By Joseph B. Varner
 |
The great American theologian and anti-slavery activist James Freeman Clarke once quipped that a politician thinks of the next election; a statesman the next generation. If that is so, then on the international scene at least, Stephen Harper is quietly establishing his credentials as a statesman.
So far the Harper government’s management of its transatlantic relations has been solid. Since coming to office in January 2006, it has taken important steps to end and reverse the decline in Canada’s ability to meet its international defence obligations. It appears to be on the road to successfully persuading our allies to provide reinforcements for Canadian soldiers in Southern Afghanistan (Poland has already offered to supply a number of helicopters in support of the NATO mission and the US has, at least for the short term, begun the deployment of an additional 2600 Marines. Further contributions can be expected in time.) Meanwhile, by recognizing the independence of Kosovo, it has made a strong statement that we are committed to standing by our historic North Atlantic partners in the diplomatic arena as well.
All this positions Canada to play a significant, perhaps decisive, role in at this year’s NATO summit shaping some of the most difficult decisions the alliance has ever had to make.
Establishing a mechanism by which both the Ukraine and Georgia can join NATO is the most contentious political issue on the table at the summit. The Harper government, along with nine other countries including the US, reportedly favours such a move. Other countries, led by France and Germany, are saying ‘not right now’, citing Ukraine and Georgia’s ongoing internal divisions and, in Georgia’s case, external conflicts. For its part, Russia is warning that closer ties between NATO and Ukraine will result in a “deep crisis in Russian-Ukrainian relations”, a prospect not to be taken lightly.
Since NATO operates by consensus, strong opposition from one or more members could derail proposed membership for the two potential NATO member countries. Canada and its allies will therefore have to present their case for membership clearly and forcefully.
Objections raised by the French and Germans are not without merit and, taken on their own, would probably be sufficient to scuttle any plans. The problem is that there are other factors to be considered.
To begin with, backing down now, in response to threats, would only embolden Russian leaders, encouraging them to demand further concessions ‘or else’. Backing down would also confirm the dangerous perception that bullying the western allies works.
It must also be noted that it is the Russians themselves who have been behaving in a recklessly provocative fashion of late. Most of the trouble that is plaguing Ukraine and Georgia is actually being fomented by them in a clumsy attempt to exert control over the affairs of the two universally recognized independent states. Russia has even threatened to cut off oil and gas supplies to Ukraine if it continues courting NATO membership and has warned that it will begin pointing its considerable nuclear arsenal at them if they proceed, as well as at Poland – already a full member of NATO.
Russia has not confined its intrigue to its immediate geographical vicinity either. For the first time in many years the Russians have conducted military maneuvers in both the Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. Russian naval and air forces recently test fired cruise missiles in the Bay of Biscay, their combat aircraft recently ‘buzzed’ a US aircraft carrier in international waters, and their strategic bomber command has resumed combat air patrols on a level not seen since the Cold war, testing NATO air defenses by staging mock air raids.
And let’s not forget Russia’s recent unilateral claim of sovereignty over much of the arctic, including areas of Canada’s north.
Russia seems not to care that behaviour like this is, in fact, a major reason why the Ukrainians and Georgians, along with other central and eastern European countries, want to be part of NATO – they are justifiably alarmed by the concurrent decline in democracy in Russia and its growing aggressiveness. They want nothing more than to preserve their new-found freedom and they believe that joining the North Atlantic Treaty is the best means of achieving this goal.
The time has come for NATO to push back firmly, otherwise Russia, still controlled by Vladimir Putin, will tread all over central and eastern Europe and beyond, including the arctic. It is therefore in Canada’s interest to help make this happen.
Canada should certainly pressure its western NATO allies France and Germany to share in the heavy lifting in southern Afghanistan – hard. At the same time, however, the Harper government must not lose sight of the broader strategic issues at play in central and eastern Europe. A decision by France and Germany not to send troops to Kandahar would be disappointing, but it might open the door to a more assertive effort by Canada to get them to drop objections to establishing a framework for future Ukrainian and Georgian membership in NATO, especially in view of our support for their position on Kosovo in the face of vehement and not altogether unreasonable opposition.
For the first time in more than a generation, a Canadian Prime Minister can legitimately lay claim to the ‘moral high ground’ in relation to Canada’s European allies. Whether this was by design or by accident, let’s hope that the Harper government continues to practice the kind of prudent and responsible foreign policy that has got us here.
Originally published on IntelligenceDigest.ca April 2, 2008.
Joe Varner is Assistant Professor and Program Director for Homeland Security at American Military University.
Comments are closed.