Canada's cash-starved armed forces have a pitifully small budget. Deep spending cuts have cost us the respect of our allies and endangered our forces' ability to operate in an increasingly dangerous world. The Canadian Forces need more money. Statements like these are repeated so often that they have become the accepted wisdom of pundits and politicians of almost every stripe (with the notable exception of the NDP). Yet, as Bill Robinson reports, there is little or no evidence that these notions are true-and a lot of evidence that they are not.

Myth #1

Further reductions in Canadian military spending will undermine our security in an increasingly dangerous world.

The global security environment is far from benign. The danger of accidental or inadvertent nuclear war is still with us. So is the danger of terrorist attacks, possibly involving the use of weapons of mass destruction. The continuing degradation of the global ecosystem threatens all of us. But the end of the Cold War dramatically reduced the likelihood of a major global war. And, contrary to popular belief, the post-Cold War era has not seen an increase in the number of armed conflicts around the world (in fact, the number of conflicts has been decreasing over the past few years). The tragic human consequences of these conflicts are felt in every country. But, as with the non-military problems confronting the world, it is increasingly recognized that most conflicts are not amenable to either military prevention or military solution.

Military spending figures strongly suggest that the military threat to security is declining. Worldwide military spending peaked in 1987 and has been dropping steadily ever since. As of 1995, the latest year for which comprehensive statistics are available, the world's military spending was 23 per cent lower than it was in 1980 (after adjusting for inflation).¹

The picture is even more striking when these figures are broken down into allies and non-allies. While the military budgets of Canada and the countries with which it is formally or informally allied² have declined significantly from their Cold War peaks, collectively they were still 13 per cent higher in 1995 than they were in 1980. By contrast, the combined military budgets of the rest of the world's countries were a full 50 per cent lower in 1995 than they were in 1980. In 1980, Canada and its allies accounted for 43 per cent of the world's military spending. In 1995, we accounted for 63 per cent, or 1.7 times as much as all other countries combined. We spent more than seven times as much as Russia, the largest non-allied military spender, and more than 90 times as much as North Korea, the largest spender among the "rogue" states commonly cited as possible military threats.³

Even the Canadian government acknowledges that very few of the countries that are not Canadian allies pose any kind of potential military threat to us. We sell arms and other military goods to almost every arms importing country in the world (the exceptions being a few pariah states and a number of countries with minuscule military budgets). This suggests that the government sees very few potential enemies and a lot of potential friends in the world around us. The military budgets of those countries to which Canada did not sell military goods between 1994 and 1996 account for only 4 per cent of world military spending.⁴

Myth #2

Further reductions in Canadian military spending will cause Canada to lose influence with its allies.

Military prowess is not the primary determinant of a middle power's international influence. Canada's influence derives from many factors, including the constructive role we play at the UN, our membership in multilateral institutions such as the G-8, the Commonwealth, la francophonie, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the Organization of American States, our participation in peacekeeping, our development assistance efforts, and so on. The less-polarized post-Cold War world, with its greater leeway for the use of "soft" power, has led to an increase in Canada's influence in some ways, as was made dramatically evident by the leadership role we were able to play in the international campaign to ban landmines.

Comparative military spending may still count for something at NATO headquarters, but even there it's hard to see why the Canadian government should worry. According to NATO calculations, in 1997 American military spending was about the same as it was in 1980, spending by the European members of NATO was on average 7 per cent lower than it was in 1980, spending by NATO as a whole was 3 per cent lower than it was in 1980, and Canadian military spending was 4 per cent higher than it was in 1980.⁵ A few NATO members have made more significant changes-for example, Turkey is spending nearly twice as much as it spent in 1980 while Germany and the UK are each spending about 25 per cent less-but no one claims that Turkey's influence has skyrocketed at NATO or that the influence of Germany or the UK has plummeted as a result of these changes.

Myth #3

Further reductions in Canadian military spending will render the Canadian Forces incapable of fulfilling its essential missions.

Advocates of an increase in military spending like to point out that Canada spends a relatively low percentage of its Gross Domestic Product on the military. But this statistic tells us no more about the adequacy of Canada's military budget to meet our military needs than the percentage of income that a family spends on food tells us how well that family can meet its nutritional needs (is the family poor or wealthy? how many mouths are there to feed? what kind of food is it buying?).

Canada is not at war. It is not run by a military government. We face no significant military threat to our own territory. The countries with which we are allied or have strong relations possess the vast majority of the world's military power. Nevertheless, in 1997 Canada was the 15th largest military spender in the world.⁷ Only one of the 32 countries involved in a war during 1997 spent more than Canada did.⁸ We spent more than all 44 of the countries of sub-saharan Africa spent put together.⁹

Canada does have military requirements, including peacekeeping, coastal patrol, search and rescue, and domestic assistance. It is the policy of the Canadian government to maintain a capability to participate in combat operations (presumably against one of the few countries that is not a Canadian arms customer). But all of these goals can be met within the current budget or even a smaller budget as long as the Department of National Defence gets its priorities right. Using the Canadian government definition of military spending (which differs somewhat from NATO's definition), Canada's $9.7 billion military budget remains 5 per cent higher than it was in 1980.⁶ Project Ploughshares estimates that a budget of $7.5-8.0 billion would be sufficient for Canada's real military needs.

The difficulty that DND is experiencing in living within its current budget is not a result of the cost of peacekeeping operations. The incremental cost of such operations is $100-150 million a year-roughly the same amount as DND spends on the Air Cadet, Army Cadet, and Sea Cadet youth programs (see note below). DND's difficulties arise from its inability to set priorities for itself, as exemplified by its recent decision to acquire the Upholder submarines (see March 1998 Monitor article). If DND focused its spending on real military needs and designated the forces procured for those needs (such as frigates and maritime patrol aircraft) to be Canada's contribution to any future international military operation, a budget of $7.5-8.0 billion would be more than adequate to ensure that those forces remained modern and effective.

1 World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers 1996, US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1997, and previous editions.

2 NATO members, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea.

3 World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers 1996, and previous editions.

4 Export of Military Goods from Canada: Annual Report 1996, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 1997, and Export of Military Goods from Canada: Annual Report 1995; percentage calculated using data from World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers 1996.

5 Financial and Economic Data Relating to NATO Defence, NATO Press Release M-DPC-2(97)147, 2 December 1997.

6 Report on Plans and Priorities 1998-99, National Defence, 1998; comparison to 1980-81 calculated by Project Ploughshares.

7 The Military Balance 1997/98, International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1997.

8 India spent more than Canada. Israel also spent more than Canada if the US $3 billion in military assistance donated by the United States is counted. The Military Balance 1997/98.

9 The Military Balance 1997/98.

Priorities

Has DND's budget been stripped to the bone? Cabinet ministers pondering whether it might be time to loosen the purse strings need look no further than the Canadian Cadet Program for a spectacular example of wasted money. Comprising some 56,000 Air Cadets, Army Cadets, and Sea Cadets, the Cadet Program is billed as "the largest federally sponsored national youth training program for 12-18 year olds." At a cost of $110.9 million, it is certainly the most expensive. Scouts Canada and the Girl Guides of Canada provide similar citizenship and adventure training to a combined total of 350,000 Canadian children and youths with almost no government funding. (Scouts Canada receives no money; the Girl Guides receive about $25,000 in a typical year.) How can DND justify spending 4,400 times as much taxpayer money (27,700 times as much per participant) to support the Cadet Program as the rest of the government spends supporting the Scouts and the Guides?

$110.9 million may be a small sum in DND, but it's a lot of money in other government departments. It is twice the amount of money allocated to Environment Canada's Atmospheric Change program, the federal government's response to the problems of greenhouse gases, ozone, air pollution, and acid rain. It is twice the size of Canada's contribution to the budget of the UN, 10 times the size of the government's Peacebuilding Fund, and 5.5 times the amount the government plans to contribute to landmine removal around the world ($100 million over five years).