this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
24 points (100.0% liked)
Canadian Armed Forces
1 readers
1 users here now
- Post things related to the CAF. You don't need to wait for SCS to post memes.
- Be polite to each other. Just because you're a crusty MWO, doesn't mean you need to treat other users like your third ex-wife.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So I want to jump in here to correct what has been a rampant misconception for about 17 years now. That Canada does not have treaty obligations to spend 2% of GDP on defense spending.
This misconception is so old it has its drivers license.
NATO met in 2006 and set a spending target. A non-binding benchmark spending amount, that's it. No obligation, no treaty, no penalty, no enforcement mechanism.
In 2014 they met again and revamped the language, making it a goal to move towards over a ten year period.
In August 2023, they updated the language agreement again, committing to a goal to move towards a 2% minimum 'in the future'.
The language has been very specific and intentionally not a requirement. Both the Harper and Trudeau government have intentionally sought this kind of softer, target oriented language to keep us from having to commit the funds.
Here is a recent article that confirms the goal vs obligation:
Oh so we specifically skirt around the 2% by using weirld language in the treaties. That does not inspire anymore confidence than before.
Well no, 31 member nations agreed to precise and specific language to set a goal. It is quite intentional on all parties so as not to obligate anyone to do it.
I am obligated to pay taxes. I have a goal to save for retirement. See the difference precise language makes?