CANZUK as a global player?

[ngatimozart]

I found the video below as I was trawling through YouTube. At first I poopooed it and said so in the remarks, but maybe it's a concept worth discussing.

1. I really have my doubts about it. When HM QE II dies I believe that both NZ and Australia will become fully fledged republics, so any assumption by the video's author that allegiance to the Crown would be a major factor will not apply.
2. Both Australia and NZ are Asia Pacific nations, whilst Canada is a North American nation, and the poms, like it or not, are European and tied to Europe.
3. Canada doesn't appear to take that much interest in Asia Pacific affairs and would Australia and NZ be interested in involved in European or North American adventures?
4. The UK talks about an Asia Pacific involvement, but it doesn't have the defence capability to be of any reasonable value in region. For example it cannot deploy a CSG in the region permanently, nor has it the capability to permanently deploy a squadron of say 1 - 2 DDG, 3 - 4 FFG and a SSN.
5. Out of the 4 nations, the UK has the most problematic defence policy disconnect between the military, civil service, and the political elite.
   • I can qualify this by stating that out of the 4 nations, Canada has the worse defence procurement system, but the poms continually lurch from crisis to crisis and the standard response is to have another defence review.
6. There is the geographical context with the only 2 nations having a close physical geographical relationship being Australia and NZ. The Atlantic Ocean sits between Canada and the UK, and its half a world between Vancouver and Brisbane or Vancouver and Auckland. It's a 27 hour flight from London to Auckland.
7. The political context is important and the one thing that both Australia and NZ will not accept is the poms thinking that it's a return to the old days of the empire. There still appears to be some hangover of that attitude still existing in some quarters.
8. Economic policy. Both Canada and the UK are very protectionist and this has to change for it to be worthwhile.
9. Immigration. All four nations are quite restrictive in their immigration policies so that would have to change.

That's what I think are the hurdles to the idea. There will be vested interests in each country who will oppose all or part of it.

However I do see some advantages to it and it might be feasible.

1. There would be 2 G7 countries (CA & UK) and 3 G20 countries (AU, CA, & UK) in the group.
2. Like the video states the legal systems and defence systems are common.
3. There is a common language amongst the group.
4. 3 of the countries are significant food producers (AU, CA, NZ).
5. The combined GDP of the group is quite significant.
6. The group would have a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UNSC as a group member. This places it on par with the EU in that context.
7. The CER agreement between Australia and NZ could be a template for the economic relationship between all group members. For the UK and Canada this means tariff free trade for trade from other group members.
   1. That's gonna fly like a lead zeppelin there.
8. All of the group members should grant unlimited visa free to nationals of the other 3 nations. This would allow for a freer flow of people within the group which should be beneficial to all of the economies.

That's how I see it at the start of the discussion.

 

[OPSSG]

[

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/849023542163251200

As middle powers and as members of the 5 Eyes Partners, there is significant opportunity for military-to-military and defence industry collaboration, especially between Australia and Canada but it has not occurred.

I suspect that the lack of collaboration in a meaningful manner reflects on the Canadian approach as treating defence as a political football. Many worry the economic damage caused by COVID-19 has made the defence policy unaffordable and that the Canadian government, currently under the Liberals, might bring out the axe. In contrast, the Australians are committed to their plans at a bipartisan level.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1314346034575835136

A significant number of Australians see themselves as Asian and have a vested interest in events in Asia. Canadians on the other hand, do not have much interest in Asia. Canada is a North American nation, with allies in Europe. Canada is part of NATO and it does not have defence commitment is not to Asia.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1313799650227507202

How can anyone trust the Canadian government to: (i) stay its course on military modernisation; or (ii) become relevant to the geo-politics of Asia/Indo-Pacific? Currently, under this Liberal government, Canada will struggle to meet its defence budget and troop commitments to NATO in face of Trump’s behaviour towards Canada. Therefore, I expect less of them in making any new commitments to Asia.

 

[John Fedup]

Nine of Canada’s ten provinces have English as their first language and they don’t get along all that well and interprovincial trade restrictions are appalling. A common language wouldn’t make CANZUK work. Both the UK and Canada likely won’t be intact in 25-50 years. What ever remains of either will be in debt up to their eyeballs.