http://www.canada.com/national/story.asp?id=3B270089-BAC7-428D-91A0-785…
Canada to U.S.: Mind your business
Don’t tell us how to run our military, defence minister admonishes U.S. president. Second Canadian official calls Bush ‘a moron’ for pushing Iraq onto NATO agenda
Robert Fife
The Ottawa Citizen
Thursday, November 21, 2002
PRAGUE — Defence Minister John McCallum bluntly told George W. Bush yesterday to stop lecturing Canada about increased defence spending after the U.S. president urged the federal government and the NATO allies to boost their military budgets to confront new international threats from terrorism and rogue states.
The Bush administration, particularly through Paul Cellucci, its ambassador to Canada, has been calling on Canada to increase defence spending and to purchase new heavy-lift aircraft so it does not have to rely on the U.S. to transport Canadian troops.
Mr. McCallum said yesterday he is fed up with the Americans hectoring Canada about its low defence expenditures, even though he himself has been publicly lobbying for greater military spending.
“I would not urge the president of the United States or the U.S. ambassador to Canada to do my job to ask for more defence spending. I think that is a Canadian matter,” Mr. McCallum told reporters.
He added: “I think a number of Canadians were a little bit ticked off when the ambassador keeps pushing.”
“It is a made-in-Canada decision, so while Mr. Bush may be asking for what I am asking for, I am not asking for his help.”
On the eve of today’s opening of the 19-member NATO summit in the Czech capital, Mr. Bush made an impassioned appeal for the western alliance to strengthen its military “to confront terror camps in remote regions or hidden laboratories of outlawed regimes.”
Mr. Bush said NATO needs to develop new capabilities, including a 21,000-member rapid reaction force, more special forces, better precision weapons and more modern command structures if it is to win the war against global terrorism and rogue states, like Iraq.
The president did not directly name Canada, but it has the third-lowest military budget in the NATO alliance, spending more than only Luxembourg and Iceland, which does not have a military.
“NATO forces must be better able to fight side by side. Those forces must be more mobile and more swiftly deployed,” he told the Atlantic Youth Council. “For some alliance members, this will require higher defence spending. For all of us, it will require more effective defence spending with each nation having the tools and technology to fight and win a new kind of war.”
At a later news conference, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien would not comment on Mr. Bush’s appeal, other than to say he would like to pump more money into the military, but the government has many other priorities.
“Me too, I would like to spend more money on defence. I’d like to spend more money on everything, but we have to make these decisions when come the budget,” he said.
Earlier in the day, a senior Canadian official, who asked not to be identified, called Mr. Bush “a moron” because of his efforts to push the war against Iraq to the top of NATO’s agenda. The summit was to focus on expansion and moderation of the alliance, but Mr. Bush has used his clout to make Iraq the dominant issue at the meeting.
NATO Secretary General Lord George Robertson and the Liberal-dominated defence committees of the House of Commons and the Senate have all deplored Canada’s $12-billion military budget, which represents only 1.1 per cent of gross domestic product spending, half the NATO average of 2.13.
But Canadian officials argued the “pure GDP numbers is a pretty crude indicator” of Canada’s military capabilities, noting the Canadian military has played a role in almost every major United Nations or NATO operation from Bosnia to the war in Afghanistan.
Mr. Chrétien also picked up on that theme, saying the Americans appreciate the role that Canada has played in operations around the world.
“The Americans always compliment when we participate with them. When we were in Kosovo, we were the third country with the greatest number of sorties and we were complimented by everyone there by the effectiveness of our troops. We did the same thing in Bosnia. In Afghanistan, our troops did very well,” he said.
Mr. Bush said NATO, devised as a static defence against the former Soviet Union, is outdated and its military forces are incapable of responding quickly to military threats outside Europe, such as Afghanistan.
“When forces were needed quickly to operate in Afghanistan, NATO’s options were limited,” he said.
“The allies need more special operations forces, better precision strike capabilities and more modern command structures. Few NATO members will have state-of-the-art capabilities in all of these areas, I recognize that, but every nation should develop some.”
The Senate defence committee recently called for a $4-billion annual increase in the Armed Forces budget, while Liberal MPs on the Commons defence committee have urged the prime minister not to sacrifice Canada’s military to fund a social agenda.
But officials close to Mr. Chrétien say he’s reluctant to approve a substantial boost in spending for Canada’s Armed Forces, preferring to pump money from the federal surplus into social programs and infrastructure improvements for cities.
Mr. McCallum has been seeking a modest increase in the defence budget of $1 billion and is prepared to find savings of up to $250 million from within the Defence department, sources say.
Since 1994, the government has reduced defence spending by 23 per cent and cut the Forces’ regular personnel to 57,000 from 87,600 in 1990. Canada has the world’s 54th-largest military and 77th-largest reserve force, even though it has the 34th-largest population and is a member of the Group of Seven industrialized nations.
A bevy of military analysts, most recently the Council on Canadian Security in the 21st Century and the Atlantic Institute, have also warned Canada is at risk of being unable to defend itself unless it increases spending. Military experts say Canada needs to double its equipment budget to $3.5 billion annually just to replace aging equipment.
Behind the scenes, Defence department officials readily acknowledge that military capability has suffered while other allies, in particular the United States, have made substantial improvements.
By: Arabella-Cox - 25th November 2002 at 05:08
RE: Canada to U.S.: Mind your own business, don’t tell us how to run our military; calls Bush a moro
or the playing hard to get, but actually a whore New Zealand }>
By: dcfly - 24th November 2002 at 09:49
RE: Canadian Bacon…. Serious Documentary on Geopolitik
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 24-11-02 AT 09:56 AM (GMT)]>Also, let me let me live up to reputation by stating that
>Britain is the true lap dog of the Yanks and not Canada. }>
Sam
Not so much the British people but more the British Government( WOOF WOOF!)
Dave
x(
[Marquee]perfection is a state of mind[Marquee]
By: Arabella-Cox - 24th November 2002 at 09:36
RE: Canada to U.S.: Mind your own business, don’t tell us how to run our military; calls Bush a moro
“…US is out carrousing to all hours with that hussy Britain…”
Not to mention that loose b!tch Australia…
By: TE - 24th November 2002 at 02:53
RE: Canada to U.S.: Mind your own business, don’t tell us how to run our military; calls Bush a moro
Hi again Serendib,
Glad we agree. I kinda think Canada is like the reliable but long-suffering, neglected, taken for granted housewife. While the US is out carrousing to all hours with that hussy Britain, Canada silently sobs itself to sleep, the dinner, still on the table, now ice-cold until a drunk, perfume-stinking US stumbles home. Oh, we may hate him, but deep down we know he really loves us. He may be a skirt chasing lecher, but at least he’s a good provider.
Anyway, I think this “moron” thing was really a big misunderstanding. Apparently, the hapless official overheard something about Bush’s sexual prowess and responded in her French Canadian accent “Eh, dat’s MORE ON Bush, dan I needed to know, tabernac.”
So there you go.
TE 🙂
By: serendib - 23rd November 2002 at 21:47
RE: Canadian Bacon…. Serious Documentary on Geopolitik
>Serendib can’t walk by an ant hill without taking a stick
>and stiring it up 🙂
Eric,
Glad to know my reputation precedes me. 😉
Also, let me let me live up to reputation by stating that Britain is the true lap dog of the Yanks and not Canada. }>
Sam.
By: serendib - 23rd November 2002 at 21:22
RE: Canada to U.S.: Mind your own business, don’t tell us how to run our military; calls Bush a moro
Hi TE,
Its a pleasure to see you here as well. I agree with your take on this. The Canadian liberals are trying hard to appease their constituents with statements that are in synch with the liberal platform they were voted on. On the other hand like you said, they know exactly who places ‘bread and butter’ on the Canadian table, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they are doing a bit of damage control viz-a-viz the Yanks as of this moment. With some 90% of the Canadian population also living within 100 miles of the U.S. border(I stand to be corrected), I would think that Canadians are also trying hard to show the world they are not lap dogs of Uncle Sam.
Sam.
By: Arabella-Cox - 23rd November 2002 at 20:29
RE: Canadian Bacon…. Serious Documentary on Geopolitik
geeze Garry, you’re catching on…that’s what the US’s been asking…specialize and we’ll seek “specialists” when NATO needs it. That way each NATO country don’t have to spend too much, but in the case of Canadians they spend way too little…hense the GDP comparisons. If Canadians wanted out of the international community militarily go ahead…but what the US doesn’t want is all these countries claiming all this “contributions” when the bulk is being done by the US.
By: Arabella-Cox - 23rd November 2002 at 09:19
RE: Canadian Bacon…. Serious Documentary on Geopolitik
What I don’t understand is why doesn’t NATO get its act together and accept that of its members only the US can afford to have everything.
So why doesn’t each country in NATO specialise in one area, like Recon or tanker supply or EW or fighters or bombers etc etc.
Obviously they would have other assets as well but have a focus on what a NATO task force might need.
Currently you have duplication in many areas and holes in others that mean that any NATO intervention without the US is not going to happen.
Of course I can see the attraction that not having viable forces means the US having to take a lead role and therefore most of the flak and most of the financial burden of the various ops NATO now seems to think is its business.
Of course any suggestion that France would have to give up its Rafale to focus on AWACs assets or that the Typhoon should be dropped to increase numbers of carrier capable JSF would probably cause endless debates and nothing would ever get done anyway… ahhh politics.
By: ELP - 23rd November 2002 at 05:23
Canadian Bacon…. Serious Documentary on Geopolitik
Serendib can’t walk by an ant hill without taking a stick and stiring it up 🙂
What is funny is Chrétien says she uses the word “moron” a lot. Almost certainly he thinks about him too 🙂
This is a complete non-issue. Of course all the left government types and the news services that are their lap dogs eat this stuff up. Should sell some newspapers anyway. The Canandian – American feelings about each other for the most part are positive and stronger than any current sitting leader on either side of the border.
Also remember a ways back when Canada mentioned it was going to put a good quanity of F-18s in storage and upgrade the remainder. Interesting is one general said to the effect that we do certain missions because we have the ability, not necessarily because we need to. ( refering to Canadian F-18s doing bomb truck duties in Allied Force in 99 ( carried LGBs and being “buddy lased” by someone else )
This is a valid point. What is the role of the Canadian miltiary in the future and what missions should they do? A good portion of Canadians think they shouldn’t be involved in expeditionary warfare. Rightly so I think, and I have a lot of respect for that view. A strong Canadian Military for what? Expeditionary warfare? Why? Why do Canadians need to be killed on foreign soil?
By: TE - 23rd November 2002 at 01:46
RE: Canada to U.S.: Mind your own business, don’t tell us how to run our military; calls Bush a moro
Hi Serendib,
Nice to catch you over here.
Y’know, we Canucks are a tough lot. Tough as nails. Unfortunately, as much as we’d like to believe otherwise, we have zero independence. Example, the absurd statement they threw us in history class was that Canada declared war on Germany a week after Britain because we had our own parliament and had to decide for ourselves. Really, now. As if there was any doubt. The only backbone came from the French Canadians who wanted nothing to do with conscription and European wars. In the end, they were brought into line. Up until WWII we fought British colonial wars, today we fight US wars.
Anyway, these statements are fine for the Sunday morning talking heads to rant about, but that’s pretty much it. We know which side our bread is buttered and eventually we’ll shut up and sit down like good the good neighbours we are.
Take care,
TE
By: Arabella-Cox - 23rd November 2002 at 00:46
RE: Canada to U.S.: Mind your own business, don’t tell us how to run our military; calls Bush a moro
Perhaps the Canadians should announce a large increase in military spending… and mention that the money will be spent on Russian systems and equipment.
In the BS and positioning that will follow the US will most likely block or hold up any actual procurement so you end up not having to buy anything, while appearing to want to… }>.
By: serendib - 23rd November 2002 at 00:40
RE: Canada to U.S.: Mind your own business, don’t tell us how to run our military; calls Bush a moro
With 87% of Canadian exports ending up in the U.S., it remains to be seen if the continued opposition of American foreign policy by Canada will result in any economic voes. Canadian exports jumped 125% after the introduction of NAFTA, and with the Canadian economy becoming increasingly reliant on the U.S. economy, I am not certain if this is the most appropriate way to voice their opinion at this time.
Sam.
By: mongu - 22nd November 2002 at 18:23
RE: Canada to U.S.: Mind your own business, don’t tell us how to run our military; calls Bush a moro
The Americans always seem to be involved in friendly fire accidents for some reason.
By: stardust934 - 22nd November 2002 at 17:13
RE: Canada to U.S.: Mind your own business, don’t tell us how to run our military; calls Bush a moro
As a Canadian, I’d prefer if you wouldnt make light of that tragedy.
By: Arthur - 22nd November 2002 at 10:11
RE: Canada to U.S.: Mind your own business, don’t tell us how to run our military; calls Bush a moro
If I were Chrétien, i wouldn´t spend too much on defense either. Especially not since he found out that Canadians make easy practice targets for US F-16s }>
Sign In
November 22, 2002 at 7:06 am