2014

Articles have been provided by external sources. The Government of Canada and Royal Military College Saint-Jean are not responsible for the accuracy, reliability or currency of the information supplied by external sources. Users wishing to rely upon this information should consult directly with the source of the information. Content provided by external sources is not subject to official languages, privacy and accessibility requirements.

Appareils Canadair CL-415 - Pour une application multifonctionnelle? (French only)
While there has never been so much pressure exerted on budgets, regrouping under the Canadian Armed Forces the fifty CL-415 aircraft of dispersed across the provinces would allow to further rationalize operations and multiply the types of missions these aircrafts are able to fill.


Le paradigme analytique du tortionnaire ou La nouvelle philosophie du bourreau (French only)
This essay is a discussion on the ethics of counter-terrorism, and writings of Seumas Miller and Uwe Steinhoff.


Guerres et conflits au Proche et au Moyen-Orient hier et aujourd'hui: quelles différences? (French only)
This paper attempts to highlight several important elements through a comparative study of four wars and conflicts that took place in the Middle East. These various examples allow us to conceive clearly the main reasons and consequences of wars and conflicts in the Middle East. For this reason, we conclude that there are no significant differences between the wars and the conflicts of yesterday and those of today.


Defence Matters in Canada - Final Report
The Canadian appreciation: Canadians appreciate that "defence matters". Defence is not uppermost in their minds, but they realize the world can be a dangerous place. It is less clear Canadians understand how defence matters, i.e. the connection between the turbulent world abroad and any particular regime of security and defence measures at home. Canadians support their troops and have been more willing to spend on defence than conventional wisdom believed. But they don’t have a strong grasp of their national interests and hence of what is required to protect and promote those interests. Canada retains strong residual ties to Europe, but Canadian interests are expanding in the Arctic, in the Americas, and above all in the Pacific. As Canada’s interests shift, so must its security focus. The problematique for Canadians (and Americans) is how an increasingly Eurocentric NATO fits into their future security and defence plans. Neither government nor the military has done much to enlighten the public on security issues, and Canadians have been poorly served by Parliament, the media, universities and think tanks.

Recommendations: Government and Parliament should initiate a national dialogue on defence matters, leading to the articulation of a National Security Strategy, updated foreign and defence policies, and a coherent long-term plan for defence spending. Government and the military need to do a better job of explaining the defence needs of the country, the specific military capabilities required to address these needs, and the associated price tags. A civil-military relations program is needed, and private interests should be encouraged to support research and education on defence issues.

The Future of NATO: The strategic outlook has changed for NATO countries. In the 21st century, the common defence is no longer about the security of the Euro-Atlantic region but about dealing with problems worldwide. NATO has responded by taking on a multitude of missions, which in turn has exacerbated longstanding disputes over burden-sharing. More consequentially, a division is growing between those who believe NATO’s focus should be the defence of the Euro-Atlantic area and those who see NATO with a broader mandate -- a disagreement over the very purpose of the Alliance not just over how to finance it.

Recommendations: Until they have achieved greater clarity on the mission of the Alliance, members should declare a ceasefire in their debate over burden-sharing and put a temporary halt to discussions on the apportionment of capability targets. Defence would "matter" more if national military capabilities and defence budgets were more obviously about defence of the "homeland". Allies should agree that "the defence which matters" is the first of three tasks outlined in the Strategic Concept 2010, i.e. "to defend its members against the full range of threats". This would have the benefit of refocusing the organization on its fundamental purpose, about which there is no disagreement among members. Allies should also agree on a more defined division of labour which made sense to individual members. Europeans should assume primary responsibility for the defence of their region as the North Americans have for theirs. Difficult as this might be, it would be better to grasp the nettle now than delay and allow an unresolved dispute over its purpose to destroy the organization.

Date modified: