Thursday, January 24, 2008

"Strategic Cousins"

We have become like cousins – “strategic cousins” in the words of your military historian John Blaxland.
- Prime Minister Harper addressing Australia's Parliament, Sep 2007

So the Manley Report calls for Canada to team up with a strategic partner in Afghanistan. Good idea. I can think of no more strategic partner than our historical strategic cousin from Down Under.

If there is any country capable of stepping up to the plate to supply another battle group into the theatre of operations in south Afstan, it would likely be the French. Given that the Europeans must be looking to create more synergies and interoperablility for EU defence purposes, France and the Netherlands should team up, allowing us to work closely with the Australians.

I know the Dutch will not like this suggestion. The Netherland's ambassador to Canada admitted a preference for working with Anglosphere partners, rather than European ones for language and cultural reasons. We must also take into account that it would probably be in France's linguistic and cultural interests to work with Canadians, particularly French Canadians, rather than the Dutch. But if France and the Netherlands are committed to continental union, it would be in their national interests to partner and develop their capabilities in joint operations at every opportunity.

Just as there are good reasons for Canada to cooperate with Australia in joint operations at every opportunity. The Australian military historian, Lieutenant Colonel John C. Blaxland, in a condensed version of his book "Strategic Cousins" writes:

Both Canada and Australia have similarly sized armed forces and spend virtually the same amount of their gross domestic product (1.9 per cent) on defence. Both countries also possess military cultures that have been shaped by the experience of the British Empire and by the experience of Anglo-American coalition warfare. Yet Australia and Canada are rarely compared in contemporary military literature.

The differences between Canada (with its North American location and its membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)) and Australia (with its Asia-Pacific position and its membership of ANZUS) seem to suggest that strategic differences far outweigh strategic similarities.

Despite these perceptions, this article argues that, in military terms, Australia and Canada continue to be ‘strategic cousins’. There are persistent similarities in military heritage, force development programs and operational methods between the Australian and Canadian militaries. When these similarities are combined, they provide a lasting basis for increased cooperation in the 21st century.
Neil James agrees in his review of Lt.Col. Blaxland's work:

Australia shares many similarities and indeed common cultural sources with Canada but also some intriguing differences in the practice of international relations and consequently military strategy. Based on his PhD thesis, John Blaxland’s Strategic Cousins is a masterful drawing out of the common experiences and nuanced differences faced by Canada and Australia in their strategic relations with the United Kingdom and the United States since the late nineteenth century.

One of Blaxland’s overall themes is that Australia and Canada could have achieved more together in influencing their senior strategic partners, both in the imperial defence and US alliance contexts (and in the UN), if they had effectively pooled their efforts more often. This argument is persuasive in itself but as he concedes, was often hamstrung by Canada’s traditional pre-occupation with Atlantic rather than Pacific issues, and by the neurotically-introverted, isolationist, Quebecois millstone perpetually limiting Canadian freedom of action in strategic affairs.

But, he observes, in the so-called ‘global war on terrorism’ Canada and Australia again have much in common in terms of strategic priorities and operational postures. Probably more so than at any time since the early days of the British Empire. As a result, Blaxland argues quite compellingly that the two defence forces have much to gain from working more closely together.
Cross-posted to The Monarchist

4 Comments:

Blogger fm said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10:06 p.m., January 24, 2008  
Blogger fm said...

Funnily enough, it was these very words that you've quoted (Neil James, I think) that brought me to your blog a year or so ago. I hadn't considered the similarities until then, but once I did I began to see the same issues appearing in Canadian discourse as our own. And actually, I think our politicians on the conservative side and some of our military people have been talking more closely over the last few years. F18 upgrade, C17 purchase, big honking ship/LHD proposals, submarine construction, SF organisation... Lots of stuff pops up that looks very similar.

But as to your original suggestion. I myself probably would have preferred our two countries to have partnered up in the beginning but I think it's probably a little too late for that now. Even though we've had our issues with each other, I think Australia and the Netherlands understand each other pretty well and probably wouldn't want to upset the entire apple cart. And it's not just military cooperation in Afghanistan -- we share Embassy space now as well. Also, not to denigrate the bravery of our forces, but I think the original Australian government decision purposely avoided going into the bloody Kandahar province and I can't see the new Labor government muscling up for more action than what we have. A news report out today quotes the CDF, air Marshal Houston, with the following:

Asked if he expected more troops to be sent to Afghanistan, he said Australia's 1078-strong force was the largest of any non-NATO country. "I think we are carrying our share of the burden."


So don't hold your breath.

10:18 p.m., January 24, 2008  
Blogger fm said...

PS. I should confess that this stands in contrast to what I thought a couple of months ago. With Labour's tough talk prior to the Federal election (hinting at a troop increase in the 'good war') and the troops withdrawing from Iraq and East Timor, I thought it possible that the new government of either stripe would increase the troops in Afghanistan. That looks less likely now. It was all talk, it seems.

10:49 p.m., January 24, 2008  
Blogger The Monarchist said...

The book is a fascinating read. Just by pooling our procurement needs, a lot could be achieved.

I wasn't looking for another 1,000 soldiers from Australia, just the opportunity to work together. But you're right, that moment has probably passed us by now.

11:31 p.m., January 24, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home