Latest news with #CentreforDefenceandSecurityStudies
Global News
5 days ago
- Politics
- Global News
Iran is ‘the elephant in the room' as NATO meets amid escalation fears
NATO allies will try to ensure this week's summit isn't derailed by the fallout from U.S. military strikes on Iran, experts say, but the conflict may still be 'the elephant in the room.' U.S. President Donald Trump late Monday announced that a ceasefire between Israel and Iran would be phased in over a 24-hour period. However, the prospect of lasting peace between Iran, the U.S. and the wider Middle East remained uncertain Tuesday, with Iran and Israel continuing to trade strikes and Trump openly voicing his frustration. The two-day gathering at The Hague is set to focus on boosting allies' defence spending and reaffirming support for Ukraine, but is starting a day after Iran launched retaliatory missile strikes on a U.S. air base in Qatar. Those attacks are unlikely to trigger NATO's Article 5 commitment to collective self-defence, however, experts say. That's because any NATO response to the conflict could further risk fraying the alliance. Story continues below advertisement 'NATO doesn't really have a mandate to get involved in the Middle Eastern conflict, and they are struggling to just keep NATO hanging together,' said Andrea Charron, a political science professor and director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba. 'I don't think the Trump administration wants to negotiate for consensus in the protection of the U.S.' 3:30 Iran launches retaliatory missile attack on U.S. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar All NATO allies must agree on answering an Article 5 invocation with self-defence military actions to support a member under attack. Article 5 is the principle of collective defence: an attack against one member of the military alliance constitutes an attack against all and will spur a joint response. To date, Article 5 has only been invoked once, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S., which led to limited NATO operations supporting American forces in the Middle East. Those operations were ultimately overshadowed by the coalition mission against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Story continues below advertisement The current situation in the Middle East is far different, however. What is different this time? The Trump administration has been adamant that it is not pursuing war with Iran, and that its strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend were in support of Israel's mission — another reason why experts say NATO won't want to get involved. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'This is not a NATO out-of-area operation whatsoever,' said Andrew Rasiulis, a former Canadian defence department official and a fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. 'The United States has not been attacked. This is Israel's problem.' Qatar's government said Monday it successfully intercepted most of the short- and medium-range ballistic missiles launched by Iran at Al Udeid Air Base, which houses both American and Qatari troops. U.S. and Qatari officials said there were no casualties. Story continues below advertisement Iran said the attack matched the number of U.S. bombs dropped on its nuclear facilities and that the targeted base was outside of populated areas, suggesting Iran wanted to de-escalate. 0:42 Iran is a 'sponsor of terrorism', Carney says Although a full-scale attack on a U.S. military base or embassy in a non-NATO country could be considered a 'highly provocative' attack on U.S. soil, Charron said, others doubted that would be enough to trigger an Article 5 invocation. 'The bases are basically like rented property,' said Christian Leuprecht, a senior fellow on defence and security at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. In the case of the attack on the Qatari base, he said it would be up to Qatar to retaliate against a violation of its sovereignty. He also compared the current Iranian response to that in 2020 after the U.S. killed Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander Qasem Soleimani, which also did not escalate the conflict. Story continues below advertisement However, he noted Turkiye — which has long had tensions with Iran — also has a military base in Qatar, and 'it's not entirely a left-field question' whether it could invoke Article 5 itself if that base is attacked. A prepared text summit statement agreed by NATO governments and seen by Reuters says: 'We reaffirm our ironclad commitment to collective defense as enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty — that an attack on one is an attack on all.' How could Iran affect the summit? Experts agreed that the larger question is whether the summit can be held together as the Middle East conflict evolves. Speaking to reporters Monday, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte sidestepped questions about Iran, saying the conflict was outside NATO's territory and was not among the main topics for the summit. Story continues below advertisement He did say, however, that the U.S. strikes were not a violation of international law — contrasting with statements made by the leaders of NATO members France and Norway — and that Iran must never develop nuclear weapons. 'Allies have repeatedly urged Iran to meet its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty,' he said. 'This summit is about the Euro-Atlantic area, making sure that we can defend ourselves against the Russians — the really fast-reconstituting Russians.' 1:24 'All allies agree' on new NATO defence spending target, Secretary-General says The brief summit statement will include just one reference to Russia as a threat to Euro-Atlantic security and another to allies' commitment to supporting Ukraine, Reuters reported. NATO has called out Iran for supporting Russia's war in Ukraine, including the supplying of drones to the Russian military. Story continues below advertisement Iran's foreign minister met Monday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had offered to mediate talks between Iran and Israel for a ceasefire. The main achievement of the NATO summit is expected to be a formal agreement among all allies to commit to a new defence spending target. Under the new plan, countries would spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on 'core defense' — such as weapons, troops — and a further 1.5 per cent on security-related investments such as adapting roads, ports and bridges for use by military vehicles, protecting pipelines and deterring cyberattacks. That increase, to be phased in over 10 years, would mean hundreds of billions of dollars more spending on defence. Prime Minister Mark Carney has said Canada will meet the alliance's previous, decade-old target of two per cent of GDP by the end of this fiscal year, with over $9 billion in new investments. That newly fast-tracked commitment was announced amid ongoing security and trade negotiations with the U.S. Trump has called on NATO allies to boost defence spending to five per cent and criticized members who haven't met the older target. He called Canada a 'low payer' and 'just about the lowest' in comments to reporters on Friday. 0:53 Trump slams Canada for 'just about the lowest' in NATO defence spending contributions This week's summit is being seen as a victory for Trump, and experts say he wants to be on hand in Brussels to commemorate the higher spending commitment. Story continues below advertisement Leuprecht said the U.S. strikes on Iran have sent just as strong a message to NATO as they did to Russia, China and the Middle East. 'Israel had to do the dirty work (in Iran) … so the Americans could fly in, drop the bomb and leave,' he said. 'That's the message to the Europeans: you're going to have to step up (and) do the dirty work in terms of deterrence. Same with Canada. 'It's also a message to Putin and Xi Jinping, though, that when American interests are at stake and America draws red lines, count on the Americans to engage.' — with files from Reuters and The Associated Press
CBC
26-02-2025
- Business
- CBC
U of M defence, security experts urge Canadians to watch what Trump does, not what he says
As Donald Trump continues to muse about making Canada the "51st state" and prepares to impose tariffs on Canadian goods, the U.S. president is moving Washington closer to Moscow. If you find this topsy-turvy state of affairs bewildering, you're not alone. Trump's desire to hold talks with Vladimir Putin about ending the Russia-Ukraine war — and the U.S. vote on Monday against a United Nations resolution to blame Russia for the invasion — has shocked the director of the University of Manitoba's Centre for Defence and Security Studies. "The Trump administration has decided that it can trust and align itself with adversaries more so than allies — and that's concerning for all allies," Andrea Charron said Tuesday in an interview. Trump's move to thaw U.S. relations with Russia have left NATO allies in Europe considering how they can reduce their reliance on the United States for defence. Canada, however, has fewer options, given our geography and the deeply integrated nature of North American defence. In this regard, Charron has some advice for Canadians: Don't assume Trump's overtures to Putin will mean the worst for the future of NATO or Canada's close, 85-year-old military alliance with the United States. At least not yet. "One of the things we've learned from the first Trump administration is he makes a lot of pronouncements, but then we have to sort of wait and see how he follows through," Charron said. "This might be the start of a bromance between Trump and Putin, but the proof is going to be in the pudding about, 'OK, well, what is it then that Russia can supply to the U.S.?'" In a theoretical one-for-one swap, Russia doesn't have much to offer the United States as a strategic or economic replacement for Canada, its closest military and trading partner. James Fergusson, a senior scholar at the U of M's Centre for Defence and Security Studies, said Trump's overtures to Moscow harken back to the periods during the Cold War, when the U.S. and Soviet Union held talks to ensure they could peacefully co-exist. Like Charron, Fergusson said Canada-U.S. defence is too integrated to be disentangled, even when there are tensions between Ottawa and Washington. "I don't think we're at this stage of a complete realignment. Certainly the emotional rhetoric that we've seen coming out of this government and elsewhere implies this is where we're headed down the road," Fergusson said Tuesday in an interview. Instead, he suggested this moment in history provides Canada with the impetus to follow through on longstanding commitments to increase defence spending, particularly when it comes to surveillance of the vast Canadian Arctic. "This is a great irony: Trump is going to be good for us. We may finally have to get our house in order," Fergusson said. Fergusson urged Canadians to pay more attention to what Donald Trump does, compared to what the mercurial president says he will do. "Don't be emotional, be practical and be objective as we can," he suggested, describing the rising nationalism in Canada as understandable but not useful when it comes dealing with Trump. "The rhetoric won't help the relationship. We know how he responds to these things," he said. "We have got to try to be more mature than him." While Canada's close military alliance with the United States dates back to the Second World War, the two nations have had disagreements about defence over the decades. During the Cuban missile crisis, Canada initially refused to support the U.S. naval blockade of Cuba or allow the U.S. to place nuclear-armed Bombers on Canadian soil. Canada also declined to support the Vietnam War or the U.S. invasion of Iraq during the Second Gulf War. In this context, Canada's full-throated support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and the potential U.S. support for a ceasefire that could allow Russia to maintain its Ukrainian holdings is only the latest difference of opinion, as disorienting as it may be. It would be rash to assume this disagreement means the United States can no longer belong to NATO, Charron said. "I think the allies are prepared to do a lot of bending to keep the U.S. as a member," she said, adding there have been other problematic members of the 32-member NATO alliance, most notably Hungary and Turkey. "It's not perfect. There are certain members that do more than others. There are certain members who are more helpful than others. But together, that alliance is stronger than any one adversary out there."
Yahoo
19-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Explainer-What is the Cook Islands deal with China and what has worried NZ?
By Lucy Craymer WELLINGTON (Reuters) - Growing ties between Cook Islands and China, including a new comprehensive partnership agreement action plan detailed this week, have raised concerns in New Zealand, which has a close constitutional relationship with its tiny Pacific neighbour. WHAT ARE THE COOK ISLANDS? The Cook Islands are a group of 15 small islands and atolls halfway between New Zealand and Hawaii, scattered across 2 million square km of resource-rich Pacific Ocean. See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment and feel-good stories. By signing up, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy. Since 1965, the Cook Islands has been a country in free association with New Zealand. Its citizens have New Zealand passports and all the perks of that – access to New Zealand's healthcare and education system and the ability to work there. It is permitted an independent foreign policy, but the two countries are required to consult on security, defence and foreign policy issues. Its population of 15,040 is dwarfed by more than 90,000 who identify as Cook Island Maori and who live in New Zealand. Now designated a high-income country so no longer eligible for international Official Development Assistance, the small economy relies on tourism - mostly from New Zealand - which collapsed during the COVID-19 pandemic. China and the Cook Islands established diplomatic relations in 1997 and in 2018 upgraded it to a comprehensive regional strategic partnership with other Pacific island states. WHAT IS THE AGREEMENT? The agreement signed by Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown and Chinese Premier Li Qiang outlines a number of areas the two countries will improve cooperation including education, the economy, infrastructure, fisheries, disaster management and seabed mining. Anna Powles, associate professor at Centre for Defence and Security Studies at Massey University, highlighted enhanced cooperation in areas of hydrography and geospatial research, which has direct military applications. It also aims for improved cultural ties, but no debt or explicit security ties are included in the deal. A number of memorandums of understanding were also signed during the visit and these have not been released publicly. WHAT HAS WORRIED NEW ZEALAND? New Zealand has complained about a lack of transparency around the agreements signed by Brown with a China that has become significantly more assertive in the Pacific in recent years. Australia and the United States have pushed back against China's increased Pacific presence, boosting funding in the region and signing onto new strategic partnerships. While New Zealand has also boosted aid, it cannot compete financially with China. It has touted its strong diplomatic and cultural ties in the region as a crucial advantage, an argument potentially undermined by the unilateral actions of the Cook Islands. New Zealand is concerned the Cook Islands government's push for more autonomy, including an effort to issue its own passports, means it is getting all the benefits of independence while still being part of New Zealand. The Cook Islands has also wanted to join the United Nations, which New Zealand won't allow. Under the new agreement, China says it will support the Cook Islands' aspirations to expand its membership of international organisations. "This is where China is driving a wedge between the Cook Islands and New Zealand and exploiting Prime Minister Mark Brown's desire or aspiration for increased independence from New Zealand," Powles said. WHAT DOES CHINA WANT? The Cook Islands has huge untapped seabed mineral resources and is at the forefront of exploring this as yet unproven industry. The country's Seabed Minerals Authority estimates there are 6.7 billion tonnes of mineral-rich nodules on its sea floor, which could yield 20 million metric tons of cobalt along with significant amounts of nickel, copper, manganese, iron and rare earth elements needed for tech products and the clean energy transition. Chinese companies, which dominate the global supply of many such materials, has not been granted one of three exploration licences in Cook Islands waters, but the agreement envisages "further cooperation within the seabed minerals sector". Additionally, the Cook Islands is a member of international organisations including the Pacific Islands Forum, which China has built ties in recent years, and the agreement pledges to support each other in multilateral forums. WHAT IS AT STAKE FOR COOK ISLANDERS? Closer ties to China provide opportunities for a new stream of tourists and trade as well as technical and/or financial support to develop the seabed mining sector. However, if the relationship with New Zealand were to worsen further, there is potential that a referendum over the future of the Cook Islands constitution would be needed. Protests were held in the capital Avarua on Monday in support of remaining in free association with New Zealand and opposition party members have filed a motion of no confidence against Brown, which will be voted after February 25. 'I've always viewed New Zealand as a good partner and neighbour,' said Tina Browne, the leader of the opposition. 'Why are we risking damaging that relationship?'
Reuters
19-02-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Explainer: What is the Cook Islands deal with China and what has worried NZ?
WELLINGTON, Feb 19 (Reuters) - Growing ties between Cook Islands and China, including a new comprehensive partnership agreement action plan detailed this week, have raised concerns in New Zealand, which has a close constitutional relationship with its tiny Pacific neighbour. WHAT ARE THE COOK ISLANDS? The Cook Islands are a group of 15 small islands and atolls halfway between New Zealand and Hawaii, scattered across 2 million square km of resource-rich Pacific Ocean. Since 1965, the Cook Islands has been a country in free association with New Zealand. Its citizens have New Zealand passports and all the perks of that – access to New Zealand's healthcare and education system and the ability to work there. It is permitted an independent foreign policy, but the two countries are required to consult on security, defence and foreign policy issues. Its population of 15,040 is dwarfed by more than 90,000 who identify as Cook Island Maori and who live in New Zealand. Now designated a high-income country so no longer eligible for international Official Development Assistance, the small economy relies on tourism - mostly from New Zealand - which collapsed during the COVID-19 pandemic. China and the Cook Islands established diplomatic relations in 1997 and in 2018 upgraded it to a comprehensive regional strategic partnership with other Pacific island states. WHAT IS THE AGREEMENT? The agreement signed by Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown and Chinese Premier Li Qiang outlines a number of areas the two countries will improve cooperation including education, the economy, infrastructure, fisheries, disaster management and seabed mining. Anna Powles, associate professor at Centre for Defence and Security Studies at Massey University, highlighted enhanced cooperation in areas of hydrography and geospatial research, which has direct military applications. It also aims for improved cultural ties, but no debt or explicit security ties are included in the deal. A number of memorandums of understanding were also signed during the visit and these have not been released publicly. WHAT HAS WORRIED NEW ZEALAND? New Zealand has complained about a lack of transparency around the agreements signed by Brown with a China that has become significantly more assertive in the Pacific in recent years. Australia and the United States have pushed back against China's increased Pacific presence, boosting funding in the region and signing onto new strategic partnerships. While New Zealand has also boosted aid, it cannot compete financially with China. It has touted its strong diplomatic and cultural ties in the region as a crucial advantage, an argument potentially undermined by the unilateral actions of the Cook Islands. New Zealand is concerned the Cook Islands government's push for more autonomy, including an effort to issue its own passports, means it is getting all the benefits of independence while still being part of New Zealand. The Cook Islands has also wanted to join the United Nations, which New Zealand won't allow. Under the new agreement, China says it will support the Cook Islands' aspirations to expand its membership of international organisations. "This is where China is driving a wedge between the Cook Islands and New Zealand and exploiting Prime Minister Mark Brown's desire or aspiration for increased independence from New Zealand," Powles said. WHAT DOES CHINA WANT? The Cook Islands has huge untapped seabed mineral resources and is at the forefront of exploring this as yet unproven industry. The country's Seabed Minerals Authority estimates there are 6.7 billion tonnes of mineral-rich nodules on its sea floor, which could yield 20 million metric tons of cobalt along with significant amounts of nickel, copper, manganese, iron and rare earth elements needed for tech products and the clean energy transition. Chinese companies, which dominate the global supply of many such materials, has not been granted one of three exploration licences in Cook Islands waters, but the agreement envisages "further cooperation within the seabed minerals sector". Additionally, the Cook Islands is a member of international organisations including the Pacific Islands Forum, which China has built ties in recent years, and the agreement pledges to support each other in multilateral forums. WHAT IS AT STAKE FOR COOK ISLANDERS? Closer ties to China provide opportunities for a new stream of tourists and trade as well as technical and/or financial support to develop the seabed mining sector. However, if the relationship with New Zealand were to worsen further, there is potential that a referendum over the future of the Cook Islands constitution would be needed. Protests were held in the capital Avarua on Monday in support of remaining in free association with New Zealand and opposition party members have filed a motion of no confidence against Brown, which will be voted after February 25. 'I've always viewed New Zealand as a good partner and neighbour,' said Tina Browne, the leader of the opposition. 'Why are we risking damaging that relationship?'
