Printable Version

THE WAR ON GLOBAL TERRORISM: CANADA’S ROLE

October 1st, 2001
By Jay Makarenko

We felt a sense of absurdity as we saw two airliners seemingly disappear into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre, engulfing the buildings in a massive ball of flame and smoke. We felt a sense of shock and horror as we watched the once grand towers slide into a sea of rubble, one floor at a time. We felt a sense of mourning as we began to comprehend the unbearable truth that thousands of people met their end on that day. Amid these senses of horror and grief, another sentiment has risen in the United States: the sentiment for war.

In the wake of the events on September 11, 2001, the United States has placed itself on a battle footing, and has declared that the first war of the 21st century will be a war on global terrorism. The United States has already begun to build international support for this war, as well as allies to fight it. As one of the United States closest friends, Canada will be expected to play some role in the coming years. However, this expectation begs a provocative question: what kind of role will we play?

In answering this question, three secondary issues need to be addressed. First, what is the nature of the war itself? Second, what are Canada’s international obligations? Third, what are our capabilities? In answering these questions, it becomes clear that Canada will play a “secondary/support” role in the war on terrorism. That is, while Canada will support and contribute to the war on terrorism, its contribution will be limited in terms of size and scope.

The War Against Global Terrorism

To ascertain the nature and scope of this new war, three factors need to be taken into account: (1) the role of the United States, (2) the war’s broad objective, and (3) the war’s fluid nature.

The Role of the United States
While the terrorist bombings have been characterized as an attack on the “free world,” the reality is that the bombings occurred on American soil and against primarily American targets. More so than any other nation, the United States has interpreted these bombings as a direct attack upon its sovereignty and way of life. U.S. President George W. Bush has clearly stated that his presidency will be defined by the war on terrorism, and the American congress has responded with political and financial support. As such, the United States will be the central force in defining, developing and implementing any international response. This is not to say that the international war on terrorism will be an absolute extension of American foreign policy. Indeed, the United States has reached out to other countries for support (in particular Britain) and has backtracked slightly from President Bush’s initial cowboy diplomacy. However, the fact remains that American interests and policies will dominate any international response.

The dominance of American interests and policy was readily visible in the aftermath of the terrorist bombings. Many nations immediately called for justice and the eradication of global terrorism. However, it was the United States that initiated the “war” mentality that we now find ourselves in, and identified “global terrorism” as the target. Furthermore, in constructing an antiterrorist coalition around itself instead of international organizations such as the United Nations, the United States has secured the dominance of its vision of the war on terrorism. This was explicitly stated with President Bush’s “friend-or-foe” decree.

The War’s Broad Objectives
While the bombings in New York and Washington were the catalyst for the war on terrorism, the United States has extended the objective of the campaign to include the eradication of all global terrorism. This objective has two main components. The first component involves a campaign against individual terrorists and terrorist organizations that engage in global attacks. It will most certainly include Muslim extremist groups such al-Qaeda and the International Islamic Jihad movement, as well as Palestine groups such Hamas. The second component focuses upon countries that provide support to global terrorists and their organizations. Probable targets would include Sudan, Syria, Iran, Iraq, North Korea and, of course, the Taliban in Afghanistan.

An early goal in war on terrorism will be the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind behind the bombings on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Furthermore, as the Taliban in Afghanistan have aided bin Laden and have refused to extradite him, this goal will inevitably involve military action against Afghanistan.

The War’s Fluid Nature
Past wars were often explicit in regards to who was the enemy, who were friends, and what was the task at hand. In the Persian Gulf War, the United States built a solid alliance for the purposes of liberating Kuwait and eliminating Iraq as a regional power. However, this war on terrorism will be very different from traditional wars, as it will have a fluid nature.

First, the particular enemies of this war will shift over time. In the immediate future, the focus will be on bin Laden and the Taliban. However, as the war progresses, the focus will shift to other individuals, organizations and countries. Second, the antiterrorist coalition will vary as the targets change. There will be a core group of nations, however, secondary nations will be brought in at different times to fulfil specific roles. As U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stated, “there will be a number of coalitions that will be functioning over time. Some [nations] will be able to do some things; others will be able to do other things.” Third, the strategies of the war will shift in accordance with the particular targets and coalitions. In some instances, such as with the Taliban, military action will be necessary and will have significant international support. In other situations, military action would be unnecessary or politically risky. In these instances, other instruments (such as sanctions, the freezing of assets, or criminal prosecution) will be utilized.

Summary
The nature and scope of the war on terrorism can be characterized in the following manner:

• Dominated by the United States.
  • Other nations will impact the definition and implementation of the war, however, the interests and policy of the United States will be primary.
• Broad in regards to its objective.
  • The objective includes the elimination of global terrorists and their organizations, and an end to state sponsorship of terrorism.
• Fluid in regards to specifics.
  • The particular enemies, coalitions and strategies of the war will constantly be in flux.

Canada’s International Obligations

As an ally and close friend, Canada has bilateral obligations to the United States. Furthermore, as a member of several international organizations, Canada will have international political obligations that will shape its role in the war on terrorism. The most relevant of these organizations is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
NATO is a military alliance that includes the United States and Canada, the nations of Western Europe and Turkey, as well as some recent ties with Eastern Europe and Russia. During the Cold War, NATO became the cornerstone of the United States external policies in regards to the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO). However, with the fall of the Soviet Union, its purpose has been somewhat ambiguous. In recent years, NATO has been involved in more regional conflicts, such as the war in the Balkans.

As a member of NATO, Canada is required to contribute military assets and financial support to its operations. Traditionally, this contribution has been in the form of military bases, equipment and personnel in Europe. Furthermore, Canada is obliged to act according to several NATO documents, such as Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. This Article reflects the principle of collective defence and requires members of NATO to regard a foreign attack on one NATO nation as an attack on all members.

Following the terrorist bombings, the United States made an application to invoke Article 5. Subsequently, the North Atlantic Council decided that, if it is determined that the attacks against the United States were directed from abroad, they would be regarded as actions covered by Article 5. As such, all NATO members, including Canada, will be obliged to aid and support the United States. However, NATO Secretary-General George Robertson stated that such an obligation does not automatically imply a common front and it remains up to individual nations to decide how to respond to any specific requests by the United States.

The United Nations (UN)
The UN was established after World War II and replaced its predecessor, the League of Nations. Almost all of the nations of the world are represented in the UN, and its primary directive is the maintenance of world peace through collective security. During the 1950’s and 60’s, the UN also began to develop secondary directives such as peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. As a member of the UN, Canada has been an important advocate and supporter of these secondary directives and is currently contributing to over 25 UN peacekeeping missions around the world.

The United States is spearheading the current war on terrorism. As such, it is unlikely that the UN will function in its collective security role. However, it is probable that the UN will undertake some humanitarian or peacekeeping operations. Currently, the organization is examining humanitarian missions to the Afghanistan area to help the millions of refugees and displaced persons. Furthermore, the UN may have to perform peacekeeping operations in the aftermath of any military action. Considering Canada’s past reputation, it is likely that we will contribute to any such mission if they arise.

Summary
As a member of several international organizations, Canada will have international political obligations that will shape its role in the war on terrorism. These obligations are summarized as follows:

• The North Atlantic Treaty Organization
  • If the conditions of Article 5 are met, Canada will be obliged to offer assistance to the United States. However, Canada is able to determine the precise nature of this assistance.
• The United Nations
  • If the UN undertakes any peacekeeping or humanitarian operations stemming from the war on terrorism, Canada will be obliged to offer personnel and financial assistance.

In assessing Canada’s capacity to contribute to the war on terrorism, two broad categories need to be examined: (1) Canada’s strategic capabilities and (2) domestic political and economic constraints. Strategic capabilities refer to Canada’s ability to bring relevant military and diplomatic assets to bear in the war on terrorism. Domestic political and economic constraints refer to the level of political support in Canada for the war on terrorism, and level of financial support Canada is able to allocate.

Strategic Capabilities
The Conference of Defence Associations (CDA), a Canadian military lobby group, recently released several documents on the state of the Canadian military. According to these reports, the Canadian Armed Forces are mired in a dilemma stemming from two systematic factors. First, over the last decade there has been a drastic decrease in military spending due to the need to eliminate the federal spending deficit. As such, the budget for the Department of National Defence (DND) has been cut by 23% since 1995. Second, the obligations of the Canadian Forces have remained stable and, in some cases, such as peacekeeping, have actually increased. As such, DND is in a situation in which its funding has been drastically cut, but its obligations have remained the same.

This situation has led to several trends. First, DND has been forced to reduce the number of personnel serving in the Canadian Forces. Over the last decade, personnel has dropped from 85, 000 to 53, 000. This is far below the minimal level of 75, 000 that the military needs to meet its current duties and operations. Furthermore, DND has been restricted in its ability to initiate capital projects such as spending on new equipment. The Airforce currently has no air lift capacity and many of its CF-18 fighter jets are in need of retooling. The Navy has fared no better, as much of its fleet is aged and there is an absence of aircraft carriers and missile capacity. The Army has over 100 main battle tanks, however, many of its trucks and vehicles suffer from disrepair and age.

These trends have left the Canadian Armed Forces unable to respond to any conflict in a broad and sustained manner. With its budgetary constraints and personnel shortage, the military lacks the funds and troops needed to deploy and sustain a large battle group. This was recently evident in the Balkans as Canada was forced to transfer needed troops from its operations in Bosnia to meet its NATO obligations in Macedonia. Furthermore, the inadequacy of its equipment leaves the military unable to fight a large-scale modern battle in tandem with the more sophisticated armies of the United States and Britain.

However, while Canada lacks the capacity for broad and sustained combat, it is able to fulfil “niche” military roles. Military analysts say that Canada does have an elite group of commandos that operate under the name Joint Task Force 2. This secretive group is around 300 strong, has an annual budget of $25 million, and has covert capabilities similar to the American Navy Seals or Green Berets. Canada also has 12 state-of-the-art frigates that could be used to protect American and British Naval battle groups. Canada also has 60 recently upgraded CF-18 fighter jets that could be used for foreign or domestic missions. In addition to this “niche” military capability, Canada does have an array of diplomatic instruments. Canada is well respected within the international community and has influence in numerous international organizations such as NATO, the UN, the G-8, the Commonwealth and the Francophonie.

Domestic Political and Economic Constraints
Canada has offered political support to the United States in its war against terrorism. However, this support may have its limits. In the House of Commons, the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Bloc Quebecois (BQ) have raised concerns regarding the United States strategy towards terrorism. The NDP has questioned the need to sacrifice Canadian soldiers and innocent persons abroad. Both the NDP and the BQ have suggested that the chief goal should be to try terrorists before international tribunals. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the Canadian public would support an international war on terrorism that may be expensive in regards to money and human lives.

The Canadian government has publicly expressed similar concerns, however, to a lesser degree. Prior to his meeting in Washington with President Bush, Prime Minister Jean Chretien asserted that he supported a proportionate and careful response to global terrorism. As he stated, “I intend to discuss with the President - as I have been able to do with other leaders of governments - a long-term approach, and not trying to take sensational, short-term actions that could have negative effects over the long-term for the whole population of the globe.” Furthermore, Prime Minister Chretien has consistently stressed the need to safeguard Canadian values in this time of crisis. This includes our commitment to multiculturalism, tolerance, and a relatively open immigration policy.

Finally, Canada has pledged economic assistance to the war on terrorism. Considering recent budget surpluses, the federal government is in a position to back up this pledge. Nevertheless, the Canadian financial contribution will be modest. Since coming to power, the Liberal government has focused upon eliminating the deficit through spending reductions. Finance Minister Paul Martin has asserted that Canada will remain on this course, and has illustrated this policy by recently making a large payment on the Canadian debt. As such, while additional funds will be allocated for the war on terrorism, the amount will be relatively modest and consistent with Canada’s long-term financial goals.

Summary
The following points summarize Canada’s capacity to contribute to the war on global terrorism:

• Canada will be unable to contribute to any military operation in a broad and sustained manner.
• Canada will be able to offer some strategic support in the manner of “niche” military and diplomatic assistance.
• Canada is able to offer political and economic support, however, this support will not be unlimited.

Three possible roles are open to Canada in the war against terrorism: (1) a passive role, (2) a primary role, and (3) a secondary/support role. A “passive” role is characterized by public support of the war on terrorism, however, an absence of any real participation. To use a basketball analogy, Canada would be a spectator cheering for its favourite team. Conversely, a “primary” role is characterized by full participation in the definition and implementation of the war. As such, Canada would be a starting player and central to success of the game. Finally, a “secondary/support” role is characterized by political and public support and limited participation. Consequently, Canada would be a bench player, who fulfils special roles but has limited playing time.

The Passive Role
It is unlikely that Canada will play a passive role in the war on terrorism. First, Canada needs to protect national interests and to fulfil bilateral obligations to the United States. Moreover, Canada’s international obligations as a member of NATO and the UN will inevitably necessitate some form of participation in the war on terrorism.

The Primary Role
However, Canada will not be able to play a primary role in the war on terrorism. First, there will inevitably be a broad military component to the war, as the United States will use force to secure its objectives. However, considering the current state of the Canadian military, Canada will not be able to participate in such missions in a broad and sustained manner. Second, domestic political and economic factors will limit the level of Canadian participation. It will be difficult for Canada to be a primary actor considering the existence of domestic political opposition to a full-scale war against terrorism and the absence of clear public support. Furthermore, considering the continuing domestic goals of deficit elimination and debt reduction, Canada will only modestly commit to the war financially.

The Secondary/Support Role
As such, Canada will likely play a secondary/support role in the war against terrorism. First, considering the nature of the war, the secondary/support role will be in high demand. The war on terrorism will involve different coalitions over time depending on immediate targets and strategies. Second, the secondary/support role is well tailored to Canada’s international and domestic politics. Such a role will allow Canada to fulfil its bilateral obligations to the United States, its international obligations to NATO and the UN, as well as appeal to those Canadians that support a strong reaction to global terrorism. Furthermore, as a secondary/support actor, the Canadian government will be able to lessen Opposition and public concerns regarding the large-scale sacrifice of Canadian soldiers. Third, the secondary/support role is consistent with Canada’s financial position. As a “bench player,” Canada will be able to limit the budgetary effect of its participation. Finally, Canada does have the strategic capacity to perform such a role. With its “niche” military capabilities and diplomatic influence, Canada can offer valuable, although limited, support to the United States.

Canadian action since the terrorist attacks on the United States is consistent with this secondary/support role. While the United States and Britain have begun to deploy major military assets in the Middle East, Canada has not. Nor has the United States formally requested large-scale Canadian military assistance. However, the Canadian military has responded in a support role. After the attacks, the Navy readied itself to defend American ports. The Airforce has committed additional CF-18 fighter jets to NORAD and was involved in providing humanitarian relief to the thousands of international airline passengers stranded in Canadian airports and cities. Furthermore, there are suggestions that Canada has already begun to utilize its “niche” military capabilities. When recently asked by reporters whether Canadian troops were operating in Afghanistan, Defence Minister Eggleton said, “None that I can talk about.” It is widely speculated that Joint Task Force 2 is already in Afghanistan performing missions with elite American and British troops.

In addition to military support action, Canada has been active on the diplomatic front. Canada played a strong role in NATO’s decision to invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Furthermore, Canada has acted as a diplomatic go-between for the United States. It was reported that Iran communicated its position on the war against terrorism to Canada, instead of directly to the United States. Finally, Defence Minister Eggleton has stated that the Prime Minister will utilize his influence in the Commonwealth and the Francophonie to aid in the fight against terrorism.

However, it must be noted that Canada’s role is dependent on future world events. If a large terrorist act were to take place on Canadian soil against Canadian targets, the government would interpret such an act as a direct attack on Canadian sovereignty and way of life. This would inevitably lead to an increased political, economic and military role on the part of Canada. A rash of terrorist attacks against Canada’s allies would also place additional pressures on Canada to step up its commitment. Conversely, if the United States were to undertake actions that were inconsistent with Canadian interests or public sentiment, Canada may be forced to re-assess its support of the war on terrorism.

Amid the sentiments of horror and sadness, an inclination for war has risen in the United States. This war will be different from others previously fought. Its will have the broad objective of eliminating global terrorism, and will have a fluid nature in regards to targets, coalitions, strategies and timelines. Canada will play a secondary/support role in this war. This nation’s international obligations and commitments will not allow it to act as a spectator. However, the state of the military and Canada’s domestic politics and finances will prohibit Canada from playing a primary role. In contrast, the secondary/support role is well suited to Canada’s international and domestic politics and the nation’s strategic capabilities. Canada has already begun to fulfill this role at both the military and diplomatic levels. However, the long-term stability of this secondary/support role is highly dependent upon future events in the war on terrorism.

Got an Opinion?  
Send us a Letter to the Editor
or
Discuss in The Forums

© 2001-2006 Maple Leaf Web.
All Rights Reserved

This page was last modified: August 10, 2007