It will take some time...
...until the world decides that it really needs more Canada. If we essentially down arms at Kandahar any gains in terms of international clout will be down the toilet. CTV's David Akins has a couple of relevant posts at his blog:
1) Does Canada figure in NATO's future? Yes. Three times.
1) Does Canada figure in NATO's future? Yes. Three times.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies is relatively well-respected Washington-based think tank. A couple of weeks ago, it released a study that takes a look at the future of NATO. It was titled Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership (PDF) and it was jointly written by some heavy hitters: the former chiefs of the defence staffs in the U.S., Germany, France, the U.K., and the Netherlands. It is 152 pages long. Canada is mentioned all of three times...2) Canada, NATO, and defence spending...
...
*But despite those spending increases, Canada still ranks tied for 6th lowest spending on defence when defence spending is expressed as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product or GDP. In 2007, Canada spent 1.3 per cent of GDP on defence, compared to the NATO average of 1.8 per cent. Since as far back as 2000, Canadian spending on defence had remained relatively constant at 1.2 per cent of GDP but, in 2007, moved up a touch to 1.3 per cent. Here’s a selected list:
* 1. U.S. (4%)
* 2. Greece (2.8 %)
* 3. Turkey (2.7 %)
* 4. France (2.4 %)
* 5. Bulgaria, The United Kingdom (2.3 %)
* 7. Poland, Romania (1.9 %)
* 9. Italy (1.8 %)
* 10. Latvia, Slovak Republic (1.7%)
* —-
* 18. Canada, Denmark, Germany (1.3%)
* 21. Lithuania, Spain (1.2 %)
* 23. Belgium, Hungary (1.1 %)
* 25. Luxembourg (0.7 %)
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 5:02 p.m.
4 Comments:
Not sure what GDP number is used but using the one cited in the CIA fact book (2007 est), official exchange rate gdp of 1.1 trillion would give a 2007 ratio of 1.62%
Any insight over the discrepancy?
dante: Exchange rates?
Mark
Ottawa
Mark, question:
Why does the U.S. have more soldiers stationed in Germany, Italy, Japan, Hawaii, Korea, Alaska, and Iraq than in Afghanistan. The last and third last are understandable, but more in Alaska than Korea? While the U.S. is talking about possible failure in Afghanistan, can't they take their 80,000 wartime troops from Germany and redeploy them in Afghanistan?
I thought the 18.5 was in US $.
as for the 1.1 trillion, if it isn't adjusted, it would just bring the % up if it is further adjusted.
My main reason for asking is that every place I look seems to quote a different number.
My guess is that the spend of 18.5 seems a bit high.
Post a Comment
<< Home