Dr. Andrea Charron, 8 October 2021
There has been much in the news about the AUKUS submarine deal and the suggestion that Canada was or was not "left" out. It is time for Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE) to be updated (and it doesn't need to be rewritten - rather a revisit of and status report on the already considerable list of "new" initiatives that were outlined in SSE in 2017). It is clear, via several joint POTUS-PM statements, that continental defence is the priority which is a contribution to wider defence efforts around the world. There is a public tendency to require too much of the CAF which is struggling with both serious internal and external challenges. Now is the time to review the old "new" initiatives and take stock of what is in the realm of possible. Perhaps the PM and Cabinet will choose to prioritize Asia-Pacific. If asked, my advice would be to concentrate on the approaches to North America and strengthening NATO-NORAD connections. Strong at home and Secure in North America are enormous "asks" as it is. This is not to reject "engaged in the world", but to be realistic about what can be achieved given current commitments, internal upheaval and external challenges of which crisis management related to climate change will be a growing concern.
3 thoughts on “Updating Strong, Secure, Engaged”
Yes, In My Opinion (IMO) SSE is in dire need of an update soon. Despite the CAFs internal and external challenges, It is clear that an update WRT a “modern” submarine replacement should be incorporated with numbers required. I also believe that Canada should also seriously consider a Strategic Sealift capability within the SSE document along with a HALE drone capability.
Possibly, David. But surely any capability decisions should come after a re-think of Canada’s various defence priorities, which will then demand that certain tasks/missions be favoured over others. Dr. Charron’s point is that government, belatedly aware that it cannot deliver meaningful defence outputs across-the-board and in all regions of the world, should prioritize. Whether doing so yields more ‘benefits’ for the RCN relative to the other services is less important than whether the correct priorities (i.e., those most impactful for Canadians) are identified. The act of NOT choosing may be as deleterious as under-funding.
You could be right Barnacle Bill however in my opinion the RCN and government need to re-think SSE as it pertains to a dedicated Sealift capability and of course replacements for the Victoria class submarines in the future. NOT choosing, is just a ‘bail out attitude’ for not properly funding the CAF for the future.