached physically to the United States, we have three oceans, we're part of the North American Aerospace Defense Command with the United States that we don't need to spend lots of money on defense. The question we should ask is, how much is just enough? But the other reason I think that we haven't been spending 2% of GDP, especially recently,

is we've lost the capacity to be able to spend billions of dollars. We don't have enough procurement specialists. We don't have enough procurement specialists. We have such an overly bureaucratized system of checks and balances whenever we do try and buy any kind of new platforms like an F-35 or submarines. It just takes so long and is such a laborious project that we aren't able to spend the money. But I think it's all come to a head now. And with pressure from the United States and European allies, I mean, this is it. And the message to Canada is you absolutely need a plan to get to 2%

and plan for that percentage to increase and start spending the money in a better, more efficient manner now. I just want to pick up on something you said that there are actually calls to increase the spending past 2% now, right? Yes. How feasible is that going to be for this government, though, which is trying to exercise fiscal restraint in this current climate And, you know, if you can get away with spending less on defense, which happens to be a huge part of the budget, then all the better. And so this is not unique to this current government. It's successive governments. I think the one thing that this government has done is increase spending quickly and in amounts we have not seen for decades and decades. And while attention is on Canada, and rightly so, we're a G7 nation, we have the ability and capability to spend 2% of GDP. People aren't mentioning that, for example, Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, Portugal,

you know, other European allies are also not meeting their 2% commitments. Why is everyone picking on us then? I've seen like all of these pieces in US media this week, like Politico, quoting all of these anonymous sources, just basically giving us a hard time, right? Like, why do we seem to be the center of this ire right now? Are we just like an easy target? Well, two reasons. One, as I mentioned, I mean, Canada, of all the other states I mentioned who are not paying their 2% of GDP, has the most capacity to do that. We are a very rich country. We have a very, very capable military.

And we are right beside the United States and embedded with them in all sorts of contexts. So we have the training access and know how to do it. But we also do this to ourselves. And that's because whereas most countries do not see defense as a partisan issue, it is something key to the survival of a state. We break this down in partisan ways. So if the liberals who are in power are getting criticized for not spending enough, of course the Conservatives are going to pile on and say, of course they're not spending enough because they're the Liberals. But at the same time, the exact same thing happened when the Conservatives were in power.

The Trudeau government says it's had to rebuild from record low defense spending under the previous Conservative government. Under Stephen Harper's Conservatives, Canada's defence spending fell to less than 1% to 0.9% of GDP. But that argument doesn't carry much weight on Capitol Hill. So I think we ourselves highlight to the rest of the world that, you know, there's a split within the country about how we should be spending this money. So we are our own worst enemies in some cases. Right. And certainly, too, there are arguments coming from the left in this country that we shouldn't be spending on our military really at all? I think that's changing. I think, you know, what the Ukraine war has highlighted and a number of commissions in Canada about foreign interference, we realize that we really are far more vulnerable than than before, that our sort of lax attitude towards how to defend the country. And that

doesn't just involve the military. That's a whole of society effort. Before we go, Andrea, you know, we began this conversation talking about why NATO was formed in the first place in the aftermath of World War II and how it really was this counterweight to the Soviet Union and how its role has evolved over time. And I just wonder if you think that this organization formed so long ago is currently like the best kind of way to deal with modern day conflicts. Let me maybe put to you a very simple question. If Russia were to attack a member nation like Finland, do you think the alliance would be willing and adequately prepared to respond together like they're supposed to? Well, I think yes. And that is because there has been a really

concerted effort to make sure that NATO reviews its command and control architecture. NATO today is better organized, better equipped and better trained than it has been in the past. There is deep attention to things like the inclusion of artificial intelligence and making sure that allies are interoperable and have the capabilities to be able to defend themselves. So while there's always a question of does an Article 5 apply to all NATO allies equally, I think the comments from the summit is a decided yes, and that NATO is making sure that it will be able to defend all allies. The other thing I will note is that NATO has managed to prevent a direct attack between the United States and Russia because it's built on this idea of collective defense and deterrence. We haven't mentioned nuclear weapons. It's as if they don't exist, but they absolutely

do. And the fact that we have 32 allies prepared to defend themselves against an aggressor like Russia is the reason why I think we have not had a direct conflict between the United States and Russia. Okay, I think that's a great place to end. Andrea Charon, thank you so much for this. This is great. My pleasure. All right. So I mentioned Canada's plan to meet NATO's military spending benchmark

earlier in the conversation. After we recorded our conversation with Andrea, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made an announcement about it at the summit in Washington. He said that the government hopes to meet that benchmark, that's 2% of a member country's GDP, by the year 2032. All right, that is all for today. FrontBurner was produced this week by Joytha Sengupta, Matt Mews, Matt Alma, Ali Jaynes, Derek Vanderwyk, and Julia Israel. Sound design was by Mackenzie Cameron and Sam McNulty. Music is by Joseph Shabison. Our executive producer this week is Elaine Chow. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening, and we, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.