Toward AUKUS-CJ?

Canada may join the pact by the end of the year. Are we investing enough in advanced technologies to meaningfully contribute?

Last week, a diplomat let it slip that negotiators are trying to include Canada and Japan in the Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) submarine and technology sharing alliance by the end of the year. Canada and Japan wouldn’t join the nuclear submarine tier (pilar 1), of course, but the technology sharing component (pillar 2), which is focused on cyber, electronic warfare, quantum computing, artificial intelligence, hypersonics, deep space, and undersea capabilities.  

Apparently, the AUKUS partners want to include Canada and Japan before the upcoming US presidential election. If Donald Trump wins the presidency for a second time in November, there may be little desire in the United States to expand AUKUS to include other allies. If AUKUS can include Canada and Japan by the end of 2024, before a possible Trump inauguration in early 2025, then the onus would be on the new president to dismantle the fledgling alliance.

It's not evident that Trump would be dissuaded by this fait accompli. Concerns are mounting that the United States can’t build enough nuclear submarines to maintain its own fleet, let alone supply any to Australia. There’s grumbling in Australia about the logic of the submarine plan, too. But there are also signs that the alliance is solidifying. Australia just signed a deal with the UK’s BAE System to build their new nuclear boats. And if any country can figure out its shipbuilding challenges, it’s the United States. Trump may or may not be keen on AUKUS, but it’s an alliance meant to counter the adversary that he was most fixated on: China.

A second Trump administration, moreover, would be surrounded by international challenges, preoccupations, and chaos. In that context, dismantling AUKUS - or just kicking out Canada and Japan - might not be worth the time and effort. As far as bets go, trying to expand AUKUS before a possible Trump presidency is pretty low risk and low cost, politically speaking.

What’s the Canadian angle here? Joining AUKUS would be a boon for Canada and the Trudeau government. Being invited to join the alliance despite our lackluster defence spending would be a notable accomplishment, one that Trudeau would be able to vaunt leading into the coming election. With Canada being the only NATO member that’s failing to meet both the alliance targets for defence spending as a percentage of GDP and the percentage of the defence budget devoted to capital expenditures, entry into AUKUS would signal that Canada’s standing among allies hasn’t hit rock bottom (yet).

Still, one has to ask: what exactly would Canada bring to the AUKUS table? Are we going to be a real partner or merely there owing to allied largesse?

Part of the answer might have been offered at this year’s Ottawa Conference on Security and Defence. As part of his keynote address to the conference, defence minister Bill Blair announced Canada’s new military and defence artificial intelligence strategy. The strategy aims to have the defence department and the armed forces “AI enabled” by 2030.  These goals align with an earlier strategy aiming to digitally transform defence and the military by 2030.

It’s hard to know if the launch of the AI strategy is connected with the ongoing AUKUS negotiations, but it looks more than coincidental. If Canada wants to make a meaningful contribution to pillar two of AUKUS, it had better get moving on real defence investments in advanced defence technologies. Otherwise, Canada will find itself in yet another alliance where it’s a proud member, yet a paltry contributor. That tends to be how we roll in nearly every international endeavour these days, whether we admit it to ourselves or not. Given the state of the world, this habit is tanking our reputation among friends and partners, even more than it normally does. I sincerely hope we wouldn’t double down on that approach when it comes to AUKUS.

Circling back to Trump, it’s also worth pointing out the risk to Canada if we end up contributing little to AUKUS as a member. Assuming AUKUS is expanded by the end of year and Trump win the presidency, he may be more willing to freeze Canada out of the partnership if --as with NATO-- he thinks Ottawa is freeloading off Washington. Arguably, it would be better not to join AUKUS at all than to be marginalized because we aren’t contributing enough. Conversely, if Canada does make meaningful contributions, Canada’s value and commitment to the partnership won’t come up for debate. Suffice to say, that would be a far better outcome.

Let’s hope, then, that if the rumours are true and Canada may be included in AUKUS, Ottawa is planning to make real investments in the alliance’s pillar 2 priorities.