NATO pushes the Canadian government to increase its military expenses
As a military alliance, NATO's member need to keep their military expenses high in order to stay in the organization. NATO is therefore pressuring the Canadian government to increase its military budget to 2% of its GDP, that is to increase its military expenditures up to at least 55 billion. This demand follows NATO’s goal, set in 2006 and reaffirmed in 2014, to have its members allocate 2% of their GDP to defense. As a result, Canadian military spending has already increased by 40% between 2014 and 20211. It also means these expenditures will continue to rise in proportion to GDP. These investments protect no one: Canada’s only border is with the United States, with whom diplomatic relations are set fair. These additional tens of billions per year will therefore be invested in international missions.
NATO is the armed wing of global North imperialism
As a member of the military alliance that is NATO, the Canadian government strongly contributes to the maintenance of U.S. domination over the rest of the world. However, NATO's interventions are not always declarations of war, but instead fit into a more subtle mosaic that makes opposition more complex. An example is the war in Afghanistan, initiated by the U.S. and the U.K. in 2001, where they carried out most of the bombings before a stabilization mission was taken over by NATO in 2003. At that time, the Hamid Karzai government was installed, and essentially, the Canadian mission consisted mostly to maintain the peace by operating checkpoints to prevent the ousted government from retaking control of the country by force. While the government only supported peacekeeping operations, the result was the same: it allowed Western allies to maintain control over the country. NATO remains an armed force that imposes the domination of the interests of Global North countries.
NATO and Militarism
NATO promotes armament as a way to deter attacks between nation-states. However, if the only reason one does not attack another country is that they are at the barrel of a gun, it becomes tempting to simply find a bigger gun. By occupying militarily, it provides arguments for the mobilization of armed groups. Indeed, it has been shown repeatedly that the military occupation of Afghanistan succeeded in galvanizing resistance, encouraging the development of armed militias and organizations: the examples of the occupations in Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq clearly show that these strategies are effective in destroying populations, but useless in establishing stable governments.
On an international level, the establishment of treaties that consider an attack on one country as an attack on the whole alliance quickly led the Soviet bloc to set up the Warsaw Pact, a structure that has since been replaced by the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). These various treaties legitimize attacks on hostile countries, as they facilitate member states’ entry into war. This can easily spiral out of control: after all, World War I partially started due to similar treaties. Moreover, military deployments in the Middle East have only multiplied the number of armed groups fighting in the region. It is only through justice and wealth redistribution that peace can be established.
As a conflict management tool, war disproportionately affects the poorest, as it is always the most desperate who enlists in the military. In so-called Canada, after the anti-recruitment campaigns in CEGEPs and universities in 2008-2009, military recruiting shifted toward Indigenous communities. Additionally, long-term occupations like those carried out by NATO are very costly in civilian casualties, because after the initial bombings, the enemy becomes the civilian population. Ultimately, all occupations eventually end, leading to deep political instability similar to the pre-conflict situation, but often with enormous damage to infrastructure. Furthermore, groups that have armed themselves to fight the occupation forces bring the country into a far worse situation than before, often compounded by economic sanctions or import blockades.
The world’s countries exist in a hierarchical relationship. That is to say, the richest countries, notably the seven richest (which make up the G7) – Canada, Germany, the United States, France, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom – live at the expense of other countries in the world where wages are much lower and where production has been outsourced over the past fifty years: Asia, Mexico, South America, and Africa. This organization is due, among other things, to strategies of economic, military, and political domination aimed at keeping Global North countries (the G7 and its allies) in dominant positions over the countries of the Global South (Asia, Africa, and South America). This is why most of our products are imported: generally, our wages are too high to be reduced to "dirty work". A glaring example lies in agriculture: more than 50% of our food comes from outside Canada, while 30% of the labor force in agriculture that still takes place here is made up of temporary migrant workers.
NATO is the sum of its colonial states
The four countries that blocked the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (1994-2007) — Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia — are either Major Non-NATO Allies (Australia and New Zealand) or founding NATO members (Canada and the United States). This is not surprising: directly in NATO’s charter, it is mentioned that French Algeria (the document dates from 1953) is part of NATO territories, along with other international territories. It is no coincidence that NATO is allied with countries like Israel: they are well-versed in territorial occupation strategies. Like all states, building the myth of a nation, of a uniform cultural group — whether Canadians, Quebecers, or Israelis — with one language, one culture, and one identity, is the basis for keeping minorities, whether Muslim, Haudenosaunee, Innu, or Haitian, in poverty and exploitation.