Jump to content

US, UK, Australia in security pact against China. Canada left out


Argus

Recommended Posts

The US, UK and Australia announced a new military and defensive pact which will include sharing of both military technology and intelligence information thought to sensitive for the other two members of what used to be called the "Five Eyes". That would be Canada and New Zealand, now considered far too close to the Chinese government and neither interested in doing anything whatsoever to resist Chinese influence. Besides no one considers Canada's pretend military to be of any value in a military alliance, and the Liberals have made it clear they have no intention of expanding or modernizing it.

The Aukus alliance is probably the most significant security arrangement between the three nations since World War Two, analysts say. The pact will focus on military capability, separating it from the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance which also includes New Zealand and Canada. While Australia's submarines is the big-ticket item, Aukus will also involve the sharing of cyber capabilities and other undersea technologies.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-58564837

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, myata said:

The cost of a nuclear submarine is 2.6 - 2.8 billion (US). The election cost us 0.6 billion (CAD). To each, their own.

The subs are just a result of them signing the pact. They're not a requirement. They can now get the technology for them, though, and want it. On the other hand, we're spending more than 3.5 billion per frigate - assuming they ever get built.

Edited by Argus
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

So was Australia left out of NATO?

That pact was for countries in the north Atlantic to deter Russian aggression. This pact is for the primary Anglosphere countries to deter Chinese aggression. Clearly Canada has no interest in deterring Chinese aggression. It prefers to grovel and feels of it does this long enough perhaps it will get a pat on the head and be rewarded with a nice bone.

Plus China is working, using its influence to keep Trudeau in power. It likes having a weakling in charge here. Most Chinese language media in Canada are controlled by China and they're all working to get Trudeau elected.

Edited by Argus
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is spending (public funds and out of public's pocket) on their priorities. Some, on security in the changing geopolitical environment; and some on elections to have more of the same, hoping that the situation will just fix itself (perhaps with the pandemic too). If the public has no priorities of its own, just don't bother me doesn't count, it will have to be someone else's. This is how the book goes for a long, long time nothing new to discover here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incredible that Trudeau, a so-called ideological ally of the US Democrat Party, isn’t taken seriously by the Biden administration.  We should’ve known that this was coming when Canada didn’t ban Huawei from 5G networks.

Trudeau, a self-proclaimed admirer of China, doesn’t have the diplomatic relationship that he thought he had with China to get the two Michaels released from Chinese detention.  The US exercised its extradition treaty with Canada to get at a Huawei executive, driving a wedge between Canada and China.  Harper was wise to be hawkish on China, making it clear where Canada’s loyalties lie.

Trudeau has lost credibility with both the US and China.  If O’Toole wins, he would be wise to take a firm, scathing stance against China, boost Canadian military strength and independence, and diversify trade from the US. Canada is too reliant on US trade and military power. China is a manipulative totalitarian superpower that cannot be trusted.  We need to either shift our offshore production from China to other cheap jurisdictions or pay more to manufacture more items ourselves with our higher labour costs. The latter option is the more painful one in the short-term, but it has the best long term impacts for Canadian employment and independence.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes that all might be true, but Canada not being part of a South Pacific Alliance really doesn't say anything either way. Hence my question about nato.

 

Agreed, but Australian decisions about NATO/SEATO/ANZUS were informed by a very sour experience during WW1/WW2 with expeditionary forces that died far away with little return commitment to Australia in time of need (vs. Japan).   The U.S. filled that void, albeit for self interest, as is the case today.

More so than Canada, Australia participated in Asian theatre conflicts including the Vietnam War.   U.S. administrations see Australia and the UK as more reliable military allies for political and practical reasons.  

Canada has long struggled with the real and perceived relationship with the United States for foreign and domestic policies...a balancing act that some PMs have managed well while others have bungled it badly (like Trudeau).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real loser here is France, they are losing $80B.

The real winner is actually China. They 'protest' against these military spendings, but in reality is very happy with how the Western World is spending. They are doing a reverse Reagan to the USSR. This time the Western coalition are the USSR that will not be able to keep up with military upkeep in the long run.

Edited by QuebecOverCanada
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes that all might be true, but Canada not being part of a South Pacific Alliance really doesn't say anything either way. Hence my question about nato.

TIL the United Kingdom was in the South Pacific. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

The real loser here is France, they are losing $80B.

The real winner is actually China. They 'protest' against these military spendings, but in reality is very happy with how the Western World is spending. They are doing a reverse Reagan to the USSR. This time the Western coalition are the USSR that will not be able to keep up with military upkeep in the long run.

Western countries have much, much, much smaller militaries than they used to easily afford, despite them being larger economies now.

Canada, as one example, has a military half the size it was back when our population was half the size it is now. So by inference, if we could afford a military of 125k back in the 1970s we could afford one of 250k today. Instead we have about 67k. The military of major western countries is also far smaller than it used to be during the cold war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

I think if we were permanent security council members we might have had a shot...

I think if we had shown signs of being willing to push back against China, willing to clamp down on their political interference here, on their electronic espionage, willing to field some kind of reasonable military, willing to support our closest allies, we'd have been in this group. 

I have almost no doubt at all if Harper were PM we'd have been part of this group. But none of these countries trusts Trudeau or the very China-friendly people around him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Argus said:

1. I think if we had shown signs of being willing to push back against China, willing to clamp down on their political interference here, on their electronic espionage, willing to field some kind of reasonable military, willing to support our closest allies, we'd have been in this group. 

2. I have almost no doubt at all if Harper were PM we'd have been part of this group. But none of these countries trusts Trudeau or the very China-friendly people around him.

1. If you can find a serious opinion that confirms that I would like to read it.  ie. Not someone grinding political axes.
2. I feel this is just another "poop on Trudeau" issue.   

Also - New Zealand isn't in it ?  Anyway... I'm glad it exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Argus said:

I think if we had shown signs of being willing to push back against China, willing to clamp down on their political interference here, on their electronic espionage, willing to field some kind of reasonable military, willing to support our closest allies, we'd have been in this group. 

I have almost no doubt at all if Harper were PM we'd have been part of this group. But none of these countries trusts Trudeau or the very China-friendly people around him.

I mostly agree with you, though I no longer think that for Canada the goal should be to attach herself to US projections of power in the far reaches of the globe, because it almost always turns into a questionable expense that gives the US cover for her self-interest by acting as part of a coalition rather than acting on her own. I get that we do a certain amount of this in an exchange for US protection, whether or not it’s warranted.

The better move, I believe, is equipping Canada for greater independence militarily and economically, being clear about what and whom we oppose and support, and getting as involved as we deem necessary to support trusted allies and support our goals.  There’s a trick to this, which is to basically project  confidence, independence, and strong support of allies while taking careful care of Canadian interests, to which our allies are often oblivious.  Harper, Mulroney, Chrétien, Pearson, St. Laurent, King, and even Trudeau Sr. understood this.  Not all PM’s play this game well.  It requires more hard power, Realpolitik, and smarter rhetoric than we have now.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. If you can find a serious opinion that confirms that I would like to read it.  ie. Not someone grinding political axes.
2. I feel this is just another "poop on Trudeau" issue.   

Also - New Zealand isn't in it ?  Anyway... I'm glad it exists.

There are few columnist opinions on this yet as it just happened. Do you seriously not think O'Toole or Harper would not have taken a more pro-US stance on China than we're seeing from Trudeau?

New Zealand isn't in it because it is rapidly becoming a province of China. Despite multiple warnings from its own and allies intelligence agencies about growing influence among its politicians and corporate leaders, often secured by bribes, the current NZ PM has prioritized good relations and trade with China over all else. NZ has refused to criticize China over anything, be it human rights abuses or Covid. China is now its' number one trading partner, and China's economic influence and leverage continues to grow there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Argus said:

1. There are few columnist opinions on this yet as it just happened.
2. Do you seriously not think O'Toole or Harper would not have taken a more pro-US stance on China than we're seeing from Trudeau?
3. New Zealand isn't in it because it is rapidly becoming a province of China. Despite multiple warnings from its own and allies intelligence agencies about growing influence among its politicians and corporate leaders, often secured by bribes, the current NZ PM has prioritized good relations and trade with China over all else. NZ has refused to criticize China over anything, be it human rights abuses or Covid. China is now its' number one trading partner, and China's economic influence and leverage continues to grow there.

1. Ok, well let's see then.  I'm no expert on international military coalition forming (?) but I would rather have been surprised if Canada was in there.

2. It's weird with you.  You start by saying we're out of this South China Sea coalition because Trudeau isn't anti-China enough.  I say "I doubt it".  Then you come back and say "Are you seriously saying Harper isn't more pro-US than Trudeau" ?  It's like ping-pong.  Yes, of course I think Harper is more anti-China.  Even more now than when he was in office, but even lukewarm-China-Harper was lukewarm.

3. You can't equate "China is a top trading partner" with being pro-China - everybody trades with them.
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

 You can't equate "China is a top trading partner" with being pro-China - everybody trades with them.
 

So I just realized that sounds ridiculous.  Yes, high trade with China means you are supporting China and therefore pro-China but all of the western world and lots of non-Western world trades with China.  So it doesn't differentiate a country on their China stance so much.  But I didn't know that about NZ either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. It's weird with you.  You start by saying we're out of this South China Sea coalition because Trudeau isn't anti-China enough.  I say "I doubt it".  Then you come back and say "Are you seriously saying Harper isn't more pro-US than Trudeau" ?  It's like ping-pong.  Yes, of course I think Harper is more anti-China.  Even more now than when he was in office, but even lukewarm-China-Harper was lukewarm.

You're acting like I suddenly introduced a non sequitur into the discussion. Canada was left out because, in part, it's not considered much of an ally by the US as well as the Trudeau government's fawning capitulation to anything China says.

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. You can't equate "China is a top trading partner" with being pro-China - everybody trades with them.

Given China uses its trade as political leverage, and punishes those who dare to criticize or disagree with it with various levels of trade interruption, yes you can. The more important China is as a trading partner the lower you have to bow.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada was not asked to join the military and security pact. So much for our special relationship and being a member of the 'Five eyes". It has now been replaced by the "Three Eyes".

The Canadian government was surprised this week by the announcement of a new security pact between the United States, Britain and Australia, one that excluded Canada and is aimed at confronting China’s growing military and political influence in the Indo-Pacific region, according to senior government officials.

Three officials, representing Canada’s foreign affairs, intelligence and defence departments, told The Globe and Mail that Ottawa was not consulted about the pact, and had no idea the trilateral security announcement was coming until it was made on Wednesday by U.S. President Joe Biden, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison.

One of the Canadian officials referred to the pact as the new “Three Eyes” and said it’s clear that Canada’s closest allies consider Ottawa to be a “weak sister” when it comes to standing up to China. The Globe and Mail is not identifying the officials because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canadian-government-surprised-by-new-indo-pacific-security-pact/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Argus said:

1. Canada was left out because, in part, it's not considered much of an ally by the US as well as the Trudeau government's fawning capitulation to anything China says.

2. Given China uses its trade as political leverage, and punishes those who dare to criticize or disagree with it with various levels of trade interruption, yes you can.  

1. Well, remains to be seen but the non-sequitur was that I said nothing about Trudeau's stance on China vs. Harper.  You seemed to suggest I felt that they were the same, which did not follow from my words.

2. Ok - I don't want to ever pretend I know more than I do but I just find it hard to see how you can equate those things given that all of the world's major powers have China in their top list of imports/exports.   You seem to know about this so I ask you honestly for an example I can read on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Ok - I don't want to ever pretend I know more than I do but I just find it hard to see how you can equate those things given that all of the world's major powers have China in their top list of imports/exports.   You seem to know about this so I ask you honestly for an example I can read on.

Where have you been for the last few years? You haven't seen the multiple times China has suddenly cracked down on a variety of our exports because we said or did something which irritated them? You haven't seen anything about their ongoing trade war against Australia, a country they signed a free trade pact with, because Australia dared to call for an inquiry into the origins of Covid?

https://outline.com/NAvVRM

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...