Canada and the United States: A Divergence in Attitudes Towards Defence and NATO

The stark divergence in Canadian and American approaches to defence spending and NATO contributions highlights fundamental differences in how these allies conceptualize security. While the United States prioritizes hard power—allocating 3.4% of GDP to military expenditure and emphasizing coercive capabilities—Canada adopts a soft power strategy, focusing on diplomatic engagement, peacekeeping, and leadership in NATO missions despite spending only 1.3% of GDP on defence. This contrast has fueled tensions, particularly under the Trump administration, which labelled Canada a "free-rider" for failing to meet NATO’s 2% spending target. Yet Canada counters that its qualitative contributions—such as leading NATO battlegroups in Latvia and training missions in Iraq—demonstrate commitment through participation rather than pure financial metrics. The debate underscores deeper ideological divides: The U.S. views military and economic dominance as central to global security, whereas Canada champions multilateralism and institutional engagement. While these differing approaches have strained bilateral relations, NATO’s structure accommodates both, as seen in Article 2’s emphasis on democratic values alongside collective defence. Moving forward, the challenge lies in balancing hard power expectations with soft power’s diplomatic merits, especially as the Biden era reshapes transatlantic priorities.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
The Social Contract
Published
2025-09-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5206/sc.v13i1.23026
Primary Topic
Canadian Policy and Governance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Canada and the United States: A Divergence in Attitudes Towards Defence and NATO

Bita Pejam
1 links
The Social Contract
Canadian Policy and Governance
article

Canada and the United States: A Divergence in Attitudes Towards Defence and NATO

Bita Pejam
article en

Abstract

The stark divergence in Canadian and American approaches to defence spending and NATO contributions highlights fundamental differences in how these allies conceptualize security. While the United States prioritizes hard power—allocating 3.4% of GDP to military expenditure and emphasizing coercive capabilities—Canada adopts a soft power strategy, focusing on diplomatic engagement, peacekeeping, and leadership in NATO missions despite spending only 1.3% of GDP on defence. This contrast has fueled tensions, particularly under the Trump administration, which labelled Canada a "free-rider" for failing to meet NATO’s 2% spending target. Yet Canada counters that its qualitative contributions—such as leading NATO battlegroups in Latvia and training missions in Iraq—demonstrate commitment through participation rather than pure financial metrics. The debate underscores deeper ideological divides: The U.S. views military and economic dominance as central to global security, whereas Canada champions multilateralism and institutional engagement. While these differing approaches have strained bilateral relations, NATO’s structure accommodates both, as seen in Article 2’s emphasis on democratic values alongside collective defence. Moving forward, the challenge lies in balancing hard power expectations with soft power’s diplomatic merits, especially as the Biden era reshapes transatlantic priorities.

The Social ContractVol. 13(1)
Openalex Percentile: Top 71%
Canadian Policy and Governance
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.