Canada and the United States, are bound together through NORAD, sharing responsibility for the defence of North America, a rational choice shaped by geography. Since 1949, they have also been bound through NATO, sharing responsibility for the security of the Euro-Atlantic region alongside thirty other European Allies.
Their partnership extends well beyond military cooperation.
Through the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), the economies of the
three North American neighbours are deeply integrated. The world’s longest undefended
land is, for most practical purposes, almost invisible. Trade, investment, manufacturing,
energy, aviation, automotive and supply chains move across it with ease. Families
live and holiday on both sides, while millions cross the border each year for
work, business and leisure. By every measure, Canada-United States relationship
remains one of the closest and most successful partnerships in the world.
Yet even the strongest partnerships require constant
attention and care. Trade disputes, tariffs, and occasional references to
Canada becoming the “51st state” are a sign that even the closest relationships
between sovereign nations, even ones that are bound closely together through
geography and history, cannot be taken for granted. Geography creates neighbours;
it is trust that sustains partnership. The NATO Summit in Ankara on 7–8 July
2026 brought this truth into sharp focus for the Alliance as a whole.
By most measures, the summit was successful. Allies reaffirmed their commitment to Article
5 and advanced the defence investment commitment set at The Hague in 2025—to
reach 5 per cent of GDP on defence and related security spending by 2035.
European Allies and Canada together increased core defence investments by more
than $139 billion in 2025 alone. Leaders announced more than $50 billion in new
procurements spanning deep precision strike, integrated air and missile
defence, uncrewed systems and intelligence capabilities. They endorsed a
Strategy for Industry-NATO Cooperation, committed to expanding collective
manufacturing capacity, and pledged €70 billion in military equipment,
assistance and training for Ukraine in 2026, with sovereign commitments to sustain
equivalent levels in 2027. NATO is clearly strengthening its military capabilities,
and European Allies and Canada are assuming greater responsibility for
collective defence.
Whether the Alliance is strengthening its political
cohesion with equal determination is less certain. Military capability is
indispensable, but alliances ultimately are based upon trust. This question
extends beyond NATO itself. If confidence can fray between North America’s
closest neighbours—whose economies, security architectures and societies are
deeply interconnected—what does that imply for an alliance of thirty-two
sovereign democracies?
The Canada–United States relationship illustrates the point.
For years Canada lagged NATO defence spending benchmarks, around 1.3 – 1.4% vs the
2% benchmark, creating understandable frustration in Washington. Recent Canadian
projects that are investing in new submarines, icebreakers, aircraft, missiles,
cyber capabilities and industrial partnerships signal a serious course
correction and a clearer path toward the 5 per cent commitment. Yet differences
over Arctic priorities, NORAD modernization costs, trade remedies and
approaches towards China remain.
Trust is reciprocal. Rhetoric from either capital that
treats the relationship as transactional rather than strategic erodes the
confidence on which seamless cooperation depends. History demonstrates that military
capability alone has never sustained alliances. They endure because sovereign
partners believe they share a common purpose, will be treated with respect and
will be consulted as equals.
Canada has long understood this reality. It fought
alongside its Allies in two World Wars, became a founding member of NATO,
helped shape the post-war international order, contributed to United Nations
peacekeeping, and partnered with the United States through NORAD. These were
not acts of idealism detached from national interest. They reflected a clear
reading of Canada’s geography and history. Geography placed Canada beside the
world’s most powerful country, sharing the longest land border with it. History
demonstrated that Canada’s prosperity, security and international influence
would be best advanced by embedding itself within trusted institutions and
reliable partnerships. For Canada, multilateralism has never been an
alternative to national interest; it has been one of the most effective
expressions.
This perspective gives renewed relevance to an
often-overlooked provision of the North Atlantic Treaty. While Article 5 rightly commands attention, Article
2 calls upon Allies to strengthen their “free institutions”, promote “conditions
of stability and well-being”, and “seek to
eliminate conflict in their international economic policies” while encouraging “economic
collaboration”. In practice, Article 2 has been the most neglected clause of
the treaty for decades. Yet it provides the foundation on which Article 5 ultimately
rests. Collective defence is credible only when political confidence already
exists. Military capability can deter aggression; it cannot, by itself, create
trust.
In an era of industrial competition, fragile supply chains
and growing pressure on democratic institutions, the practical meaning of
Article 2 deserves renewed attention. Closer coordination of economic policy,
stronger industrial cooperation and the patient management of differences
before they harden into resentment are no less important than increased
military capability.
Disagreement among Allies is neither unusual nor unhealthy.
Sovereign democracies will continue to pursue distinct interests and debate
spending, trade and foreign-policy priorities. Current differences over the future
American military presence in Europe, the balance between European strategic
autonomy and transatlantic solidarity and the relative priority accorded to the
Indo-Pacific reflect enduring structural questions rather than tactical disagreements.
The challenge is not to eliminate differences but to prevent them form
undermining the confidence necessary for effective cooperation. This is where
Canada continues to have an important role.
As Canada invests more in defence and assumes greater
responsibility within NATO, it can also contribute something less tangible but
equally strategic: a tradition of bridge-building, patient consultation and
respect for multilateral process. In a more fragmented world these are strategic
assets rather than diplomatic niceties. Higher defence spending will give Canada
a stronger voice, but influence will continue to depend on being regarded as a
reliable partner capable of helping preserve consensus when larger Allies pull
in different directions.
The Ankara Summit demonstrated that NATO is becoming
stronger militarily. It also offers an opportunity to reflect on something
deeper. The Alliance’s greatest strength has never been its weapons alone, but the
trust that enables sovereign democracies to act together in pursuit of a common
purpose. For Canada that has never been a matter of sentiment. It has been a
matter of enlightened national interest. In an age of intensifying geopolitical
competition and growing political pressures on alliances, that trust may remain
Canada’s most enduring contribution to NATO, and one of the surest ways of
advancing its own national interest.
Comments