Rabat and the Fake Sociologist

I finally made it to Africa.  Five years ago, I had plans to go to the International Sociology Association's meeting in Stellanbosch, South Africa, and then off to a safari in Kruger National Park and a trip to Victoria Falls.  Alas, Covid got in the way.  This time, the reason was most the same--to network with the research committee of the ISA focused on the armed forces and other stuff--and the outcome was much better.

It can be confusing since I almost always go to a different ISA every year--the Intl Studies Association, which is multidisciplinary but mostly poli sci folks.  This ISA is almost entirely sociologists, but there is much overlap in how sociologists look at civil-military relations as political scientists.  Indeed, RC01 was founded by Morris Janowitz, who was one of the Gods of the field way back in the 1960s and much read/cited by both political scientists and sociologists.  

My purpose was mostly aimed at buttressing the partnership that is the CDSN and will be the CMRN.  The Canadian Defence and Security Network is in its 7th year of a 7 year grant.  So, we are applying anew, but to be successful, we need to be both more ambitious and more focused.  The Civil-Military Relations Network is both--global and very explicitly comparative but focused on only a slice of defence/security--civil-military relations.   Our summer (me and the co-directors and hq staff) are spending the summer revising older grant docs, writing new ones, and engaging partners to make sure they are on board and are willing to suffer through the grant agency's webpage.  Coming to this conference helped clarify for me how the CMRN can help the RC01, and how the RC01 can help the CMRN--this will make for clear, more authentic partnership letters and also a better actual partnership.  

Along the way, I went to panels and learned much from the various presentations.  My fave was by Helena Carrieras, a very prominent sociologist in the field of civ-mil, who had served as an officer in both RC01 and ERGOMAS (the European Research Group on Miltiaries and Society--another CDSN/CMRN partner).   She discussed her experience of serving two years as Portugal's Minister of Defense as a very self-conscious, self-aware sociololgist who had written on gender and the military.  Her talk discussed a variety of topics, including the challenges of being the first, how to deal with being the token woman, how to be self-reflexive but not too much so as sometimes decisions had to be made quickly.  Her term was dominated by the Ukraine war.  Just a fascinating discussion.

But, of course, I also came to Rabat to come to Rabat.  While this was the first time I visited a Muslim country or a real monarchy (sorry, Canada/Netherlands/UK/Sweden/etc)*, my previous experiences were tightly constrained--the 2007 trip to Afghanistan with a brief stop in both directions in Dubai.  I don't remember hearing the calls to prayer in Afghanistan--maybe we were too deep in the base at Kandahar--and my amazing hotel in Rabat was next to one.  So, this definitely produced a rhythm during the day and night.  The monarchy part was mostly amusing as I passed by the Royal Moroccan Surf Club while checking out the beach, and the idea of royal surf club just tickled me.

It was not as hot as I feared, but it was mighty warm.  It was San Diego-esque in that some mornings, there were clouds that kept things cooler, but they would burn off.  The legions of very small, very thin cats seemed to be mostly drained by the heat---the sleepiest, least hyper kitties I have ever seen.  The people were all very kind and helpful.  I tried to get by with my lousy French, which led to more than a few folks speaking English to me.  The diversity of the people was most amazing--people of a variety of colors, multiple languages, quite a range of what the women would wear from quite western to very conservative to in between.  The food was good, but I think I would have greatly benefited from a food tour or a guide showing me the better places.  Google maps led to me to a variety places that either didn't seem to exist or were hard to navigate, but it did led me to an awesome hole in the wall street food place that had awesome kefta.  I found it easier to order food in Japan than in Rabat as there were usually pictures to point at in Tokyo, no such luck in many places here.  As often occurs, I walked by some great places on my way out, leading to some regret.  

 I did enjoy staying in the old quarter which had a lot of markets and a really cool hotel.  I had a beautiful room, and they served a terrific breakfast each morning.  As always, better to be lucky than good. 

The beach was pretty close by, so I went swimming to check the "other side of the Atlantic box."  I have swum on both sides of the Pacific, both west and east sides of the Med, and grew up on the western side of the Atlantic, so I was due.  The mistake?  Choosing the side with more surf.  I love to play in the surf and they had some great sets.  But the ocean floor was the most dangerous combination of slippery and sharp.  I didn't get cut or bruised, but it would have been quite likely had I stayed for every long.  Still, a nice relief from the heat and it was fun despite the near death experience of it all. 

The challenging part has been the travel--that my addiction to United meant many hours in Frankfurt (so I took a quick train to Mainz and accidentally found a beer festival) and strange times to land and take off in Casablanca--as in landing at 1230am and taking off tonight at 130am.  Which meant having to find a nearby hotel for when I landed (and that worked out great), and having to spend a lot of time waiting for my flight tonight.  No plugs to be found, so I will run out of juice on each device eventually.  

Anyhow, it was both a fun and successful trip.  I go home very briefly and then take off for the  annual Saideman summer trip, which will include everyone--my siblings and all of the next generation--except, of course, for my mother who passed last year.  We couldn't travel far and wide during last few years, so this is the first time we are getting the entire gang back together in a non-Philly locale.  We shall see how it goes now that everyone is much older--whether they enjoy being dragged around a lake as much as they did ten years ago.  A key difference: we are heading west, where hopefully cannibalism does not break out again.

I plan to come back next winter for some research.  Hey, if they are willing to have protests across from the parliament, their defense types might be willing to talk to this wayward researcher.  Especially if he brings along one of his former grad students who speaks Arabic.

*  On my way out, I was surprised to see a small protest across the street from the parliament building.

The protest

The Parliament Building

 

Five Percent Is a Lie!

 Or perhaps we can call it a polite fiction.  What am I talking about?  Today, the leaders of NATO countries met and agreed to .... very little.  It is probably the shortest communique in history (see 2023 and 2024 for typical end of summit agreements/commitments).  They agreed to new spending targets and not much else.  No Ukraine, no China, no southern front (how to prevent immigrants from going to Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal), no nothing else.  

And this drives me crazy.  Before I get to the Big Lie, let me explain why I hate this 2% and now 3.5% madness. NATO does not exist to nag members to spend more on their defense, NATO exists to provide security for those in the North Atlantic community (broadly defined).  The 32 members are supposed to work on a variety of security issues, to create greater certainty, to deter Russia and other adversaries, and to reassure the allies.  This involves a lot of issues and lot of challenges.  These summits are like academic conferences--we academics need artificial deadlines to write our papers and leaders need these meetings to force them to reach agreement on tricky negotiations.  That all they got was "historic" commitments to spend more money represents a huge lost opportunity.

The other problem is that % of GDP spent on defense tells us ... that a country spent money, it is an input measure, so we don't know if they spent it well, or whether the country will use those funds to develop capabilities that would help the alliance.  Greece always did well in this measure despite spending mostly on troops aiming their rifles at Turkiye.   Not helping the alliance much especially as Greece never showed up when the alliance needed help.  It is a lousy measure, but it is easy to understand.  It might mean a bit more in the next few years for reasons I suggest below.

But this is life in the Trump era where this summit is a huge success because the alliance still exists.  Woot?  So, maybe we should be happy?  Depends on what you want out of an alliance.

Sure, the first clause of the communique refers to the iron clad commitment of Article V--that each country will respond (as each deems necessary, see the Dave and Steve book) to an attack on any one.  Let's not be too reassured by this since Trump is, well, almost as much as a threat to members as Putin is--given the threats he has made towards Greenland and Canada.  Plus Trump raised doubts about what he thinks A5 means on his flight over.  I am sure I have missed some utterance of his over the course of this day that undermines this "ironclad" commitment.  

Moving on to the big news 5%.  Wow!  Except it is not five percent but 3.5% plus 1.5%.  That is, the countries promise to move from the 2% promise to spending 3.5% of their GDP on defense stuff--planes, ships, tanks, other war material, pay for soldiers, sailors, aviators,etc.  What we usually think of as defense spending.  The 1.5% is spending on stuff that is "defense-related" which can mean pretty much anything--it is pretty elastic.  So, Germany can spend money on infrastructure--roads, ports, railroads, etc that benefit their citizens and that also help the transport of British, French, American, etc tanks, artillery, personnel to the front in the east.  For Canada, this might mean spending on northern ports and infrastructure, subsidies for mining rare earth metals, and other stuff that Mark Carney wants to do and they can call it defense stuff.  So, don't freak out at the 5%.  Freak out at the 3.5% instead as that would move Canada from spending $60b per year to $150b per year by 2035.  Yowza.  I doubt that Canada will get there (unless the economy tanks as the metric is defense spending/GDP).  But Canada will move in that direction.

Are countries doing this to placate Trump?  The change in the math to 5%? Yeah.  The 3.5%?  Perhaps not so much. The 2% standard was set after Crimea. The war in Ukraine since 2022 has taught NATO countires that 2% is not nearly enough--we all need drones, anti-drone tech, anti-air and anti-missile defenses, heaps and heaps of ammunition of all kinds, and a lot more.  So, the standard was going to shift and should shift (as much as I hate the idea of setting a % input standard).  Why 3.5% and not 3?  Well, part of it may be that the Baltics, Poland, and some others were already at 3% or beyond so they want the rest of NATO to catch up.  Part of it is appealing to Trump AND part of it is figuring out how to build militaries that can operate if the Americans stay home.  Europe and Canada have to develop the capacity to fight if the US ops out. 

Because no one can count on Trump to show up in a crisis, and no one knows what the next Republican will be like, but the Euros didn't like that unilateral Bush that much either. 

One more thing--the additional spending on defence is .... not going to fund American defense contractors.  That may be what Trump expects, but everyone wants a heap of strategic autonomy from the unreliable Americans.  Carney has talked much about how buying 75% of defense stuff from the US is not right.  Monday, he signed a deal with the EU as part of an effort to buy more European defense stuff.  Will this tilt the sub purchase towards Germany/Norway and away from South Korea?  No idea.  But expect other stuff to be made in Europe and then perhaps assembled or something in Canada.

 I am a bit buzzed right now since I have had half dozen media interactions today--lots of concern, confusion, consternation about the big announcement.  Again, the key is this: it is a massive increase in defense spending--to 3.5% of GDP.  The extra 1.5% is just justification for other spending priorities in most cases.

 Let me know if you have questions or additional info.   

Angry Steve Asks Angry Question

 I was at a side event for the NATO Summit tonight--a nightcap roundtable that featured a German government spokesperson, the Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine, and Senator Coots of Delaware.  I think that Coots is mostly a good guy and is definitely taking the right stands on Ukraine, but I was in a bad mood due to the Democratic Party's shenanigans.  So, I asked a pesky question: essentially, wtf are the Dems doing, lining up with Andrew Cuomo and also shooting down a doomed impeachment effort?  Coots said that he is tired of being told they are not fighting since they are fighting the awful budget bill.  And I get that, but I have a few simple rules:

a)  Don't support a sex pest. There is no reason the Dems should be lining up in support of Andrew Cuomo, who was a shitty governor, a shitty democrat (his moves helped NY's Republicans), and a shitty human being.  It really is not a hard call.  Maybe you don't like his main opponent, but, to be blunt, fuck that, the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.  Cuomo should have been run out of town on a rail or tarred and feathered.

b) Instead of opposing a doomed to fail impeachment effort, the Dems should be impeaching Trump every single day.  If Trump is engaged in impeachable acts every day (and he has), then the Dems need to keep up.  Just in the last week: deploying Marines to LA, continued blackmail of Harvard, not consulting Dems before/as he bombed Iran, and ... damn, I have lost track, so many, so many.  Coonts said that if they fought everything, it would shut down the government.  And, I wish I could have had a chance to reply: shut down ICE?  Yeah, that would be ok.  

c) and oh, yeah, don't vote for a fucking crypto bill.  FFS.

d) maybe support younger pols so that you don't have so many dead members of Congress that you can't block votes when the possibility could otherwise arise.

 I get it--the system and the media are gamed against the Dems. But the elections since November make it clear that the voters want fighters, not appeasers.  And, yes, this summit itself might become viewed as an Appeasement Summit (someone asked if this was the worst summit ever, and it was as serious question).  

The Democrats need to take this moment seriously.  DOGE, impoundments, Trump's incredible level of corruption, the politicization of the US military, the crushing of free speech/assembly, the many abuses of power, the faithlessness when it comes to executing the laws of the US, and the defiance of the courts are simply the starting point for the list of high crimes and misdemeanors.  To try to game out the 2026/2028 elections one must first think about how/whether those elections will be compromised by a weaponized Department of Justice.  They have started arresting Democrats and judges who are inconvenient.  FFS, this ain't politics as normal.

Ok, that's my rant of the late summit evening.  I probably didn't come across as too dispassionate tonight at the nightcap.  But it is hard not to be irate and disappointed when the Dems side with sex pests and against their own party members who seek to challenge the president.  For Fuck Sake!
 

 

How to Politicize A Military In Under 150 Days?

Yesterday, I ended up posting the same meme as a few months ago and wondered why I posted it the first time:

 And then I realized: Trump hit another item on the checklist of how to turn the military into a partisan actor--to politicize it.  

Here's the checklist:

1. Choose a highly partisan Secretary of Defense. ✅  This individual, besides the president, is the most important for managing the relationship between the civilians and the military.  The Democrats often have chosen Republicans (Hagel, Gates, Cohen) for this spot to ensure bipartisan and essentially nonpartisan leadership over the military.  Trump chose a wildly unqualified and disqualified person to do his bidding, one that is on the very far right side of the political spectrum. 
2. Fire senior officers for not being sufficiently loyal to the man in charge as opposed to the Constitution. ✅Senior officers have been fired before, but not because they were accused of being insufficiently partisan--McChrystal, MacArthur, etc. Perhaps getting rid of the JAG's, the top military lawyers, fits here (thanks to the commenter for this).
3. Encourage the troops to be partisan.✅  Trump's speech yesterday where he encouraged the troops to boo the Democratic leaders of LA and California.  In the past, leaders of the military refrained from voting because they didn't want to be seen as partisan.  While retired officers have helped politicize the military by visibly supporting candidates and parties with the aim of making it appear as if they represent the active forces (Flynn for the GOP is the most obvious case, Allen for the Dems in 2016 sort of paralleled this.), this is far worse--active troops booing Democrats.
4. Use the military to do law and order stuff domestically.☑️  This is where we are now--on the verge of this.  We have national guard and maybe Marines escorting ICE as they seek to toss people into concentration camps or deport them. But the Insurrection Act invocation, coming soon, will greatly expand that.
5. Partisan screening at all levels of the military. ☑️ We already have it at the top, but thus far the closest we get is: don't come to the Fort Bragg speech if you are not a fan of Trump. 
6. Mandatory party membership for officers.  Not there yet.
7. Commissars--placing party officials inside military units to vet the decisions of commanders.  Not yet. 
8. Indoctrination. ✅ Having political education at the various military schools is another step, and given what is happening now with the personnel at the US Air Force Academy, the courses and books at the War Colleges, this is already underway (h/t to the commenter for this suggestion). 

These are just the steps to politicize the military.  There are plenty of moves one could and Trump has made to move the US to an autocracy, such as developing paramilitary units that are loyal to one person--that would be ICE.

And, yes, to be clear, politicizing the armed forces like this has the impact of moving the US into autocracy.  A nonpartisan military is an essential foundation, if underappreciated, of democracy.  Dictators have partisan militaries.  Democracies have militaries that largely stay out of partisan politics even if they are inherently political entities.  

The Bright Line Watch folks can identify all the steps taken thus far to cross into autocracy.  My top three or so are: refusing to spend as Congress allocates, violating the due process rights of many people, and politicizing the military.    

There are other truly awful consequences besides ending American democracy: reducing military effectiveness (partisan armies tend to suck at combat), raising the risk of civil war (civil wars often start when a military breaks apart and takes competing sides), Americans getting killed (escalation of force is not great, Bob).

 The other meme I am using a lot these days: 

 

H/T to James Vizzard and other bluesky dwellers for helping me compose this list. 

 

 

The Line Is Drawn Here: No Room for Transphobia

 As Pride month is upon us and as folks are still learning the wrong lessons from the last election, I realized I had tweeted and skeeted much over the years about transphobia, but haven't written much here.

The BLUF is pretty basic: we have no reason to hate or fear trans people, but we have a lot of reasons to hate and fear those who demonize trans people.

Over the past decade or so, the Republicans and their allies in the media and elsewhere as well as a certain horrible author have been fostering all kinds of fears about trans people--that they will assault women in bathrooms, that they will unfairly dominate the sports they compete in, that kids are transitioning because it is cool, and so on.  There is so much wrong with all of this, but let's focus on the most important points:

1. Trans people are people, they are not threats.  
2. Trans people, because they are so marginalized and face such hostility, have a high rate of suicide, and face a great deal of violence.
3. Trans people, because they are small and marginalized, don't have much power so anyone targeting them is always punching down.
4. Actors are mostly targeting them because it is handy politically. 
5. The relative harm or costs/benefits of regulating trans people is clear.

1.  Trans people are people, not threats.

One can go with all of the lies and threat inflation, and it becomes quite clear that these people are no more threatening than anyone else.  Indeed, like immigrants, these people are less likely to engage in bad behavior precisely because they are more likely to pay a higher price.  Who is assaulting kids and women?  Clergy.  Cops.  Teachers.  Parents.  There is simply no evidence that trans people are engaging in crime against women or children at a rate higher than everyone else.  But, like past efforts to demonize minorities, such as when rape accusations were (are) weaponized against Black men, this is an effort to make people fearful of those folks who are different. 
Let's go to sports: how many trans girls (notice, it is always fear of boys and men transitioning) are dominating their sports?  How many are actually in sports?  The advantages that trans girls/women are supposed to have over cis girls/women are, um, not as much as feared. The idea that someone would just transition so that they can compete better in high school or collegiate sports is just offensive and dumb--transitioning is not easy and it is quite costly in money, emotions, and all the rest. There is no risk of trans kids taking over sports.  Maybe a few trans kids will win some competitions.  And the cost of that to those who finish second or third?  To foreshadow, that's not worth having every girl's genitals checked at every competition or in the bathrooms of malls and stores.  
How else are trans people threatening?  Do they have motorcycle gangs holding small towns hostage?  Have they secretly joined pivotal organizations and can now control them at the expense of everyone else?  What exactly is this threat?
One last threat: kids are transitioning too much.  It is so hip, there's so much peer pressure, that kids are making irrevocable decisions without parental permission.  Oh wait, that's not happening.  Certainly, more kids are reporting gender dysphoria with this piece putting the number at 42,000 in 2021.  Wow, that's a lot of kids.  Oh wait, there were something like 72 million kids in that year, so this is something like .06% of all kids. But so many kids are on puberty blockers, right?!  Um, no.  1,390 in 2021. How does that compare to the percentage of kids being sexually assaulted?  28%, with 3/4 of those being assaulted by someone they know, mostly parents.  Given how few trans people are parents, I am guessing they are not responsible for most of sexual abuse of kids. Just putting this "threat" into context.  And, yes, the number of cops abusing kids over the past twenty years or so (actual reports, not total number of cops doing this) > kids getting puberty blockers in 2021.  Fewer kids are getting puberty blockers than being abused by priests: more than 4200 allegations of Catholic clergy abusing kids in one year.  

So, no, trans people are not a threat, kids are not facing a severe risk of being bullied into being trans.  Other people, supposedly trustworthy people, are far greater threats, but you would not be able to tell that from the NYT or other media outlets and certainly not the Republican party. 

2. Trans people, because they are so marginalized and face such hostility, have a high rate of suicide, and face a great deal of violence.

What makes all of this threat inflation and incitement of violence truly awful is that trans people have long been at great risk.  The threat is not that they will harm others but either they will harm themselves or others will do so.  Somewhere between 30-40% of trans people have attempted suicide and around 80% have considered it.  I knew it was bad, I didn't know it was this bad.  Transgender people are four times more likely than cisgender people to experience violent crime!

Again, the threat here is not by trans people but to them.  The NYT and other outlets should be focused on how to protect this vulnerable minority, not how to protect the majority of people from them.   

3.   Trans people, because they are small and marginalized, don't have much power so anyone targeting them is always punching down

Trans people are about .6% of the US population.  They are not a huge group, they are not tied to a strong lobbying organization, they do not control the commanding heights of the media or the political system. Are there even conspiracy theories that try to position trans people as powerful?  I doubt it.  It is striking that one of the loudest and most aggressive voices in this is, well, the richest woman in the UK and one of the richest people in the world has decided to make her post-bestselling book mission to attack trans people and support transphobes.  Whenever someone of that level of power attacks, they are punching down, so maybe it is unfair to be critical of such folks since they lack targets to punch up?   

 4.  Actors are mostly targeting them because it is handy politically

Trans people are attractive targets for politicians who want to whip up hate. Why?  The size of the group means that many people do not know trans people, so they will have less empathy and understanding, and they are easy to define as "other."  It is basic social psychology and thus basic comparative politics that people will feel more in common with each other if there is some "other" out there that is alien, that is seen as less than, that is viewed as strange.  Politicians have always targeted those who are different.  Since most people are cisgender, trans people are "other" to most potential voters, campaign contributors, etc.   

Sure, a party or a politician could offer a more hopeful, unifying vision of the political community, but when a party has a political agenda that hurts most people, it is best to spray the most rancid distraction sauces.  Most of the GOP's stances are out of touch with the mainstream, but if they can get to the media to portray their opponents as captured by this tiny special interest, if they can cause parents to be concerned about their rights (to oppress their kids), then they can grab more votes.   

And yes, hating trans people is bad enough.  It is also a strategy to try to roll back rights for the entire LGBTQ+ community.

 5. The relative harm or costs/benefits of regulating trans people is clear.

This is a very small group that faces much risk of violence, so how do the benefits of restricting their freedom to live as they choose measure up against the costs?  Hey, Steve, that's unfair, when you put it like that, of course, there is no way that their freedom should be abridged.  This is kind of like the voterfraudfraud stuff that I have harped about here and there for years but much worse.  In the case of voterfraudfraud, it is the supposed threat posed by voter fraud (which is not a threat) that justifies restricting people's rights and abilities to vote.  That math never works because the history of the US has always made it clear that the threat/reality of voter suppression is far greater than that of voter fraud.  The math of regulating/restricting trans people's rights is even more obvious: they pose no risk yet restricting their rights, limiting their lives, presents tremendous costs to them.   

 I am outraged by transphobia.  Why?  Maybe a bit of guilt that I was homophobic in high school (not violently so, just in attitude).  It took going to college where I got to meet gays and lesbians and bisexuals to make me shed stereotypes and fears (I was "radicalized" not by my profs but by my peers, of course).  But it is also because it is so obviously awful to be inciting violence and seeking to restrict the freedom of very vulnerable people.  As a result, I have absolutely no tolerance for anyone being "concerned" about kids being rushed into transition or "concerned" about trans women beating cis women in swimming or whatever.  I see people making those argument as enablers of hate.  They may not be conscious of that, but damn it, the reality is so obvious they should be.  

Some loose threads/additional explanation/more unedited spewage: 

When I started to see trans people increasingly become targets ten or fifteen years ago, even though I did not know any, I could see these people as ....  people deserving of dignity and happiness.  That and it is not my business to tell these people how to live. To be honest, transphobia has become a pretty useful indicator for evaluating politicians--are they hateful, are they cowardly, are they so opportunistic as to use hate against a vulnerable group?  That old poem about "first they came for the socialists" isn't quite right. First they came for the disabled and the trans people...  And  today's Nazis are doing the same thing.  I pointed out Pierre Poilievre's transphobic stances to the woman who was seeking my vote for her and by extension for him.  

Over the past few years I have gotten to know some trans people, and a relative recently transitioned.  So, yeah, that increases my outrage, my contempt, my frustration, but it has been there a while.

Finally, I didn't mention Voldemort by name and I didn't mention the shitty form of feminism these transphobes adopt because my arguments here stand on their own, no matter how captured significant hunks of the UK are by this hate.  And, yes, I focused mostly on the US case because the stats were easy to find, but these transphobe dynamics are part and parcel of the far right effort around the world to mobilize hate.  Transphobes tend to travel with anti-semites, Islamophobes, racists, misogynists, eugenicists, of course, homophobes, and other haters.

Canada and Golden Dome: A Trump Trap

Trump is putting his most expensive fantasy into the 51st state bullshit machine.  This is quite predictable, even as the US Ambassador to Canada is doing his best to alienate Canadians by portraying the US as a victim in all of this.  Why is the Golden Dome a trap for Canada?

To be clear, this is no longer about being pro or anti ballistic missile defense.*  Canada didn't join ABM in the early 2000s because George Bush Jr. was violating an international agreement, and Canadian leaders didn't want to be on the side of tearing down the international order.  This meant that NORAD became a difficult place, as the binational arrangement meant that Canada was providing sensor data to the Americans but couldn't be in the room where the defense stuff was being planned/operated.  The political salience of ABM has declined, and the treaty is now mostly dead.  So, it is no longer as much of a constraint on Canadian policy-making, nor does the Canadian public care that much.

But Golden Dome?  Oh my.  I had been suggesting it was a trap before Trump issued his social media blast that it would cost $61b if Canada didn't become a 51st state.  Why is it a trap?  Because Golden Dome is incredibly expensive and, yes, it is a fantasy.  It won't stop the US or Canada from being devastated in a first strike by China or Russia.  It probably won't be able to stop a North Korean attack either, and that has long been the default excuse for missile defense fans when it becomes obvious that their magical thinking hits reality--that a big nuclear power can always get enough nukes through in a first strike.   

But the trap really snaps when the US demands that Canada pays its fair share of this incredibly expensive, doomed to fail project.  Lo and behold, Trump has randomly decided on $61b as the price tag.  Canada has already committed to spending nearly $40b on modernizing its share of NORAD--mostly the sensors that would detect all kinds of attacks coming mostly from across the Arctic.  This is over a long time frame.  Is the Trump demand of $61b over the long run or a payment up front?  Canada and PM Carney can probably convince Trump that their already planned $38b or so is their contribution, that it is new money (Trump can't do math, isn't very aware of anything anyway) aimed at Golden Dome. An additional $20b?  Canada could say that it will be increasing the investment in these sensors by 50% in the long run--we are quite accustomed to cost overruns on major defense projects (see the ships).  In the long run, Trump will be gone and the promise can be broken.

But if Trump wants Canada to spend fast, to spend $61b now?  That is not going to happen.  That would crowd out all of the other defense spending, the stuff that is really needed right now to have a functional military.  Plus Trump is toxic and Carney came to power by promising to resist Trump.  Carney's first statement on this was: we will do what is in our best interests and we will look into this.  So, he is not going to realign Canadian defence spending to satisfy Trump.

One more thing: imagine a world where Trump gets his magic shield, do you think Canadians would be sure that Trump would use it to protect Canada?  No, not with this 51st state bullshit.

So, the trap has been set--Canada is screwed either way. Comply with Trump and distort the economy and the military spending or refuse to comply and kiss NORAD goodbye.  Waiting out Trump and hoping he gets distracted is probably the best bet.  That, or just lie to him while assuring Canadians (say it in French) that we won't be complying. 

* I try to be consistent and spell it defense when it is about the US, defence when it is about Canada, but when it is US-Canadian defense/defence stuff, I just go wherever my fingers tell me.

Anticipating the NATO Summit in The Hague: Ambushes and Canaries

 Today, we held an event at Carleton to discuss the upcoming NATO summit at the The Hague. We were asked by the Dutch Ambassador to do so, and it was our pleasure.  Both the Dutch and Polish ambassadors spoke about what they are hoping for, and the academics, encouraged or baited by me, largely focused on the Trump of it all.

Ambassador Vonno of the Netherlands spoke about the 80 years of freedom as we just passed the anniversary of Canada (and the US) liberating the Netherlands and of the important role of NATO in guaranteeing that freedom.  Ambassador Dzielski of Poland spoke of the Ukraine war and its impact on Poland and the need for NATO to stay steadfast in Europe.  

Amb. Vonno

The three speakers were Frédéric Mérand of the Université de Montréal, Aaron Ettinger of Carleton, and Stéfanie von Hlatky of Queens.  I was originally just the emcee but our moderator, Robert Baines of the NATO Association of Canada couldn't make it.  Each had a lot of sharp things to say.  Frédéric focused on more on the European dynamics, Aaron on the US-Canadian relations, and Stéfanie more on the NATO-ness of it all.  

Key points along the way:

• Frédéric:  
• Europe needs more contingency planning, 
• The French were right--that we can't count on the US.
• Aaron: 

• 

  Amb. Dzielski

  Time is a big factor here--how do we avoid wasting time.  That muddling through is an approach but it might not get us very far.
• Canada should continue to be "boring."
  
• We can't count on Trump being "transactional" as that is too rational.  He reneges on deals all the time. 
• The donut strategy may be what Canada has to do again--focus on everyone else in the US and their interests in/with Canada and not focus on Trump.
  
•  Stéfanie:
• The NATO summiteers will probably be focused less on advancing an agenda and more on protecting past agreements.  Try to keep various initiatives alive.  But Ukraine is probably not going to like the outcome as consensus on that will be very hard to reach.
• Maybe have fewer summits to provide Trump with fewer triggers.   

I mostly just asked questions, but I did chime in here or there, including arguing that Trump is an uncertainty engine and that NATO for so long reduced uncertainty ... until now.   I did discuss how the Europeans hadn't really taken the 51st state thing seriously, but perhaps they mi

ght see us as the canary in the coal mine--that Trump might have some limits to how awful he is.  But if he continues to beat up on Canada, then Europe will know that they have be far warier and be better prepared. The bad news is that canaries in coal mines are often ... dead.  So, Canada might end up paying a huge price before Europe gets serious and united on this stuff.

Finally, Hannah Christensen, who works for us but used to be the key staffer running SFU's NATO Field School (and she often co-runs their podcast), had some concluding remarks.  The big one: she noted that Vance essentially ambushed Europe at the Munich Security Conference, that Trump ambushed Zelensky in the White House, so they might set up a trap at the NATO summit.  Given that I see the 5% discussion to be a pretext to reject NATO, I can't say that Hannah is wrong.  I think she nailed it.  

And that will make for an interesting trip for Stef and me, as we are going to be going to the NATO Expert Forum, which is a side party that happens next to the summit. We have done this a few times before including Warsaw in 2016, Brussels in 2018, and DC last year.  So, look for a blog post or two in late June as we go into very blue rooms and watch as the communique comes out (or not?), specifying what gained consensus.

 

Oh, and the Dutch embassy was very generous with its gifts--orange stuff including chocolate in orange wrapping paper.