NATO If Necessary, But Not Necessarily NATO Critically Evaluating Canada’s Membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization /

The implication of this dominant wisdom for Canada is that NATO has been a good bargain: for the low price of $19 billion on national defence and the occasional deployment, Canada benefits from the protection of 28 allies and is covered by the American nuclear umbrella. [...] NATO is not a protection racket; while all members of the alliance are encouraged to increase defence spending, there is no mechanism in the short or medium run for punishing a member that does not spend the agreed-upon amount in the form of reducing the provision of defence to that member. [...] This comes in the form of continued pressure to increase defence budgets beyond the levels that are necessary for the defence of Canada, and within present defence spending, pressure to purchase goods that contribute to the deterrence the alliance provides and the defence of Europe, as opposed to goods that only benefit Canada (but that Canada might actually need), such as icebreakers. [...] The office of the assistant deputy minister (policy) at the Department of National Defence (DND) argued in 2004 that there are four main reasons for continued Canadian involvement in NATO after the end of the Cold War.20 The first is the “seat at the table” argument, according to which Canada’s membership in NATO grants it “diplomatic access, political influence, and intelligence at a reduced cost [...] The third is the “European argument,” which states that as the only non-European and non-American member of NATO, Canada plays a special balancing role in the alliance and contributes to the defence of Europe.