Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Canada, the U.S. and the Defence of North America
Andrea Charron, PhD
Director and Associate Professor
Centre for Defence and Security Studies,
University of Manitoba
Agenda
1) CANUS defence relationship
2) NORAD in the North American Arctic
3) NATO in the Arctic
3) Implications
What do we mean by North American Defence/Defense?
U.S. used to see a continent; that is changing. Canada has always seen 2, distinct borders.
NORAD = binational agreement
NORAD is mandated to see Canada and U.S. as “one”. Binational means the Commander of NORAD defends North America not just the U.S. or not just Canada.
CANUS Defence Relationship
• NORAD is the foundation. Trust in NORAD has facilitated broader and deeper mil-to-mil partnerships.
• 100+ MOUs and bilateral agreements that facilitate the joint defence of N. America and aid to the civil powers
• Resource quantity vs quality disagreements persist between U.S. and Canada (70,000 U.S. Special Forces vs. 63,000 regular CAF)
• Canadian PM William Lyon Mackenzie King pledged to defend Canada to also help defend U.S. This pledge remains in effect as does U.S. pledge by Roosevelt to defend Canada from attack to defend the U.S.
Joint defence of North America
• Permanent Joint Board on Defense (needs resuscitation!) There are consultations between MCC, CDS/CJCS and other formal mechanisms.
• Joint training and exercises E.g. Ex Vigilant Shield
• Many imbedded senior U.S. and Canadian personnel in other’s military
• Fraternity/sorority of the uniform insulates against political machinations
Similar understandings concerning near peer competitors
• U.S. “emergence of long-term, strategic competition with revisionist powers” (NSS 18).
• Canada “shifting balance of power, changing nature of conflict and rapid evolution of technology” (SSE 2017).
• North American Arctic is not target but throughway
• Differing levels of capabilities
CANUS Arctic Relations
• CJOC/NORAD/USNORTHCOM relationship is stronger
• All domain awareness is goal for both U.S. and Canada
• Managed disagreements although China’s use of “historic internal waters” argument could place pressure on CAN-US NWP disagreement
• NWS modernization and EvoNAD - looking at future of N. American defence of which Arctic is an area of responsibility
• Disconnect between Canadian and U.S. at federal levels concerning severity/causes of climate change (but similar at state/territorial level).
NORAD is reflexively referenced whenever
CANUS relations are perceived as rocky
Mentioned several times in SSE and impetus for following defence announcements- Modernization of NWS- Consolidation on C2- Alignment of CADIZ
NORAD rarely, if ever, mentioned in U.S. documents. Clear asymmetric interest in this binational agreement.
Access to BOTH heads of government is the genius behind the binational command. Canada will guard this jealously.
Canada has a different definition of the Arctic. (North of 600) vs. U.S. Arctic CircleExample of the managed differences/caveats of CANUS relationship
Responses by Canada and U.S.
• CADIZ alignment
• FOL reconsideration (including Thule)
• Trying new C2 arrangements with testing
of NORAD CFACC (Combined Forces Air
Component Commander) based in Tyndall
Florida (CONR – 1 AF AFNORTH)
• New assets and improvements to domain
awareness
Arctic Geopolitics
China
UK and
France
Singapore, India,
South Korea, Japan,
Switzerland
Poland, NL,
Italy Germany
Spain
France
13 Arctic Council Observer states
8 Arctic States
Original concept from Council on Foreign Relations.
Outliers (Belong to only 1 category):Singapore, India, South Korea, Switzerland and Japan
Canada turns to Arctic Council/UNCLOS to mitigate tensions
Historically, neither Canada nor U.S. wanted NATO exercises in North American Arctic
New focus on seams and gaps and globally integrated military planning and exercises might change this.
NATO changes with repercussions
• Return of variant of SACLANT position to
Norfolk, VA (New joint force command for
the Atlantic for SLOC ) (co-located with US
Fleet Forces Command and NAVNORTH)
• (return) focus on GIUK gap
• USEUCOM/USNORTHCOM AORs and
NORAD- NATO coordination to minimize
seams and gaps
Implications
• No appetite to open the binational agreement
• Unlikely to have NATO exercises in N.
American Arctic. GIUK gap is preferred focus
• Strategic ex of seams and gaps essential
• Anxiously waiting for capital projects (NWS,
Radar Constellation, satellite communication)
• EvoNAD (air, maritime, cyber, aerospace,
space, and land) findings will be important
CADIZ as of 24 May 2018
Questions?