FUNDING FOR THE CANADIAN MILITARY: FUBAR
by Robert Stewart, C.A., C.M.C., Director of Canadian Centres for Teaching
Peace
and host of the Annual Peace Education Conferences in Canada.
Mr. Stewart can be reached at stewartr [at] peace.ca
I recently received a question from a student on Military Funding, asking for my
views.
I hope my response shook him out of his complacency, since my view on funding
for the Canadian military is: it is "FUBAR". (FUBAR is an
acronym that originated in the military to stand for the words "f***ed up
beyond all repair." This is often softened to "fouled up beyond all
repair" in reference to hardware. The programming and documentation
equivalent is "fouled up beyond all recognition." Sometimes the last
word is "recovery" or "reconciliation" or
"reason.") Many Canadians do feel there is something wrong with
the current 'system'. They are quite right. Allow me to explain.
Ignorance is Dangerous:
Decisions on appropriate levels of military spending should reflect the minimum
amount necessary to meet a nation's legitimate defensive needs as determined by
external threats, vulnerabilities, etc. (This method conforms to the goal
expressed in Article 26 of the United Nations' Charter: "To promote the
establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least
diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources...")
Currently, we Canadians are quite illiterate when it comes to our military and
foreign affairs missions, strategies and action plans (for example, do Canadians
know anything about the "deeper integration with the U.S." as lobbied
by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives?). Furthermore, we should not
be so naive to think our government will solve the dilemmas of military spending
on their own (at least I have no current faith that they will). Our
government's strategies and action plans are outdated, misdirected and have not
been developed with democratic participation of the Canadian public (the current
Defence Policy was articulated in 1994, mired in Cold War thinking). To do
that properly, the Canadian public must understand, participate, and communicate
with our elected leaders. These are not decisions that should be made by a
secretive and potentially corrupt
military/industrial/political complex (as it is in the U.S.), under coercion
from the United States, and/or to appease the U.S. We need a civil society
movement to hold the necessary public meetings, conferences and town halls to
provide the necessary direction to government, to give our government leaders
necessary "backbone". We must be creative and critical thinkers,
sharing in the Canadian foreign affairs and military vision.
One of the culture of war and violence values, attitudes and behaviours is the
proliferation of armaments. A culture of peace and non-violence requires
disarmament and non-proliferation. My responses are developed within the
framework of the United Nations Culture of Peace and Non-violence Program, which
Canada has committed to, and to which I am committed to, as
it is excellent strategy. (This is my "bias".)
The mission of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces, as
currently stated by the government, is to defend Canada, its interests and its
values, while contributing to international peace and security. Under
Canadian defence policy, the Canadian Forces are called upon to fill three major
roles: Protecting Canada, Defending North America in co-operation with the
United States of America, Contributing to peace and international security.
(source: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/mission_e.asp
)
Defence:
"The state that I fear most is the United States." Hon. Douglas
Roche O.C. (retired Canadian senator).
The greatest military and other (eg. economic, social, cultural, etc.) threat to
Canada is the United States (but Peter Mansbridge will not tell you that on the
CBC News). We can not out-spend or out-gun the United States military (the
U.S. spends $500 billion annually, which is 50% of the $1 trillion spent
annually by the world on militarism). In this light, at $12.3 billion
annually, Canada can not make any significant military contribution to the U.S.
If, as and when the U.S. wants Canadian oil, gas, water, or when it is in the
U.S. national interest to do so, they can pre-emptively attack us (just recently
Paul Cellucci, the US "ambassador" to Canada, said to Americans
"Expect attacks to be launched from Canada"). It will surprise
many Canadians to know that the U.S. military have plans for the invasion of
Canada on the shelf. So we must be smart in dealing with this
dilemma. Compared to this, and in light of the U.S. interest to defend
North America, no other countries that we might defend against are a real threat
for the foreseeable future. The only other threats to Canadian security
are terrorist attacks (motivated by our support of the U.S., which requires a
different strategy than historic wars, and is significantly less of a risk than
the American threat), and nuclear Armageddon (made more dangerous due to U.S.
policy, and again requiring a different strategy). So we do have an
opportunity to reprofile Canada's spending on the military.
Question: How much does Canada spend on defence, and how much on contributing to
international peace and security? I suggest that no one in Canada can
answer that question properly, because so far our Canadian leaders (despite
their rhetoric) are not really interested in peace. Canada talks about
contributing to peace, but I challenge them to "Show me the money".
I would suggest the amount spent by Canada on peace pales in insignificance to
the amount spent on "defence" and U.S. spawned wars around the world.
Will spending more on the military increase Canadian security? No - not in
the current mentality. Can the Department of National Defence spend
military dollars more wisely? Definitely. While to my knowledge no
one has attacked Canada since the United States in 1812, Canada does spend $12.3
billion annually on the military (2002/03 figure; probably more now; the whole
United Nations budget is $12 billion including its agencies and is approximately
the same as the Canadian military budget - which is an indictment of world
funding of the U.N.). Canada is the sixth highest military spender
within NATO and sixteenth highest in the world. Increases in military
spending now would reward the waste and mismanagement. The last decade has
witnessed billions of dollars misspent on big-ticket military programs with no
clear purpose or benefit to Canada's defence. For example,
$750 million wasted on used British submarines with a well-known history of
design flaws, $174 million on a satellite communication system that was never
used, $65 million for pilot training that was never taken, $155 million annually
on the cadet program, generous contracts to foreign corporations and generous
raises for generals and admirals while privates suffered a wage freeze for eight
years.
Only 7% of Canadians want more scarce tax dollars to go to defence, while 72%
want our resources to go to social programs like education and health care.
Contributing to peace and international security:
This is where I would spend my limited resources. Through service to the
United Nations we will make Canada and the world more secure. In a recent
survey of Canadians' perceptions by Environics Research Group, almost one-third
of Canadians believe "peacekeeping and peacefulness" is the greatest
contribution Canada has to offer the world. Canadians are resisting
Canada's participation in the War on Terrorism and more military spending, which
will come at the expense of social programs. Polls are
telling the government that Canadians desire Canada to take an independent role
from the United States, to seek non-military means to effect positive change in
the world, and to protect Canadian sovereignty and social programs.
Unfortunately, Canada has almost abandoned the United Nations Peacekeeping
Missions in favour of U.S. led NATO "peacekeeping".
To be clear, our Canadian government political leaders and bureaucrats are
illiterate when it comes to building peace. Their actions prove this.
For example, if they understood what it takes to build peace at home and abroad
they would be actively promoting Peace Education, Leadership for Peace, and a
National Culture of Peace Program. They would have developed a peace
website getting at least 40,000 visitors per month (that is what our web site
gets, and the Government of Canada should be able to do better with all their
resources). They would be sponsoring peace conferencing across Canada and
around the world. They would be creating "Open Spaces to Open Minds
to Peace". They would not be misinforming Canadians with pacifying
terms like "Missile Defence System" - it's future is an Offensive
Nuclear Missile System for pre-emptive strikes when it is in the U.S. national
interest to launch - "let's call a spade a spade". Our
government should be having those difficult conversations with the U.S.
Administration to build a better relationship, and honour our differences.
They would recognize that our most important ally in the defence of Canadian
security is a stronger, more effective United Nations and be supporting that.
They would be helping the United Nations to create a standing, rapid deployment
Peacekeeping Force, and a visionary Peacebuilding Force. They would be
prepared to support American "draft dodgers", and being that
"sanctuary from militarism" that Pierre Trudeau felt Canada should be
(as versus simple-mindedly calling draft dodgers "cowards" as you read
recently in the Calgary Herald).
Simply, Canada (and the world for that matter) should not spend more on
preparing for war than on preparing for peace.
What can you do?:
First, do not take my word for this, or any other "expert" with a bias
-- do your own research and critical thinking on the matter.
Here is my challenge to the reader -- be leaders, and educators, and take the
initiative to create the public venues for this crucial conversation within the
values of a Culture of Peace (an approach to life that seeks to transform the
cultural tendencies toward war and violence into a culture where dialogue,
respect, equality, sustainable development, free flow of information and
fairness govern social relations). Currently, the discussion and politics
is driven by a military lobby comprised of retired generals, security think
tanks, academics, and corporations that benefit from military contracts.
Together, we can take back this important issue
and help give it due process. It is clear that this dialogue on military
and foreign affairs policy and spending must be taken beyond Parliamentary
committee rooms, university campuses, and newsrooms.
You can help give Canadians the opportunity to participate in this discussion,
and demonstrate a proper democracy in action. It is within your power.
You can feed your results and actions into the Canadian civil society report to
the U.N. Secretary General on progress of the Culture of Peace Program in Canada
in 2005.
Bibliography:
Breaking Rank: A citizen's review of Canadian Military Spending, by Steven
Staples, Director, Polaris Institute (available online at http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/corp_security_state/publications_articles/breaking_rank.pdf )
5 Star Must Reading
Critiques of Canada's Military Budget (ref. http://www.peace.ca/critiquesofcanadamilitary.htm
)
Recent survey of Canadians' perceptions by Environics Research Group http://www.peace.ca/surveycanadianrole.htm
NOW with Bill Moyers, the August 1, 2003 show
http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=1413857&cp=1415060&page=6&doVSearch=no&clickid=lftnav_sbs_txt&pageBucket=0&parentPage=family
available for $29.98: Is America spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the
wrong weapons and for the wrong reasons? An insider gives viewers a look into
America's massive defence machine and asks, is it really keeping us safe? Bill
Moyers talks to 30 year Pentagon veteran Chuck Spinney, a man TIME magazine once
labelled a "Pentagon Maverick," in his first television interview
since retiring from the Pentagon. This expose of the
military/industrial/congressional complex will "blow your mind"- every
American should be aware.
The FUBAR definition comes from http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci748437,00.html
Click here to listen to a Radio Interview January 2005: Issues Analysis - Military Funding, by Dennis Bevin, SAIT 103.5 with David Bercuson, University of Calgary Strategic Studies and Bob Stewart, Canadian Centres for Teaching Peace (Note - size of file download is approximately 3MB and takes one minute with high speed internet access)
Click here to listen to a Radio Interview January 2005: Interview
of Bob Stewart (on Military Funding), Canadian Centres for Teaching Peace by
Dennis Bevin, SAIT 103.5 (Note - size of file download is approximately 10MB and
takes three minutes with high speed internet access)