Should Canada leave NATO?

[-1=e^ipi]

I bring up this topic for a number of reasons.

1. NATO was originally designed to counter the soviets in the cold war. Yet the cold war is long over, so has NATO outlived it's usefulness?

2. Being part of NATO means we are allied with Turkey. Yet Turkey has become more and more Islamist and they are enemies with our allies against ISIS, the Kurds. Not only that, arguably Turkey has let ISIS grow because they are more interested in overthrowing Assad.

http://news.yahoo.com/turkish-jets-hit-targets-syria-kurds-iraq-050807038.html

3. Many NDPers have long held the position that Canada should leave NATO. Not quite sure why though.

4. Even if we leave NATO, we are still informally allied with other developed liberal democracies.

5. NATO has some arbitrary requirement that member countries spend 2% of GDP on military expenditure. I get that we are at war with ISIS, but this money could be better spent elsewhere.

Edited August 19, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[socialist]

I bring up this topic for a number of reasons.

1. NATO was originally designed to counter the soviets in the cold war. Yet the cold war is long over, so has NATO outlived it's usefulness?

2. Being part of NATO means we are allied with Turkey. Yet Turkey has become more and more Islamist and they are enemies with our allies against ISIS, the Kurds. Not only that, arguably Turkey has let ISIS grow because they are more interested in overthrowing Assad.

http://news.yahoo.com/turkish-jets-hit-targets-syria-kurds-iraq-050807038.html

3. Many NDPers have long held the position that Canada should leave NATO. Not quite sure why though.

4. Even if we leave NATO, we are still informally allied with other developed liberal democracies.

5. NATO has some arbitrary requirement that member countries spend 2% of GDP on military expenditure. I get that we are at war with ISIS, but this money could be better spent elsewhere.

Would we still require the USA to protect us if a circumstance happened to arise?

[Derek 2.0]

No, for what little we as a nation contribute, the benefits in terms of our own National Security out weigh going without or going it alone..........to replace the loss of shared intelligence and communications alone would require Canada to spend billions more on national defense.........

Case in point Sweden, which spends a goodly sum on defense itself, but likewise subsidies on its own domestic defense industries that don't show up as direct defense expenditures, and even then, the Swedes have become increasingly reliant on selling their own domestically produced arms (for decades, if not centuries) to anyone with cash in hand (for example, versions of Swedish Bofors guns served on not only Allied naval vessels during WW II, but also Axis vessels)

Canada in NATO is akin to the guy in the carpool that buys coffee a couple of times a month and throws in the odd coupon for gas.......

[bush_cheney2004]

France left NATO's command structure in 1966, and, at least superficially, went it alone for 43 years. President Charles de Gaulle showed those damn 'merkins !

However...France ultimately came crawling back to NATO in 2009, and all along had secret arrangements with the U.S. and U.K.

Great politics !

Edited August 19, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[-1=e^ipi]

Would we still require the USA to protect us if a circumstance happened to arise?

Protect us from what?

No, for what little we as a nation contribute, the benefits in terms of our own National Security out weigh going without or going it alone.

Could you elaborate on how this is? Who is going to militarily attack Canada? The only thing we should be concerned about is domestic terrorism, or helping our allies. Realistically, if it weren't for ISIS, we could probably get away with abolishing our military.

to replace the loss of shared intelligence and communications alone would require Canada to spend billions more on national defense.........

Do you mean shared intelligence is to fight terrorism or something else? Please elaborate.

Case in point Sweden

Sweden is in a different location on Earth with far more neighbours. In particular, Russia is nearby. Canada has no nearby hostile countries.

[-1=e^ipi]

France left NATO's

Canada is not France. We weren't a colonial power and we don't have as many neighbours.

These are bad analogies.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada is not France. We weren't a colonial power and we don't have as many neighbours.

These are bad analogies.

Maybe...but France's experience is the reality of what would happen. Canada is a founding/charter member of NATO, and would likely continue some collective defense relationship, regardless of the superficial politics.

Also, Canada was closely associated with one of the biggest colonial powers ever, including military actions, reveling in the expanding size of Empire.

[Derek 2.0]

Could you elaborate on how this is? Who is going to militarily attack Canada? The only thing we should be concerned about is domestic terrorism, or helping our allies. Realistically, if it weren't for ISIS, we could probably get away with abolishing our military.

My crystal ball is broken.........realistically, a nation such as Canada with global interests since Confederation can't "get away with abolishing our military" unless we're willing to forgo our own sovereignty to the whims of others........The Americans 60 years ago, like today, are quite serious when they make it known that their own National Security includes defending its Northern approaches with or without Canadian consent.

Do you mean shared intelligence is to fight terrorism or something else? Please elaborate.

Both and no.

Sweden is in a different location on Earth with far more neighbours. In particular, Russia is nearby. Canada has no nearby hostile countries.

Canada is resource rich and in the centuries ahead (to borrow from member Eyeball), "the animals will begin circling the watering hole".

Edited August 19, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[-1=e^ipi]

The Americans 60 years ago, like today, are quite serious when they make it known that their own National Security includes defending its Northern approaches with or without Canadian consent.

How is Americans protecting their Sovereignty a threat to Canada?

[Derek 2.0]

How is Americans protecting their Sovereignty a threat to Canada?

There is no direct threat, Canada will always have a military within its borders, our own or the Americans......currently we have input in the defense of North America and our interests around the globe (often shared with the Americans), if our posture towards defense changed as you suggest, we no longer would. At such a point, the Americans out of their own defense interests, will defend their own country through Canada, but then, Canada will have forgone its own sovereignty as a nation, in effect, making itself a vassal of the United States......why not then make it official?

[waldo]

realistically, a nation such as Canada with global interests since Confederation can't "get away with abolishing our military" unless we're willing to forgo our own sovereignty to the whims of others

just what deterrent to sovereignty loss is the Canadian military? Some might suggest international law has more 'teeth' than the Canadian military!

year after year after year, Harper Conservatives regularly trotted out the Arctic sovereignty file and presumed to showcase everything they had designs on doing with the military to ensure "Canada's Arctic sovereignty" was profiled/"enforced". It would seem that, for the most part, other than Harper's annual photo-op to the north, Harper Conservatives have not stepped up to match their rhetoric... are we safe?

.

[bush_cheney2004]

How is Americans protecting their Sovereignty a threat to Canada?

See "Northwest Passage"....or "Arctic drilling"....or "Ballistic Missile Defense"....or "Naval bastion"....or.....

[August1991]

We should remain in NATO.

But we should definitely quit (resign from) the UN, and no longer contribute money to the United Nations.

=====

Norway is not part of the EU. We should take a similar view of membership in a club.

Edited August 19, 2015 by August1991

[TimG]

1. NATO was originally designed to counter the soviets in the cold war. Yet the cold war is long over, so has NATO outlived it's usefulness?

Russia and China are resurrecting the great power politics of the late 1800s. The only strategy that smaller countries have to protect against a great power that suddenly decides to annex their territory is to create alliances. Canada may not be facing imminent invasion but it is in Canada's interest to enter into defensive alliances with other smaller countries to help preserve the status quo even if that support is largely symbolic.

[Derek 2.0]

just what deterrent to sovereignty loss is the Canadian military? Some might suggest international law has more 'teeth' than the Canadian military!

.

How did the teeth of international law work out for Saddam? Saddam, at one point, had the third of fourth biggest military in the World.

year after year after year, Harper Conservatives regularly trotted out the Arctic sovereignty file and presumed to showcase everything they had designs on doing with the military to ensure "Canada's Arctic sovereignty" was profiled/"enforced". It would seem that, for the most part, other than Harper's annual photo-op to the north, Harper Conservatives have not stepped up to match their rhetoric... are we safe?

Prior to the current Government's annual Operation Nanook, Canada's military (and Government as a whole) hasn't had a fraction of the ability to influence events in our own Arctic since the St Laurent Government of the 50s and its role in the creation of the DEW line.

[Derek 2.0]

Russia and China are resurrecting the great power politics of the late 1800s. The only strategy that smaller countries have to protect against a great power that suddenly decides to annex their territory is to create alliances. Canada may not be facing imminent invasion but it is in Canada's interest to enter into defensive alliances with other smaller countries to help preserve the status quo even if that support is largely symbolic.

Funny enough, well the West has begun the Pacific pivot for the 21st century, Putin's Russia has recently begun its own military pivot.......to the resource rich Arctic.

[-1=e^ipi]

currently we have input in the defense of North America and our interests around the globe (often shared with the Americans)

Stop calling it defense if it is offense. It's inaccurate.

[-1=e^ipi]

Russia and China are resurrecting the great power politics of the late 1800s. The only strategy that smaller countries have to protect against a great power that suddenly decides to annex their territory is to create alliances. Canada may not be facing imminent invasion but it is in Canada's interest to enter into defensive alliances with other smaller countries to help preserve the status quo even if that support is largely symbolic.

We can aid other countries without being in NATO. And call it offense not defense.

[TimG]

We can aid other countries without being in NATO. And call it offense not defense.

You don't get the deterrent without the formal alliance. That makes the alliance essential to preserving the status quo in Europe. It is also a defence treaty since it is about defending the status quo - not trying to change it by force. Edited August 19, 2015 by TimG

[Derek 2.0]

Stop calling it defense if it is offense. It's inaccurate.

No, its quite accurate, as Western military intervention is reactionary, likewise it being in the defense of our own interests.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, its quite accurate, as Western military intervention is reactionary, likewise it being in the defense of our own interest

Yes, as Canada's Department of National Defence (DND) is currently engaged in strike missions against ISIL in pursuit of national interests. It is not a NATO mission, so leaving NATO is moot in that respect.

[Derek 2.0]

Yes, as Canada's Department of National Defence (DND) is currently engaged in strike missions against ISIL in pursuit of national interests. It is not a NATO mission, so leaving NATO is moot in that respect.

Exactly, one could look at any Western conflict from the last 100 years as a reactionary, geo-political response.........in defense of ones own interests.

[waldo]

How did the teeth of international law work out for Saddam? Saddam, at one point, had the third of fourth biggest military in the World.

oh my! Is this you admitting to the illegality of the invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq? Oh my!

.

Prior to the current Government's annual Operation Nanook, Canada's military (and Government as a whole) hasn't had a fraction of the ability to influence events in our own Arctic since the St Laurent Government of the 50s and its role in the creation of the DEW line.

"influence events"... means what in practical terms? So a 10 day or so exercise once a year... I read the latest one had 2 scenarios; "sending boarding parties to an uncooperative vessel" & "the simulation of rescuing the complement of a grounded cruise ship". I didn't read anything about Harper wagging his finger at Putin! Clearly... the Canadian military has no practical capability in dealing with any genuine military sovereignty encroachment from another nation... not that one is expected/anticipated.

I expect this discussion would continue and head down the same repeat of others... the new ditty that I'll lay out there first, is the realization that Canada's CF-18s rarely fly in the "Harper Bombing War on Terror"... but those jets sure stoke the Harper selling fear campaign, hey!

.

[waldo]

Yes, as Canada's Department of National Defence (DND) is currently engaged in strike missions against ISIL in pursuit of national interests. It is not a NATO mission, so leaving NATO is moot in that respect.

oh really! Canada takes part in just 3% coalition airstrikes against ISIL: Fight doesn’t match Tory rhetoric

[August1991]

Quit NATO? We should quit the UN.

In this post-modern, post-Soviet world where it's obvious that radical Lefism/Statism is wrong, we should create a union of civized States and promote countries where all children learn, both girls and boys.

The world is not overpopulated. It simply lacks educated children.

Edited August 19, 2015 by August1991