Canada at a Strategic Crossroads
Should it pursue membership in strategic partnerships like the Quad and AUKUS
Mired in the turbulence of shifting geopolitical tides and revived great power competition, Canada stands at a crossroads, this time on the question of whether to pursue membership in strategic partnerships like the Quad and AUKUS. These anti-China coalitions — created to balance against China’s rising power — may look tempting, but they mean engaging in strategic competitions that do not directly affect Canadians while limiting the country’s sovereignty. Instead of picking sides with the US and Europe in their geopolitical horse-trading, Canada should pursue a truly independent foreign policy, one centered on narrow self-interest. Both forums emphasize cooperation and co-ordination: the Quad cooperation on a free and open Indo-Pacific, AUKUS on military interoperability between Australia, Britain, and the United States. While these partnerships probably have some minimal security value, they are also almost guaranteed to erode Canadian interests and sovereignty in the long run.
First is what is strategically in Canada’s interest. The nation has valued multilateralism and diplomacy more than military alliances. Membership in the Quad or AUKUS could similarly dilute Canada’s adherence the principles noted above and orient it in an adversarial direction towards China, unlike the nuanced position Canada has taken thus far. The reality is that Canada has deep economic links to China, and doing anything more assertive could put this at risk. The Canadian economy is closely tied to China, with billions of dollars at stake in trade and investment. By being far too closely tied to such military pacts, Canada risks alienating an important trading ally that would have significant impact on our economic prosperity.
And the kind of military capacity available through AUKUS and the Quad would not necessarily meet Canada’s defense needs. The emphasis that AUKUS places on high-end naval capabilities, and specifically on nuclear submarines, may not be as naturally fitting for Canada, whose defense policy has historically been based more on continental defense and Arctic sovereignty. Canada’s territorial imperatives and security interests are not the same as its would-be allies. The disappearing Arctic ice, with all its growing strategic significance, whose fate is inextricable from the planet’s, demands a distinct approach, where the priorities are surveillance, rescue, and environmental safeguards not glossy naval warfare. Joining alliances that are not facing these particular challenges could divert Canadian resources and attention away from the things that actually matter when it comes to Canadian security.
And then there is the question of Beijing’s incentive to build up its own military. It has long been an open question whether China is truly committed to building a long-range stealth bomber, but new signs are emerging that suggest continued doubts are misplaced. China has also made particularly advanced strides in modernizing its military in areas like stealth technology and long-range strike weapons. The H-20 stealth bomber is one expression of China’s growing expertise in this field. At a time when Beijing is strengthening the military leg, Canada should be thinking carefully about both its own and those with which it will soon have precious few benefits in common.
The Quad and AUKUS, also pack that potential of escalating tensions in the Indo-Pacific. In fact, these alliances are themselves in part formed to balance against China — which ultimately puts us in a security dilemma when one side ratchets up the military presence, then the other follows suit. By signing up to such alliances, Canada risks being drawn into a total war that can too easily escape the control of any one power, and which jeopardizes not only Canada’s security but that of its allies. History lessons: Entangling alliances can lead to unintended consequences, and Canada should be cautious about repeating old mistakes.
Moreover, such alliances could undermine Canada’s standing as a peacemaker in international conflicts. Canada has – has been always regarded as – a peacemaking state, playing role of mediator between rival actors, especially at the time of crisis. Canada risks its status as a neutral force if it becomes party to a military coalition. The shift could reduce its capacity to influence outcomes in significant areas like climate change, human rights, and global health — where interests call for cooperation, not confrontation.
And here at home, Canada has pressing issues — income inequality, health care, combating climate change. There is nothing to be gained by switching our attention and resources to military preparations, a step that could even exacerbate things if it serves to divert our collective attention from the issue that every Canadian is preoccupied with. This is money the government should be investing in social programs, infrastructure, and the environment, not the costly ask of its military, which does not align with the core values of the government of Canada.
And, of course, the Canadian military has been beset by problems ranging from troop shortages to ageing equipment to budgetary trouble. Targeting high-tech military capabilities, encouraged by AUKUS, is unlikely to be feasible for Canada according to its defense needs. Rather than entering or associating its military with these alliances, Canada needs instead to concentrate its efforts on modernizing our own military to meet its unique security requirements – this should include notably the Arctic and North American defence.
As the ice melts and new shipping lanes and access to valuable resources emerge, the Arctic is becoming strategically important. Canada must assert its sovereignty over Arctic lands, and that requires a different strategic orientation than that fancying a return to naval glory through AUKUS and the Quad. The protection of our national interests in this important region requires Canada’s engagement in Arctic surveillance, search and rescue and environmental response capabilities.
And the possibility of technological cooperation between Quad and AUKUS raises the question of what that would mean for Canada’s own defense industry. And while the appeal of collaboration on state-of-the art next-generation technology could be attractive, it might be a drag on domestic innovation and investment here at home in Canada’s defence industry. Tethering itself too closely to these partnerships, Canada risks relying too much on foreign technology and expertise and not enough on its own capacity to create made-in-Canada responses to its defence needs.
Moreover, global is world dynamic and Canada needs to be adaptable in the world. Our reliance on new powers and new partnerships can only be supportive of a flexible approach to defence priorities, not the straitjacket of fixed-in-time mandatory military contributions for Canada. Yes, if by doing so it’s an independent nation and Canada becomes more able to work with and alongside, a diversity of partners, including those from the Global South, to build a more balanced multipolar world order.
In short, while the Quad and AUKUS may offer Canada an avenue to enhance its security posture, the downside risks of participation outstrip the potential benefits. Canada must stick to its diplomatic backbone, and engage and work through multilateralism, not through military quagmires. Washington and its surrogates, Canada included, are playing with dynamite for short-term military advantages even while invoking righteousness and being defenders of values. Canada can either chose to adopt a new strategic direction that is driven by its national interests and domestic priorities, allowing us flexibility to deal with the complexities of today’s world geo-politics without giving up what we value or selling out our security. No, it’s not through embracing military alliances that we will find the way, but by developing a more nuanced, more independent conception of how we sit within the global system — one that recognizes the particular ways in which Canada is both locked into but also an exception to it.
Canada’s ultimate security and prosperity will necessitate the ability to act independently in an ever more overwhelming world. Can work toward becoming a global leader for peace, stability, and cooperation through building its own capacity, diplomatic participation and sweeping its own doorstep clean. This is not a question of military strategy but one of Canada’s values, our people and Canada taking its rightful place in the world as an honest broker. In this time, when our planet has become so interconnected and interdependent, Canada must be the country of diplomacy not confrontation, of dialogue not division, of peace not warfare.
Andrew Latham, Ph.D., a tenured professor at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minnesota. He is also a Senior Washington Fellow with the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy in Ottawa and a non-resident fellow with Defense Priorities, a think tank in Washington, D.C.