Opinion | The rules-based international order is officially dead. Has NATO suffered the same fate?

Much of the world is still trying to figure out what the consequences will be from Mark Carney’s speech in Davos, Switzerland. The prime minister won plaudits for daring to call out the behaviour of the world’s superpowers, particularly, President Donald Trump and the United States, although in neither case, by name.

Janice Stein, the founding director of the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, looked back at several previous speeches by Canadian prime ministers on an international stage and concludes that Carney’s was the most impactful ever.

Steve Paikin: Janice, I know how much you liked Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech in Davos. But the question everyone’s asking now is: now what? It may have felt good to punch back at the bully, but what kind of price is Canada going to have to pay for it? And this potential new working relationship among mid-sized countries that the prime minister talked about, excluding any of the world’s superpowers. What does that look like?

Janice Stein: The prime minister outlined a strategy of what he calls “variable geometry,” or creating flexible coalitions with partners who share our interests and when possible, our values. These coalitions will shift, depending on their purpose, and they will be nimble and quick, with no member able to exercise a veto. If members are unhappy, they drop out. If Canada wants to enhance security in the Arctic, for example, it could seek out partners such as Norway, Finland, and Sweden to achieve specific outcomes. As a Pacific power, Canada could choose to work with Japan and South Korea on security in the northern Pacific. This kind of strategy does not require elaborate institutions or infrastructure.

So, this is, for example, not about creating a new alliance or us joining the European Union or something like that?

There’s so much disunity among middle powers. You can never build a coalition —  the Europeans can’t even agree on the regulations for cheese. There’s 27 of them in the European Union. They’re never going to get together. They never have. So, we don’t have to do a deal with the European Union, just the relevant, interested parties. For example, we just signed an agreement with the most terrible name. I mean, I don’t know what these folks were thinking. It’s called ICE (Icebreaker Collaboration Effort). Would you believe it? But it’s about producing more icebreakers in the Arctic. It includes Finland, Canada, and the United States. And it’s about sharing research. But it’s three countries. It’s an opportunity for nimbleness, for flexibility, and for standing up for small coalitions issue by issue. We need to be very focused on what our interests are, and which of these interests we attach priorities to. And then we’re going to have to do the hard work of building “mini-lateral” alliances. There’s going to be costs to this. There’s no free lunch in this world.

That group needs a new name. Anyway, moving on. Given how fractious Trump’s relationships with various NATO members have been over the past many years, there may have been a temptation to interpret Carney’s comments as calling for the creation of a new international organization to replace NATO with these new “variable geometric” alliances. So let me ask: do you see these new relationships replacing NATO?

No. These are flexible coalitions, crafted to achieve specific goals. Some of these coalitions will strengthen and endure. Others will shift focus and members, and others, will disappear. NATO, on the other hand, is a deeply institutionalized collective security organization that is more than 75 years old. It has a secretary-general, an American military commander, a fund that invests in innovative companies, and the NATO Defense College that educates senior officers from across the alliance. More important, it is valued by its members, with the possible exception of the president of the United States.

On the one hand, Trump is actually getting grudging praise for calling out NATO members for being freeloaders even to the point of embarrassing his fellow Western leaders. But it worked, and they’ve all pledged to spend much more on defence. But on the other hand, in doing so, how much damage do you think the president has done to NATO?

A great deal. NATO’s effectiveness depends on the credibility of its commitments. When the most powerful NATO member, the United States, threatens the territory (Greenland) of a fellow NATO member (Denmark), that compromises NATO’s credibility whether or not the United States follows through.

You have already said the rules-based international order is officially dead. Do you share a similarly pessimistic prognosis for NATO?

Absolutely not. First, I do not think the United States will withdraw from NATO. Even if the president does not value NATO, the Congress does. Since Congress approved the treaty creating NATO, it would have to approve the withdrawal. Moreover, the alliance is simply too valuable to Washington, because NATO members buy so much military equipment from the United States. In the past, Canada has bought 75 per cent of the equipment it purchases from the U.S. So, comparing the level of spending across NATO members does not tell the full story. Understanding where NATO members are spending does matter. It is also important to remember that NATO matters to Europe, as they face an expansionist Russia, and as we have shown, it matters to Canada. We currently deploy soldiers in Latvia.

Janice Stein is the founding director of the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy.

OK, but the United States has been the indispensable nation, backstopping NATO for almost eight decades. Is NATO without American leadership still worth anything?

There is no denying that American leadership and assets matter to NATO. The United States supplies unique intelligence that only Washington can currently provide as well as invaluable long-range missiles and missile interceptors. Without these assets, NATO would struggle, but it would continue to function as a collective security organization, whose members are committed to come to the assistance of any member who is attacked. Over time, members would collaborate to fill some of these gaps. It would certainly be a struggle but given the acute awareness in Europe of Russia as a challenger of the status quo, I have little doubt that European members would work hard to strengthen the alliance.

So, I guess with the United States focused on an “America First” approach to international affairs these days, and taking much less of a leadership role in NATO, questions about what we should do will be inevitable. What do you think? Should or can Canada do anything to replace that leadership?

Before it could do that, Canada has to invest and rebuild its own military assets. This is a pivotal moment for Canada, as we decide how to invest our defence dollars. The government has committed to issuing a defence industrial strategy that will provide guidance on how we rebuild our defence industrial base. These investments will shape the future of our economy, the companies that can grow in Canada, and our future productivity. Economic and military security are now fused in a decade-long strategy. One compliments the other.

There’s the old expression, “May you live in interesting times.” Are these times a bit too interesting for you? Do you find yourself excited at the unpredictability of today’s world? You have to admit, as a student of foreign affairs, it would all be plenty fascinating if it weren’t so dangerous. 

In a decades-long career, I have never lived through times like these. We had decades where we believed that “the arc of history was bending toward justice.” That did not happen. On the contrary, we have seen both a return to great-power competition and a rise in ugly authoritarianism in developed democracies around the world, even in the United States. The prime minister was right to call out the “rupture” and to warn that “nostalgia is not a strategy.” It is harder to follow his advice not to grieve the passing of the liberal order, which served Canada so well. I am full of regret that we are no longer living in that world, but we are not. We have no choice but to face the challenges of the world we live in and to meet them. I am optimistic that Canada will become a stronger and more unified country, with a more innovative economy, and more self-confidence. But it will take hard work, with focus and purpose. We have no choice but to face the challenges of the world we live in, and to meet them.