Inarguably bigger and more seasoned than it was when it was born from the ashes of the Second World War, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization — the West’s great military alliance — celebrated a milestone Thursday: three-quarters of a century of keeping the peace in Europe.
NATO formally came into being with the signing of the Washington Treaty in the U.S. capital 75 years ago, when 12 western democracies — including Canada — banded together against what they saw as Soviet Russia’s expansionism in Europe.
Its creation helped to inaugurate the Cold War and, six years later, brought about the creation of the rival Warsaw Pact of communist countries, led by the Soviet Union.
The contest between those two alliances brought the world to the brink of nuclear war on several occasions, notably in October 1962 and November 1983.
NATO now faces multiple external and internal challenges — ranging from a resurgent Russia to the possibility of Donald Trump regaining the White House and pulling the United States out of the alliance.
Canada was one of the founding members of NATO and pushed at the time to make it a political and economic forum as well as a military alliance.
But while Canada still contributes to and plays important roles within NATO, Ottawa has appeared increasingly off-side with its NATO allies on the political and policy issues of defence spending and preparation.
That has led some allies and critics to wonder whether Canada’s influence inside NATO is on the wane.
Sweden as the model NATO nation
There are more voices around the table now, bringing with them a new dynamic. Sweden’s accession to NATO after two centuries of neutrality offers a good example of that.
Formally admitted in February, the Nordic country, with one-quarter of Canada’s population, came through the door with a well-equipped military three-quarters the size of the Canadian military — proportionally larger, in other words. Sweden also has a firm plan to meet the alliance’s national benchmark for military spending — two per cent of GDP — and a well-organized civil defence structure.
Canadian soldiers take part in NATO military exercises at a training ground in Kadaga, Latvia on Sept. 13, 2021. (Roman Koksarov/The Associated Press)
Canada, meanwhile, struggles to recruit and manage aging fleets of military equipment and hasn’t even begun to wrap its head around civil defence preparedness and resilience in the face of war and unrest beyond our borders.
Gen. Wayne Eyre, the outgoing chief of the defence staff, has used almost every one of his appearances before House of Commons committees to warn about what might happen next on the international stage, and to draw attention to the declining readiness of his own troops.
“I will tell you that the military we have today is not the military that we need for the threats that are appearing in the future,” Eyre told the House of Commons committee on public safety and national security on Oct. 6, 2022.
WATCH: Gen. Wayne Eyre warns of ‘deteriorating’ global security climate
Canada’s top soldier worried about ‘deteriorating security situation’ worldwide
5 months ago
Duration 0:45
Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre says Canada must be ready to respond to global crises that will impact the country directly. ‘The study of our military history could almost be considered a study in unpreparedness,’ he told CBC’s Hannah Thibedeau.
With war raging in Ukraine, European NATO members are increasingly nervous. Some nations have reintroduced conscription and have directed the construction of bomb shelters.
“We need to understand, as a society, that war and fighting is not only something of the military. I think a nation needs to understand that when it comes to a war, as we see in Ukraine, it is a whole-of-society event,” said Dutch Admiral Rob Bauer, who heads the NATO Military Committee.
“The issue is that Russia has larger ambitions than Ukraine. We know that. And therefore, the alliance as a whole needs to be ‘readier.'”
But Canadian military readiness has declined substantially, as CBC News reported last month. If NATO declared an emergency tomorrow, only 58 per cent of army, navy and air force units designated to respond would be in any shape to do so.
An internal Department of National Defence presentation shows that 45 per cent of Canadian military equipment set aside for the defence of Europe faces “challenges” and is considered “unavailable and unserviceable.”
Canada’s allies have taken notice, said the country’s former ambassador to NATO.
“We won’t get kicked out of NATO, but when you make a point at the North Atlantic Council table, your voice carries less weight because you need to put your money where your mouth is,” said Kerry Buck. She said Canada’s silence on how it plans to meet the organization’s defence spending target is undermining its clout in the alliance.
Canada currently spends the equivalent of 1.38 per cent of its GDP on defence, putting it sixth from the bottom in a list of all 32 NATO members in terms of military spending.
Neither the governing Liberals nor the opposition Conservatives have laid out firm plans to meet the target. Both parties have said only that Canada will work toward it.
The ‘quadrant of shame’
The pressure on Canada has only increased since Trump vowed that, if he becomes U.S. president again, he would not protect NATO allies that don’t meet the target and would encourage Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to countries he considers delinquent.
“We’re the only ally, the lone ally that sits in that quadrant of shame where we don’t either meet the two per cent of GDP … target and we don’t meet the target of 20 per cent of our defence spending on research and development and equipment procurement,” said Buck.
“So it hits us politically, it makes us a target when the whole alliance is rowing towards this goal of two per cent because they recognize that the world is a more dangerous place. And then there’s Canada sitting there, not doing that.”
It is a curious place for Canada to find itself. Liberal Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson helped to shape the alliance’s founding charter to include a clause that made NATO more than just a military alliance but also a forum for political and economic dialogue among like-minded allies.
Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson with U.S. President Lyndon Johnson at a joint news conference at Uplands Airport in Ottawa at the end of Johnson’s whirlwind visit to Canada in May, 1967. (Canadian Press)
University of Toronto historian Tim Sayle said that, given what Canada spent in blood and treasure in two world wars, the postwar generation of political leaders in Ottawa was determined to ensure Canada had a say in matters of war and peace.
“In the late 1940s, with the possibility of [another] war looming, Canadian officials were not ready to leave that decision for war to others without at least having their say and trying to influence things,” he said.
“And so the Canadian experience fighting alongside the Americans and the British and the Second World War had convinced them that sometimes Canadian wisdom should be a part of the conversation, that Canadians needed to be at the table.”
‘No tanks, no trade’
Former Canadian diplomat Colin Robertson said Canada has for decades demonstrated an aptitude for navigating the political and economic waters at NATO and can do so again, even with a bigger alliance.
In the 1970s, detente with Soviet Russia was in the air. A new Liberal government and a new generation had grown skeptical of NATO and had reduced Canada’s contingent in Europe. At the same time, the government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was courting trade with West Germany under Chancellor Helmut Schmidt.
Schmidt forced Trudeau to reconsider his government’s position on military spending, said Robertson.
“Schmidt said to Trudeau, ‘No tanks, no trade,'” he said.
“And so at that point,” he added, “Pierre Trudeau says, ‘OK, this NATO really does have value.'” And he boosted the defence budget and bought German Leopard tanks.
“We sometimes forget this,” Robertson said.
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau addresses the Senate Chamber in June, 1974. To his left is NATO Secretary General Joseph Luns. (NATO)
Retired general Ray Henault, a former chief of the defence staff, said Canada’s clout at NATO has often derived from what it contributes in troops and equipment, rather than what it spends on defence. He pointed out that Canadian troops spent more than 12 years in Afghanistan, much of the time under the NATO flag.
Its leadership and ongoing efforts to build a NATO brigade in Latvia to deter possible future Russian attacks is a another good example of what Canada still brings to the NATO table, he said.
The political and economic dialogue about Canada’s contribution is still important, said Henault, but it’s not everything.
“I still support that NATO target, but I don’t think it detracts from the respect and the high regard which Canada and its military has held in the NATO forum, not by any means,” said Henault, who served as Canada’s last head of the NATO Military Committee in the early 2000s.
WATCH: How Canada lost its NATO edge
How Canada lost its NATO edge
11 hours ago
Duration 7:58
Seventy-five years after helping found the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Canada is now openly chastised over its defence spending and commitment. CBC’s Murray Brewster examines how the country lost its edge in alliance and what it would take to turn it around.
NEW YORK (AP) — In a new video posted early Election Day, Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in the television program “Baywatch” – red one-piece swimsuit and all – and asks viewers to vote.
In the two-and-a-half-minute clip, set to most of “Bodyguard,” a four-minute cut from her 2024 country album “Cowboy Carter,” Beyoncé cosplays as Anderson’s character before concluding with a simple message, written in white text: “Happy Beylloween,” followed by “Vote.”
At a rally for Donald Trump in Pittsburgh on Monday night, the former president spoke dismissively about Beyoncé’s appearance at a Kamala Harris rally in Houston in October, drawing boos for the megastar from his supporters.
“Beyoncé would come in. Everyone’s expecting a couple of songs. There were no songs. There was no happiness,” Trump said.
She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland – but she endorsed Harris and gave a moving speech, initially joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland.
“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said.
“A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said at the rally in Houston, her hometown.
“Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”
Harris used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.
Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.
Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.
Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.
Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.
My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.
Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.
My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.
To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.
Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…
The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.
The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.
The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.
Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.
In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.
If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.
Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.
PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.
Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.
Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.
“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.
Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”
The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”
Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”
The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.
In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.
Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.
In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.
A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.
In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.
Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.
What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.
But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.
Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.
“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.
