Canada to hit 2% defence Nato spending target, years ahead of schedule, says Carney
'I am announcing today that Canada will achieve Nato's two per cent target this year, half a decade ahead of schedule,' Carney said during a speech at the University of Toronto.
'The threats that Canada faces are multiplying,' he added.
Carney's pledge followed similar announcements by members of the alliance and comes after consistent pressure by US President Donald Trump for Nato members to spend more on defence.
'In a darker, more competitive world, Canadian leadership will be defined not just by the strength of our values, but also by the value of our strength,' Carney said.
Since taking office in mid-March, Carney has delivered a series of stark warnings about what he terms the changing nature of US global leadership under Trump.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AllAfrica
an hour ago
- AllAfrica
US still puts politics ahead of truth in Covid origin probe
The World Health Organization's Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO) has just opened applications for its second term. Barely six weeks earlier, it had delivered what was meant to be a decisive conclusion: the weight of available evidence indicates the virus behind the Covid-19 pandemic most likely emerged through natural spillover from bats, either directly or via an intermediate host. That conclusion, grounded in peer-reviewed studies, epidemiological fieldwork and an exhaustive review of available data, should have been the point where political heat gave way to scientific consensus. Instead, it has done precisely the opposite in certain political circles, particularly in Washington, where parts of the US political establishment have doubled down on the 'lab-leak' hypothesis, turning a question of virology into a political weapon. This is not merely an academic quarrel over probabilities. It is the latest front in a campaign to re-politicize a scientific process that SAGO, in its very design, sought to shield from partisan agendas. And it matters not just for our understanding of Covid-19 but for the credibility of global health governance. Formed in 2021, SAGO was designed to provide a global framework for investigating the origins of pathogens — starting with Covid-19 — in a climate of intense diplomatic tension. Its 27 experts, ranging from virologists and epidemiologists to veterinarians and public health specialists, must disclose their affiliations and funding to safeguard independence. The mission, as WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus reminded the world, is simple in principle but fraught in practice: 'Bring the debate back to science' because politicizing the origins of the virus 'puts the entire world at risk.' Yet in the United States, that neutrality is under fire. In 2024, a Republican-led congressional committee declared that Covid-19 was 'most likely' the result of a laboratory accident in Wuhan — a conclusion echoed, though with 'low confidence,' by some intelligence agencies. Under Donald Trump's second presidency, the United States has once again set itself on a path to withdraw from the WHO, with departure planned for 2026, and has frozen participation in negotiations for a new Pandemic Agreement. At home, the administration has expanded political control over universities and research institutes, accelerating a brain drain towards Europe and China, where in certain fields researchers face fewer political constraints. Scientific debate thrives on evidence-based challenge. What it cannot survive is the demand to bend findings to fit a pre-ordained political narrative. SAGO has kept all hypotheses 'on the table,' including the lab-leak scenario, but ranks them according to the strength of the available evidence. Scientific neutrality is not an indulgence; it is the bedrock of effective global health policy. The 'One Health' approach — integrating human, animal, and environmental health in pandemic prevention — depends on building an evidence-driven consensus across countries. If major powers reject or undermine that process for domestic political gain, they fracture the very cooperation needed to prepare for the next outbreak. The group's second mandate will test the WHO's credibility: will it ensure transparency in member selection, publish all funding sources, and keep its methodologies open to scrutiny? And can it withstand pressure — whether from Washington, Beijing, or elsewhere — to skew its conclusions? The fight over Covid-19's origins is part of a wider pattern: the blurring of boundaries between science and politics. From climate change to artificial intelligence to public health, research is too often judged for its political convenience rather than its empirical rigor. When ideological interference becomes routine, two losses occur. The first is scientific: research becomes distorted, delayed, or discredited. The second is political: leaders find themselves making policy based on selectively filtered 'facts,' increasing the risk of catastrophic misjudgements. The United States, once the undisputed leader in biomedical research, is now in danger of suffering both losses simultaneously. Tedros's warning bears repeating: politicizing pathogen-origin research is not a harmless rhetorical game. It is an obstacle to truth, and, in public health, ignorance is dangerous. If SAGO can operate free from political interference, it may yet deliver the knowledge the world needs to prevent the next pandemic. If not, we risk remaining trapped in a cycle where science serves politics rather than humanity. In global health, truth is not partisan. It is evidence-based. And it deserves to be defended with the same resolve as our borders. Ricardo Martins holds a PhD in sociology with a specialization in geopolitics and international relations and an advanced studies certificate in international trade. He is based in the Netherlands.
South China Morning Post
2 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
European leaders breathe sigh of relief, but doubts linger over Trump's pledges to Ukraine
European leaders left Washington on Monday with a palpable sense of relief, having avoided a breakdown with Donald Trump over Ukraine – but in the cold light of day, doubts are growing over the substance of the 'breakthroughs' they claimed. After meetings with Trump that bordered on the obsequious, eight European leaders – including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – trumpeted the trip as a success. 'This was the best of our meetings,' Zelensky said. 'I was able to show many things, even on the map, to all American colleagues regarding the situation on the battlefield.' German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said: 'My expectations have not only been met, but exceeded … it could have turned out differently.' The Europeans pointed to a US openness to security guarantees for Ukraine and progress towards a bilateral summit between Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin , which Merz said could happen in the next two weeks. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen highlighted Trump's support for returning the thousands of Ukrainian children captured by Russian forces since the start of the war, thanking him 'for his clear commitment today to ensuring these children are reunited with their loved ones.'
AllAfrica
7 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Trump's Putin, Zelensky talks chiefly served Russian aims
The current phase of the war in Ukraine continues unabated into its fourth year, with grinding offences and strikes against civilian infrastructure increasingly the norm. It is, for Ukraine, arguably the most vulnerable that it has been since 2022. These developments have prompted calls among world leaders to end the conflict. On the surface, United States President Donald Trump's meetings with both the Ukrainian and Russian leaders suggest a balanced approach. In reality, however, Trump's actions primarily benefit Russia. After the recent meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, Trump declared that their summit had been 'very useful.' When asked how he would rate the meeting on a scale of one to 10, the president declared the meeting 'was a 10 in the sense we got along great.' While Trump and Putin may have hit it off, the issue with such an assessment is that it failed to address the underlying reason for the meeting: Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In this regard, the meeting was far more useful for Putin and Russia than Ukraine and its allies. Putin managed to stoke tensions, and potentially divisions, among Ukraine's principal supporters by not including Ukraine in the summit. No other countries participated in the summit. This format caused considerable consternation in Ukraine, where it was feared that Trump would make an agreement without Ukrainian consent, as well as in Europe, where Russian aggression and revisionism is a more direct threat. Prior to Trump assuming power for a second time in 2025, Ukraine benefited from a largely united front among NATO and the European Union. This unity has declined over the last several months, and the Alaska summit reinforced this decline to Russia's benefit. Putin and his negotiators managed to obtain a major concession from Trump at the summit as Trump renounced his own recent calls for a ceasefire. For Ukraine and its allies, achieving a ceasefire was a fundamental requirement for any peace negotiations in 2025. This precondition has become more significant as Russia ramps up its attacks on Ukrainian cities and civilians. Lastly, the very nature of the Alaska meeting itself helped legitimize Russia in international opinion. Since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russia has courted international opinion. It's been more successful than most people in Europe and North America realize, as significant portions of Asia, Africa and Latin America remain ambivalent or even support Russia in its war against Ukraine. Nonetheless, Russia was always restrained by the condemnation it received from multiple international organizations, most notably the United Nations and the International Criminal Court. Trump welcoming Putin on American soil, when the Russian leader is under what amounts to a de facto travel ban by the International Criminal Court, undermines these institutions' condemnations. The benefits that Putin obtained from Trump in Alaska demanded an immediate response by Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelensky promptly arranged a White House meeting with Trump in the aftermath of the Alaskan summit. And he didn't arrive alone: European leaders accompanied him to show solidarity with Ukraine. Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted the European leaders weren't on hand to prevent Trump from bullying Zelensky, as occurred during their last Oval Office meeting. That's probably only partly true. Several European leaders — ranging from the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, to French President Emmanuel Macron — almost assuredly accompanied Zelensky to prevent Trump from forcing the Ukrainian leader into concessions that are detrimental to their interests as well. Trump's pre-meeting social media post undoubtedly heightened their concerns. In the post, he placed the burden of peace on Zelensky and argued that Ukraine must accept the loss of Crimea and never accede to NATO. Ukrainian officials sought to carefully orchestrate Zelensky's one-on-one Oval Office meeting with Trump. Zelensky wore a suit and delivered a letter from the Ukrainian first lady to Melania Trump. These and other efforts aimed to stroke Trump's ego, and the president's response — in particular, agreeing with a reporter that Zelensky 'look(ed) fabulous' in a suit — suggests it was a success. The same American reporter criticized Zelensky for failing to don a suit during his ill-fated February White House visit. Notably, Trump did not rule out a role for American soldiers in helping to maintain peace in Ukraine during the meeting. Outside observers believe an American presence in Ukraine to maintain any eventual peace is a fundamental requirement for its success. Unfortunately, while Trump did not immediately oppose the idea, he did not make any firm commitment either. Trump's propensity to reverse course on statements that he makes at the moment, furthermore, undermines any firm takeaways from the meeting. Any direct American involvement in Ukraine would also undermine his support among his political base. One of Trump's key campaign promises was not to involve the US in 'endless foreign wars.' A move by Trump to deploy American soldiers to Ukraine would be politically tenuous, as fractures are already emerging among his political base over his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Trump's cordial meetings with Zelensky and European leaders may fuel hope among Ukraine's supporters in the coming days. But any optimism should be tempered by the damage done by Trump's meeting with Putin. Trump reportedly interrupted the meetings in Washington to call Putin. Trump's unwillingness to make firm commitments at the meetings with Zelensky and European leaders means that Russia, on balance, has succeeded in advancing its interests to the detriment of Ukraine and the prospects for a long-term, sustainable peace. James Horncastle is assistant professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney professor in international relations, Simon Fraser University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
