Alexander Gray is a Senior researcher at the Legatum Institute and the author of From AUKUS to CAUKUS: The Case for Canadian Integration.
On current form, the Canadian Conservatives will solidly beat Justin Trudeau’s Liberals in the next election. The common-sense approach of Pierre Poilievre, the charismatic Leader of the Opposition, is appealing to many.
He is also benefitting from Trudeau’s distance from public opinion on many issues – from net zero and free speech to lockdown policies (the most visible manifestation of the last of these was the truckers’ convoy).
The scale of this support was clear at last week’s Canada Strong and Free Conference (a major conservative rally) in Ottawa. But although it extends to a wide range of domestic issues, defence and foreign affairs have not been particular points of national debate.
They rarely are in Canada. So it was all the more striking that one point mentioned repeatedly by attendees was Canada’s exclusion from AUKUS.
Most commentators saw this as a result of Trudeau’s attitude towards defence: letting the budget fall to dismally low levels (well below the two per cent NATO expectation) sent the wrong signal to allies about their commitment to defence and security, and explained, at least in part, the exclusion from AUKUS.
Boris Johnson, one of the architects of AUKUS, pointed out on Canadian TV that the reason was simply that the original trilateral agreement was designed to satisfy a very specific Australian need for nuclear-powered submarines.
This is true. But the agreement has evolved since its inception and there is now much discussion about expanding to other countries – not the entire agreement but the non-nuclear part, known as ‘Pillar 2’.
The now well-known arrangement for the UK and the US to help Australia acquire and operate nuclear-powered submarines, is actually only the first of the two pillars. The second covers advanced cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, undersea capabilities, counter-hypersonic missile technology, electronic warfare, and wider innovation.
While there is no appetite to expand the membership of Pillar 1, it is increasingly widely accepted that Pillar 2 membership need not be similarly limited. This month, AUKUS defence ministers confirmed their ambition to cooperate on it with other countries.
Japan was mentioned as a possible candidate but, while certainly the frontrunner, it is only one of several possibilities. New Zealand has also been mentioned at various stages.
But Canada has the strongest case. As we argue in a recent Legatum Institute report, Canada has world-leading expertise in many areas covered by Pillar 2 such as artificial intelligence, counter-hypersonic missile technology, underwater drones and offensive cyber.
It has also adopted a comprehensive critical minerals strategy with the aim of further developing mining and processing infrastructure. Canada is in the enviable position of having large reserves of critical minerals used in the defence industry, such as cobalt, nickel, and vanadium, as well as the industry to extract, process, manufacture, and recycle them.
Enhancing collaboration on this would ensure greater resilience of AUKUS supply chains and reduce dependence on non-allied sources, notably China.
There is also a strategic aspect. Canadian access and knowledge of the Arctic would be a significant asset to AUKUS, and to British interests. Canada’s new defence policy document, published last week, outlines plans to build a network of operational support hubs in the north, to deploy underwater sensors on all its coasts, to buy a fleet of airborne early warning aircraft, and to build a satellite ground station in the High Arctic.
As rival powers increasingly take an interest in the region’s military and resource possibilities, such capability will become all the more important. It will also complement British initiatives to protect freedom of navigation in the High North.
It is therefore no surprise that the report has received such widespread backing, including from four former prime ministers. Boris Johnson said that “No country better epitomises the values that make AUKUS possible”, whilst Tony Abbott highlighted Canada’s “ample capacity to boost its own military strength and to contribute to that of others through its manufacturing and technological strengths and endowment with strategic minerals”.
The number of parliamentarians supporting this initiative, including the defence and foreign secretaries, shows the breadth of political support for such a move.
The only real objection in the UK comes from Alicia Kearns MP, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, on the grounds that Canada does not spend enough on defence. Her concerns are valid, despite this month’s increase in the Canadian defence budget.
But they do not address the main arguments for Canadian membership, which are unaffected by the defence budget issue. Much of Canada’s impressive AI ecosystem (800 companies), for example, is driven by the private sector and would contribute greatly to the relevant strand of Pillar 2.
The Canadian Conservative opposition is keen to do more on defence than has the Trudeau government. Many of the MPs I met last week in Ottawa were keen to emphasize both their support for Pillar 2 membership and further defence budget increases. The war in Ukraine, the instability in the Middle East, China’s ever-increasing assertiveness in the South China Sea and interference in Canadian politics are likely to have had an effect.
The polls which put Poilievre way ahead are cause for optimism. AUKUS must not miss this chance to bring Canada into the fold.
The post Alexander Gray: As AUKUS seeks to expand the partnership, Canada must be at the front of the queue appeared first on Conservative Home.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Alexander Gray
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, http://www.conservativehome.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.