Do fears of normative commitments influence nominations to senior NATO military positions? The case of Trudeau with Vance
| Author | Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau,Michael Fejes |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00207020221112345 |
| Published date | 01 March 2022 |
| Date | 01 March 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Scholarly Essay |
Scholarly Essay
International Journal
2022, Vol. 77(1) 68–88
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00207020221112345
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijx
Do fears of normative
commitments influence
nominations to senior NATO
military positions? The case of
Trudeau with Vance
Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau
D´
epartement de science politique, Universit´
e de Montr´
eal, Montr´
eal, QC, Canada
Michael Fejes
Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, ON, Canada
Abstract
This article uses the Trudeau Government’s decision not to nominate General Jonathan
Vance to the position of Chair of the Military Committee (CMC) as a basis to examine the
extent to which states should fear alliance contributions. The authors examine if the
decision could have been based on fears of expected yet “tacit”pressures to accept greater
responsibilities and costs within the overall alliance framework. By analyzing “traditional”
NATO alliance contribution data from 2002–2020 through six previous CMCs, this
research examines whether incumbency in the CMC position is linked to an increase in
material contributions to the alliance. The results of the analyses show that there is no
direct relation between an alliance member holding the CMC position and increased
alliance contributions. Nonetheless, this study contributes to the field of collective defence
through an acknowledgement that states may not fear unstated alliance commitments and
obligations as much as theoretically understood.
Keywords
NATO, Chair of the Military Committee, alliance contributions, collective defence
theory
Corresponding author:
Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau, D´
epartement de science politique, Universit´
e de Montr´
eal, C.P. 6128, succ.
Centre-Ville, Montr´
eal, QC H3C 3J7, Canada.
Email: jean-nicolas.bordeleau@umontreal.ca
On 23 July 2020, General Jonathan Vance, Canada’s Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS),
unexpectedly submitted his resignation to the Minister of National Defence and the
Prime Minster of Canada. Among the Canadian and NATO defence community, there
was a great deal of public speculation that Vance’s resignation was in response to the
prime minister’s decision not to submit Vance’s name for consideration as NATO’s next
Chair of the Military Committee (CMC).
1
Vance, the longest serving CDS in Canadian
history, who had been characterized as “Canada’s most well-known warrior in more
than half a century,”
2
did not want to continue serving the government if he was to be
denied this opportunity. While there remains some ambiguity as to who was aware of
the situation,
3
prior to the allegations of abuses of power which significantly tarnished
his reputation, Vance was considered a “strong favourite for the key job in Brussels.”
4
Yet,for unknow n reasons, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declined to nominate his own
CDS. This sparked a discussion, and subsequently an important research question, as to
why a NATO member in good standing (after past service in Bosnia, Afghanistan,
Libya, and presently engaged in Eastern Europe) would not want to nominate an
individual who at the time was considered a highly qualified and long-serving general
officer to a high-profile, prestigious, and potentially influential position.
5
Vance’s nomination to NATO’s most senior military position would have had
positive implications for Canada within the world’s largest military alliance. In addition
to gaining significant influence and prestige for the country, Vance’s nomination would
have demonstrated Canada’s interest in maintaining strong ties with NATO at time
when the US Trump administration was casting doubt on Canada’s commitment to the
alliance.
6
Having the highly qualified General Vance as the CMC would also have been
beneficial for NATO, which was facing numerous challenges stemming from the
current security environment as well as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. At the time,
Vance brought with him a wealth of institutional and operational experiences and over
39 years of service. He was perceived as being “highly respected among Canada’s
closest allies”and “would have been a welcome figure in Brussels, especially in light of
1. Formerly called the “Chairman of the Military Committee,”the position was retitled in 2021 to reflect the
gender-neutrality of the station.
2. Fisher, Matthew (24 July 2020). Commentary: Retirement of Gen. Jonathan Vance is big loss for Canada
on international stage. https://globalnews.ca/news/7211272/general-jonathan-vance-retires/ (accessed
25 November 2020).Global News.
3. Turnbull, Sarah (27 April 2021). Trudeau says his office was unaware Vanceallegation was a ‘Me Too’
complaint. CBC News. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-says-his-office-was-unaware-vance-
allegation-was-a-me-too-complaint-1.5404341 (accessed 5 May 2021).
4. “Retirement of Gen. Vance, Jonathan.”
5. David Pugliese (24 November 2020). Gen. Jon Vanceand the long goodbye. Ottawa Citizen. (accessed 5 March
2021) https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/gen-jon-vance-and-the-long-goodbye
6. Leuprecht, Christian, Joel Sokolsky, & Derow, Jayson (October 2018). Paying it forward: Sustaining the
transatlantic relationship with Canada’s mission in the Baltics. Commentary, 1–9.
Bordeleau and Fejes 69
To continue reading
Request your trial