The military defense of Canada: a valid argument for its annexation?

The military defense of Canada: a valid argument for its annexation?
The military defense of Canada: a valid argument for its annexation?

One week before Donald Trump returns to the White House, the future of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), a binational organization created by the United States and Canada, and intended to defense of the entire North American territory, seems weakened by his recent remarks.

Although imperfect, the defense alliance between the two countries had never been called into question until now, underlines with concern retired Brigadier-General of the Canadian Armed Forces Richard Giguère.

What initially seemed like a bad joke took a more alarming turn last week, with Donald Trump not ruling out using “economic force” to integrate Canada as 51e American state, to the extent that the United States already provides military defense at a cost of “hundreds of billions of dollars”.

“Why do we support a country [qui nous coûte] more than 200 billion per year? Our army is at their disposal. They should be a state,” Mr. Trump argued from his Mar-a-Lago estate on January 7.

The experts consulted by Duty agree that the United States plays a crucial role in protecting Canada, whose territory — the second largest in the world — is too vast for the country to protect alone.

So, when the president-elect declares that the American army “essentially protects” Canada, he is not exaggerating, maintains Claude Laferrière, lecturer in American and Canadian national security law at the University of Montreal. “That’s not partly true, it’s totally true!” » he exclaims.

The United States Armed Forces have approximately 1.3 million active military personnel, compared to 70,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces, according to 2024 Central Intelligence Agency data.

Insufficient spending

Canada also invests much less money than the Americans. Last year, Ottawa spent $30.5 billion (1.4% of its GDP) on defense, compared to $967.7 billion (3.4% of GDP) among our neighbors to the South.

“There haven’t been any new military bases in Canada for decades. […] They are extremely expensive, and Canada is not participating [à l’effort]. And that, of course, enrages the Americans, and it leaves a huge territory unoccupied,” observes Claude Laferrière.

Donald Trump had already complained that several NATO members, including Canada, were not playing their role within the alliance. He even threatened not to defend them if they did not reach the target of 2% military spending.

« On [soutient le Canada] out of habit and because we are good neighbors, but we cannot do it indefinitely, and it is a huge sum of money,” warned the president-elect on Tuesday.

The financial argument, however, does not hold water, believes Stéphane Roussel, full professor at the National School of Public Administration, where he teaches foreign policy and defense policy.

“It is not because Canada would reach 2% of GDP [de dépenses militaires] that the Americans would reduce their own defense investments, they would do exactly the same thing. There are no savings to be made on this point,” he emphasizes.

Furthermore, it is completely normal for the United States to invest more in its military than Canada, which does not face the same types of threats. “The threats against North America are, first and foremost, threats against the United States,” he adds.

A return to “hard power”

The military inequalities between the two neighbors have, however, been known for a long time, explains Richard Giguère, a former Canadian Armed Forces officer.

“American leaders have always known and accepted that Canada was far from having the same military apparatus as theirs. That hasn’t stopped us from forging alliances like NORAD,” he says.

“There have been ups and downs, but the alliance bond between Canada and the United States, in terms of defense, was never really called into question until the arrival of Mr. Trump “, he emphasizes.

For someone who served 35 years in the Canadian Armed Forces, the president-elect’s speech evokes a return to “hard power” (hard power) — or the policy of a State resorting to coercive means to achieve its ends.

Although he ruled out the use of military forces to annex Canada, Donald Trump did not close the door to using them to acquire Greenland and the Panama Canal. “We need it for economic security,” he said last Tuesday.

For Richard Giguère, these “expansionist” speeches are reminiscent of those of Russian President Vladimir Putin to justify his invasion of Ukraine, as well as of Chinese President Xi Jinping, who has already expressed his desire to annex Taiwan.

« [L’intention de] taking parts of territory by force, if necessary, is completely new on the part of our allies,” he adds.

The return of the bullies

The future president’s comments come at a time when instability reigns in Ottawa, with the announcement of the upcoming resignation of the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau. His successor must be chosen following a leadership race for the Liberal Party of Canada on March 9.

Justin Trudeau has also raised his voice over the last few days against President Trump, replying that Canada would never become an American state.

The influential billionaire and owner of the X platform, Elon Musk, also argued that Mr. Trudeau’s statements no longer matter in the current political context. ” My daughter [girl]you are no longer governor of Canada, so what you say no longer matters,” Mr. Musk wrote to him on Tuesday evening.

In addition to the current political context which is weakening Canada, it is now the diplomatic conventions “which are taking the edge,” observes Richard Giguère. “It’s the return of bullies to the schoolyard. »

To watch on video

-

-

PREV “AIM FOR THE RISE” – PARIS ILE-DE-FRANCE LEAGUE
NEXT Biars-sur-Cère. Tuesday walk: two meetings in January to do some activity