Daniel Stanton · uOttawa PDI News · Posted: February 18, 2025 11:07 PM EST | Last Updated: 3 minutes ago
National security can cast a wide net. But what is national security? It can seem difficult to know, at times. You’ll hear a variety of national challenges described as national security threats, ranging from climate change, international drug trafficking, and even protests and civil disobedience. The looming trade war with the U.S. has prompted some to ask: Can we move the threat of Trump’s tariffs into the national security tent?
Not every physical (or metaphysical) threat to our nation is a national security threat. Acting otherwise dilutes the definition and can have real consequences for our preparedness, focus, and resource allocation. Not every national interest is a national security concern, but some may justify leveraging the machinery of our national security system.
Not All National Interests Are National Security Concerns
There’s an old saying that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. This is true in a lot of places, but especially in the halls of government. This is one of the major reasons that we’re seeing considerable ideas creep from national interests into the realm of national security. Canada is adding international cartels onto our terrorist listing process to placate the American president.
But you can’t build an effective national security strategy by simply prioritizing whatever issue has the loudest or strongest lobby. Without clear principles in place to guide our assessment of what issues constitute national security threats, we’ll end up in a situation where we’re simply uttering platitudes and shuffling blindly between issues. You can’t lump everything into national security and still articulate a good strategy.
This is a particular issue in Canada, as we haven’t had a national security strategy since 2004. As you may have noticed, quite a bit has changed in the world since then. But the parameters of national security — articulated in the CSIS, SOIA, and ATA Acts — have not changed. And while the issues of the day can and do change all the time, the priorities of a national security strategy — incorporating our military’s mandate — need to remain generic.
Issues That Deserve a Look Through the Lens of National Security
National security is about protecting our sovereignty and our institutions. Many issues can potentially have downstream implications for our sovereignty and the strength of our institutions. But few have direct implications.
Circle back to the climate change example. The changing climate is not a national security issue. Warmer climates are not inherently threatening to liberal democracy, nor is the changing global temperature going to attack our elections or compromise the activities of our public servants. Nature has no spies for us to be concerned about.
But climate change may have downstream implications for the strength of our institutions: Impacts on crop production, mass migration as temperatures rise and make areas unliveable, and more can affect geopolitical stability, possibly leading to shifting power dynamics in many parts of the world. Foreign states that were once neutral or even friendly may be incentivized to look at acquiring our natural resources such as cropland, fresh water, or fossil fuels, by whatever means necessary.
Modern Threats Require Modern Definitions
The world has changed significantly since 2004. And as I’ve discussed before, the field of national security has changed dramatically. Some of this has justifiably included a widening of the scope of national security efforts.
While it’s time for Canada to take a serious look at developing a clear national security strategy, it’s likely also true that we need to look at how we define key elements of our national security threat assessment, like economic espionage. Stealing another country’s secrets by stealthy means — via the world’s ‘second oldest profession,’ as it’s historically known — still has merit. Prior to 9/11, the DGSE, France’s foreign intelligence agency, was known for targeting the private sector of friendly countries to give their industries an advantage.
France is not alone in using their intelligence structures to obtain an economic advantage under the rubric of national interest. Australia’s foreign intelligence service conducted a covert operation against the Prime Minister of East Timor in 2004 to get a leg up on negotiations over an oil and gas treaty. This is an example of a national interest — Australia’s oil and gas industry — not being a national security threat (For Australia, at least. The operation was clearly a threat to East Timor’s national interests and sovereignty).
One could argue there is a direct link between Canada’s economic security and our national security; the implications of the Trump tariffs certainly focus the mind as we face the prospect of rising unemployment and a deep recession. Added to this is a recent comment by an aide to the new CIA director, John Radcliff.“Trump’s CIA will have a greater focus on the Western Hemisphere, targeting countries not traditionally considered adversaries of the U.S.,” the aide said, adding that the CIA “will use espionage to give Trump extra leverage in his trade negotiations.” In other words, the cat is already out of the bag.
So, there we have it. Are there any ethical issues in targeting a dubious ally that challenges our economic integrity and sovereignty? I think not.