Canada – and the world – need prudent not excessive military spending

CANADA NEEDS TO REJECT DEMANDS FOR FURTHER INCREASES IN MILITARY SPENDING  by Robin Collins       

Editor’s Note:

We are very pleased to continue our exploration of common security themes, a Rideau Institute project in partnership with Canadian Pugwash Group, with this guest blog post by Robin Collins, a Board member of both the Rideau Institute and the Canadian Pugwash Group.

RI President Peggy Mason comments:

While this article was mainly written before the 2025 NATO Summit had taken place, it is even more timely now.

Canada under enormous pressure to commit to 5% NATO target

The evidence is very strong, however, that negotiations more often succeed where larger and mightier stockpiles of weapons do not.

Canada is being taken to task within the NATO alliance for not spending enough on military hardware, now that bombs have been falling on Iran and Israel, in Gaza, in Ukraine and Russia. We are asked to believe that a steep increase in military spending will reduce conflict and ensure our security. The evidence is very strong, however, that negotiations more often succeed where larger and mightier stockpiles of weapons do not.

Canada is no slouch when it comes to military outlays. Our country is within the top percentile of spenders, currently 16th globally (out of 195 countries) and 7th among thirty-two NATO members in terms of dollars spent. The call to increase spending from a current estimated 1.37% of GDP (according to NATO for 2024) to 5% would almost quadruple the cost.

As Prime Minister Mark Carney recently stated (before having apparently committed Canada to reaching that exponential level of $150 billion per year),

It is a lot of money.

Canada was spending about 2.1% (GNP) at the peak of the Cold War in the mid-1980s. Of the big spending states today, four are currently engaged in war (USA, Ukraine, Israel and Russia); and in absolute dollars the top eight are perennially the most militarized and include all five permanent members of the UN Security Council (USA, China, Russia, Germany, UK, India, Saudi Arabia and France.)

The strongest arguments against militarization

In order to promote …international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources – excerpt from Article 25 of the UN Charter

It is no secret that weaponizing the globe gives rise to offence-defence security dilemmas. Boosting weapon capacity by one state can be seen as a threat to rivals who then build up their own resources in response. This triggers a tit-for-tat arms race that nobody wins. The result: the world now spends US$2.7 trillion on militaries, and less than half of that amount on avoidance and mitigation of the climate crisis which threatens us all.

From a fiscal standpoint, each dollar spent on the military is a dollar not spent on other public resources.  – Investopedia, Sept 2024.

Funds are not unlimited. Spending on warfighting and war preparedness unsurprisingly diverts significant monetary and human resources from priorities necessary for the wellbeing of citizens, including health care, education, social services and funding urgently required for a just and resilient world.

Modest and prudent plans to update NORAD – including modernizing early warning and surveillance systems (including in space) and strengthening defences against cruise and hypersonic missiles – could offer a credible, non-provocative and cooperative path forward. On the other hand, committing to playing a role in US President Trump’s Golden Dome project to fulfil an arbitrary 5% NATO spending target will surrender us to serious strategic risks, persistent technical challenges, and exorbitant costs.

Commitment to global sustainability projects is mutually beneficial

Supporting the development of other countries is about fostering the future markets and political conditions that Canada needs for it to thrive. Manulak, Axworthy, Rock op ed

Resources spent on economic and social development including through a significant increase in foreign aid, investment in sustainable energy, research and testing of pilot projects that would address and mitigate catastrophic climate change: these will have measurable impacts that enhance global security. Human rights protection, truce reinforcement, and peace-building capacity through United Nations peace operations can help people in war-torn regions (including Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan and elsewhere, when negotiations permit), and historically are largely successful.

Spending 2 per cent on defence is not a foreign policy. – Manulak, Axworthy, Rock op ed

Similarly, the rehabilitation of arms control and disarmament measures and treaties, together with build-up of diplomatic infrastructure are all urgently required. These essentials of smart spending on smart security are woefully overlooked currently.

Smart military spending means reducing vulnerabilities with US, not heightening them

Improving the effectiveness of Canada’s Armed Forces – by addressing basic equipment upgrades and recruitment challenges, without committing to choices that are bad for Canada – is broadly supported by the public and across partisan lines.

What we are buying is only useful as the most expensive squadron of the US American Air Force in history.  It [the F-35] can only be fully effective as part of a US military operational or war effort.  – Paul Maillet Open Letter to PM on F-35 fighter jet purchase

But the F-35 fighter aircraft purchase should be re-assessed. Its dependence, both for spare parts and ongoing software requirements on American manufacturers and designers, is concerning.  And because of reliability challenges and exorbitant costs, the fighter becomes additionally unattractive. This is without even assessing the utility and logic of a stealth fighter jet purchase for Canada in the first place.

Common Security enhances the security of all states on our shared planet

Even in the face of the global turmoil that dominates the news right now, decisions must be made. As required by the Articles of the UN Charter, we can reduce our reliance on the use of force and in favour of the peaceful resolution of disputes. We can press for the revival of a common security approach to global crises and by that means enhance the security of all states harboured together on our shared planet.

Accordingly:

• Canada can resist demands for military spending to rise to 5% of GDP.
  • Weapon buildups in perpetuity are self-defeating. Disputes can often be resolved by diplomatic means, without the extreme risks that escalation poses.
• When assessing funding decisions, including those accruing to NATO membership, Canada can choose a cooperative and sustainable path by:
  • rebuilding our diplomatic infrastructure, and by participating in projects that enhance global climate security and disarmament outcomes.
• We can prepare to support the diplomatic and peacebuilding capacity that will be urgently needed in war-torn countries, including Ukraine and Gaza.

[End of article by Robin Collins]

Canada commits to new NATO spending target

While Prime Minister Carney has committed Canada in principle to NATO’s spending target of 5% by 2035, NATO Summit leaders also agreed to the following:

Importantly, the progress of this pledge will be reviewed in 2029 to ensure Allies’ expenditures align with the global security landscape. – excerpt from The Hague [NATO] Summit Declaration 2025

In responding to questions about the 2029 review, Carney noted that the big defence spending decisions would likely not be made before that date:

Those trade-offs …would likely happen toward the end of the decade and into the next and if they do, there would be a very clear and open conversation about where people are willing to compromise.

He also added:

[2029] is a natural time to review….that’s a reasonable amount of time; we’ll have enough information that we can do a course correction, individually and collectively, at that point.

Whither Canada?

We call upon the Government of Canada to make diplomatic and foreign aid spending commitments commensurate with their primary importance for building sustainable common security solutions to global peace and security challenges.

For steps Canada is already taking to reduce our security reliance on the US, see the joint statement to further reinforce the strategic partnership between the European Union and Canada. See in particular paragraph 4, which begins:

We confirm our unwavering commitment to the rules-based international order with the United Nations and its charter at its core.

IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAMME

For a productive way forward to end the confrontation with Iran, see Let’s make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on (responsiblestatecraft.org, 30 June 2025).

A regulated consortium for civilian power with Gulf state neighbors is still on the table

Photo credit: SIPRI 2025 Fair Use policy (2024 military expenditures).