Separating The Wheat From The Chaff

There has been an exponential growth in concern recently over various aspects of foreign affairs. Sometimes it's justified – sometimes not so. A good example was the proliferation of commentary on Emmanuel Macron's speech commemorating 100 years since the end of World War I. The French President presented the idea of the creation of a “European Army” implying an end to NATO. Usually thoughtful commentators rushed to find hidden meaning in the quote, “We have to protect ourselves in respect to China, Russia and the United States of America.”

The most highly charged of the instant analyses was that this was some sort of personal attack on President Trump for chastising the NATO members for not maintaining their agreed two per cent of GDP defense budget. That theme morphed – with Macron's rhetorical help – into a challenge over Trump's support for nationalism. Variations of this journalistic theme swiftly emerged. Meanwhile, the obvious objective of Macron was overlooked. The French president had seen the perfect chance to jump in as Europe's new leading voice.

Angela Merkel appears headed for retirement and Theresa May has been severely weakened as the UK's leader. The opening was there for Macron to be the new “big dog” in European affairs. The only price he had to pay was to get President Trump mad at him for including the USA as a “danger” to Europe. Obviously, Lil' Emmanuel had decided he could handle Trump, as the whole context was strictly rhetorical and lacking in serious action. After all, Macron figured, Europe was clearly not in the financial position to replace the American contribution to European defense.

Then there was the very French redefinition of the meaning of “nationalism and patriotism”. This exercise is called “too precious by half”. Nonetheless, it was jumped on by the press internationally as a clever attack on President Trump's espousal of nationalism over globalism. Macron clearly felt he had to show he was not the American vassal that the European press had made him out to be after his visit to the White House.

Another example of press-driven concern in international matters is the expected meeting of China's Xi Jinping and Donald Trump in Buenos Aires. It was “discovered” that China had been pouring investment money into Portugal with an eye to gaining approval for the establishment of a base in the Azores, perhaps with the intent to eventually create a satellite tracking station there. 

This matter had come up two years earlier when President Obama had suggested the closing of the American Lajes air base on Terceira Island also in the Azores. Speculation was back even though the Trump Defense Department had moved swiftly to emphasize that the US Air Force base was there to stay. The thing that made this issue more serious was that it fit the already existing Chinese pattern of arranging a military presence in cooperative countries. They had done this in Djibouti in Africa within easy flying distance of the Suez Canal.

That the Chinese, great chess players as they are, were in the process of setting up pawns which they could use in further negotiations with the U.S. was seemingly overlooked in the rush to portray Beijing as having strategic military designs on establishing an Atlantic presence. The fact that this theoretical military plan would be totally vulnerable to the American Atlantic Fleet and existing US air assets already based in the Azores was treated with little analytical consequence.

One item that was given appropriate coverage – at least in Canada – was the release of information that two Russian TU-45 “Bear” bombers were intercepted attempting to enter Canadian mainland airspace adjacent to the State of Alaska. Concern over this blatant testing of Canadian/American defense systems certainly didn't resonate in Washington as it did in Ottawa. The interception was in fact a brilliant example of coordinated U.S./ Canadian operations that are pursued daily in protection of North America.

Canadian fighter jets quickly engaged the Russian bombers and chased them away. The Russians had made it to about 56 km of the Canadian Northwest Territory. The Canadian spokesman, in calculated modesty, responded to a question by saying it was nothing exceptional. In that he was half right or half wrong, depending how the affair is seen.

While Russian recon planes of various types regularly test-fly to the edge of the U.S./ Canadian defense perimeter, two nuclear-capable bombers are a serious event. The Canadians, however, were “on the job” and Moscow learned that there was no hole in that distant portion of our continent's joint northern defense system. It was an important affair that received little notice in the U.S. media. The Canadian spokesman was right. It does happen regularly. While most Americans and the media that informs them are watching caravans coming from the south, incursions in the north by armed and dangerous Russian military planes are a regular occurrence. And that cannot be forgotten or ignored.