Greg Quinn: Independence from the United States starts with fighter jets
A new program gives Canada a unique opportunity to chart a path with other allies
By: Greg Quinn
With each passing day the United States continues to demonstrate its unreliability and unpredictability as an ally.
Donald Trump frequently vents his frustration and anger at those of us on the right side of the argument (as opposed to those on the wrong side such as Russia, to whom he is surprisingly nice). This has led to the question of future defence spending in many countries, including Canada, coming to the fore.
As the debate over the purchase of the F-35 continues (see my piece in The Line from last year), the real question is what happens next as we move to the next generation of military aircraft?
At the minute, the reality is most of us are stuck with the F-35, but there should be no assumption that we will be stuck with U.S. equipment going forward.
That leads us to the snazzily titled Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) a sixth-generation future fighter program being developed by the United Kingdom, Italy and Japan.
In the words of BAE Systems (one of the leading commercial partners in the programme), GCAP is:
A truly international endeavour that will see the United Kingdom, Italy and Japan work together with a shared ambition to develop a next generation fighter aircraft
It added that GCAP:
[Brings] together the governments of the U.K., Italy and Japan, and their respective industries, to collaborate on shared military and industrial objectives in the delivery of a next-generation combat air capability. By fostering close collaboration between industries and governments, the programme is a cornerstone of strategic defence and security partnerships, and will deliver the capability to defeat the future threats of 2040+ with a targeted in-service date of 2035.
There is already talk of Canada joining this program, initially as an observer with the possibility of greater involvement down the line. There are many reasons why Canada should become more involved.
Most obviously is the need to decrease dependence on the United States for defence equipment and material. While some say the current U.S. approach is only temporary and that things will get back to normal when President Trump leaves the White House, I believe that shows a staggering level of naiveté.
To me, there has been a generational change in U.S. politics and in the thinking of the majority of the U.S. public. Rightfully there is anger at the freeloading the rest of us in NATO have taken advantage of under the U.S. defence umbrella. While that is changing, I have no doubt the average American will continue to harbour grievances at this, especially when encouraged by U.S. politicians. And name me a politician who won’t use any issue to score cheap political points?
And let us not have rose-tinted spectacles about the U.S. of old. Even in the depths of the Cold War they were not adverse to doing things that were for their own benefit — even at the expense of us erstwhile allies.
The United States wasn’t exactly an enthusiastic supporter of the U.K. during the Falklands War. Indeed, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, never failed to hide her antipathy to the U.K. and her pro-Argentinian stance. America also stood against the U.K. and Israel during the Suez War in 1956. There was also significant criticism of the U.K. in U.S. circles for “cutting and running” in Basra following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Donald Trump may well have done us all a favour in saying out loud what I suspect many in the U.S. think. So, some gratitude is needed there for opening up our eyes and showing that the U.S. (like us all) has its own interests.
Or as Lord Palmerston, a famous British foreign secretary and prime minister more eloquently put it in 1848: “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
It is therefore beholden on all of us in these current times to find those allies who best share our values and work with them. Hence, why Canada should join GCAP and work with countries not only with whom it has a shared history the U.K.) but also Italy and Japan.
But there are wider reasons, including the fact that Canada will, if it becomes a more involved partner, get its own share of the work, therefore increasing jobs and getting more sovereign control over its own defence equipment.
Yes, GCAP is still very much a program in development and some will point to that being a weakness. Indeed it is. But the more countries that come on board, the less risky it becomes and the closer to reality it becomes. This is not Canada going it alone with the CF-105 Arrow, or the U.K. trying to do the same with the TSR2. Instead it is a group of highly skilled countries sharing the risk for the sake of increased sovereignty and capability.
What better way to do that than to join together on a defence program such as GCAP? At the same time, it would show the United States that there are potential consequences for their actions, while making clear our commitment to defence.
So come on board, Canada, and join the party. I am sure you will be welcomed with open arms.
Greg Quinn OBE is a former British Diplomat who has served in Estonia, Ghana, Belarus, Iraq, Washington, D.C. (seconded to State Department), Kazakhstan, Guyana (as High Commissioner), Suriname (as Ambassador), The Bahamas (as High Commissioner), Canada (as Consul General Toronto and Calgary), and Antigua and Barbuda (as resident British Commissioner) in addition to stints in London. He now runs his own government relations, business development and crisis management consultancy: Aodhan Consultancy Ltd (www.aodhaninc.co.uk).
The Line is entirely reader and advertiser funded — no federal subsidy for us! If you value our work, have already subscribed, and still worry about what will happen when the conventional media finishes collapsing, please make a donation today. Please note: a donation is not a subscription, and will not grant access to paywalled content. It’s just a way of thanking us for what we do. If you’re looking to subscribe and get full access, it’s that other blue button!
The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Please follow us on social media! Facebook x 2: On The Line Podcast here, and The Line Podcast here. Instagram. Also: TikTok. BlueSky. LinkedIn. Matt’s Twitter. The Line’s Twitter.Jen’s Twitter. Contact us by email: lineeditor@protonmail.com
I commend to you Robert Kaplan's "The Revenge of Geography"
The issues with NATO are long-standing and multi-faceted. Anyone wishing to fix them would be willing to engage in a serious discussion about the current strategic environment and how it might be jointly addressed. Such issues could include:
1. Chinese aggression via non-military means.
2. The changing nature of war as demonstrated in Ukraine and Iran.
3. Green stupidity.
4. The consequences of listening to and participating in the WEF.
5. The corruption and subversion of the UN.
I see none of that in your in your article.
It seems to me there are very few downsides to Canada going with the Saab Gippon airframe. The autonomy and the jobs that would be supported by a very good platform, one better suited to the Canadian climate and terrain, seems to have little downside except for perhaps some tactical issues that may be able to be addressed.