New national security strategy: Canada to invest in preparing for conflict, but how much attention are we giving to preventing it?

 

By Arnold Neufeldt-Fast 

Yesterday, October 29, Prime Minister Mark Carney's government released "The Plan for a Stronger Canada: National Security for Canadians," Canada's first comprehensive national security strategy in more than two decades. 

The document is ambitious, wide-ranging, and in many respects persuasive. 

It starts from a simple premise: the assumptions that governed the post-Cold War era no longer hold. Canada's sovereignty faces new pressures, strategic competition is intensifying, technological change is accelerating, and economic resilience can no longer be taken for granted. 

In response, the government proposes a significant expansion of Canada's defence, industrial, technological, and diplomatic capacities. 

Indeed, the world has become a more dangerous place. Russia's invasion of Ukraine grinds on and Gaza remains devastated; new conflicts and proxy wars stretch from the Middle East to Africa; artificial intelligence, robotics, and drone warfare are transforming the character of armed conflict. 

It is frightening. Even long-standing assumptions about North American security have been shaken as President Donald Trump questions arrangements previous generations largely took for granted. 

Against this backdrop, Prime Minister Mark Carney has emerged as a remarkably effective leader. I have written positively about him in previous posts and continue to admire much of what he brings to this moment. Few people understand the changing global economic order as well as he does. He has articulated a credible strategy for reducing Canada's dependence on the United States, strengthening relations with Europe, and responding to new geopolitical realities. 

A majority of Canadians, myself included, take comfort in his competence. Yet competence does not relieve us of the responsibility to ask difficult questions. 

One of those questions concerns the rapid remilitarization now taking place across much of the Western world, including Canada. Defence spending is rising dramatically. Military procurement is becoming a major economic priority. 

Domestic weapons production is increasingly viewed not only as a security necessity, but also as a source of economic growth. Canada appears poised to become a much more significant player in global defence industries and arms markets. 

The new security strategy recognizes that security involves much more than military force. It speaks of economic resilience, international partnerships, diplomacy, food security, and institutional capacity. These are important contributions to a broader understanding of security. 

The new strategy offers much less about the capacities Canada must develop to prevent conflicts and rebuild relationships after violence has occurred. 

Yet there is a striking asymmetry in its vision. It provides a detailed account of the capabilities Canada must develop to withstand threats, defend its sovereignty, and prepare for conflict. It offers much less about the capacities Canada must develop to prevent conflicts, mediate disputes, address the conditions that give rise to violence, and rebuild relationships after violence has occurred. 

We are given a fairly sophisticated account of how Canada intends to prepare for a more dangerous world, but a much less developed account of how Canada intends to help make that world less dangerous. 

As Canada rearms for a more dangerous world, can we preserve and strengthen those traditions that once made us known for mediation, peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, international development, and bridge-building? 

I hope we can. Not because the dangers are unreal or because peace is easy, but because peace, too, requires its defenders. 

The challenge those of us who believe in peace is not simply to oppose war. Rather, it is to ensure that the work of peace remains visible and adequately supported while war once again claims the spotlight. It is to resist the temptation to speak of armies, weapons, markets, or nations in sacred terms. As Pope Leo reminded us this month, "There is no such thing as a holy war: only peace is holy." 

Whenever a new defence dollar is announced, let us also ask where the peace dollar is. 

Whenever a new defence dollar is announced, let us also ask where the peace dollar is. That question will become especially relevant when the federal budget is released on November 5. Budgets are moral documents as much as financial ones. They reveal not only what a country fears, but what kind of future it hopes to build. 

When governments speak of security, we should ask whether diplomacy, development assistance, conflict prevention, climate resilience, and peacebuilding are receiving commitments commensurate with their importance. 

And to the prime minister, whom I wish well, I would say this: the realism that makes you credible abroad should also extend to the tools of peace. They work best when funded before the crisis arrives. If Christians no longer make that case, there are remarkably few voices left who will. 

In part two, Arnold will reflect on who is speaking for peace in Canada, with a focus on church groups that are raising the issue. 

Arnold is Associate Professor of Theology at Tyndale Seminary of Tyndale University, Toronto, where he previously served as dean. He is currently on medical leave with Long COVID.