Military-Paid Academics “Debate” F-35 Project
Embassy magazine has what in most respects is a half-decent discussion of a key problem in the ongoing F-35 fighter saga: the Department of National Defence’s failure to disclose a summary of national needs which the F-35 (or any other fighter, for that matter) would have to meet. Instead, Canadians have been subjected to a relentless marketing campaign by the civilian government and by the military generals, who are, oddly, unencumbered by the usual restrictions on political advocacy by public servants. Even without holding a public competition for Canada’s largest military purchase ever, you’d think DND could at least identify what needs the F-35 is filling, and Embassy is right to rap them on the knuckles for it.
Where I have a problem with this article (yet again), though, is Embassy‘s failure to be genuinely inclusive. The “back and forth” method is cheap journalism, which is why it’s increasingly popular on everything from CBC to Fox News: introduce a topic, quote one person on one “side” of the issue, then someone from the other “side.” Seldom is the media so obvious in playing the role, as Noam Chomsky puts it, of defining the outer limits of “acceptable” or legitimate thought on an issue. The problem, in this case, is that both “experts” — Adam Chapnick and David J. Bercuson — are actually being paid by the military that wants to buy the jets in the first place. Chapnick actually says the military shouldn’t need to make public any need for fighter jets — every party should accept it in private and then present a done deal to the public. Embassy does not identify the potential for conflicts of interest here, or explain why it couldn’t find someone with an opinion who was independent from the military.
Once again, I have no trouble with people speaking their minds on an issue — but we have to know where they are coming from, and when their salary comes from producing and disseminating knowledge and opinion, it is important to know who pays that salary. The fact that Chapnick works at the Canadian Forces College and that Bercuson works at an academic research group that is funded by the Department of National Defence doesn’t mean either of them are sinister or deceptive people. But Carl Sagan once remarked that half the scientists in the country were working at least part-time for the military, and that this was a very serious problem. I’m not sure what the ratio is on the social sciences side, or in Canada compared to the United States, but international affairs programs are not immune, and this does have an impact — at the very least, because those people working in areas considered relevant by the military, and espousing opinions considered relevant by the military, are given more money to make their opinions known. At the same time they seldom, if ever, disclose the funding that makes their respectable academic positions possible when they submit op-eds, etc. (And reporters don’t ask, which is just as bad.)
Bercuson is a Conservative Party donor, incidentally, but what I’m more concerned with for the moment is the Security and Defence Forum. The next time someone from the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute or the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies (the University of Calgary’s twin international affairs centres) opens their mouth, I’ll have more to say on their murky funding arrangements. For now I’m more interested with the military’s relationship with political scientists.
In Canada, the principal military vehicle for funding academics is called the Security and Defence Forum. (The military also operates other grant programs, like the one that props up the military lobby group Conference of Defence Associations.) The SDF funnels money to research centres at thirteen universities, on the order of a little over $100,000 per year to each (the precise figure varies). In addition to Bercuson’s Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, the SDF’s recipients include Carleton University (the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs’s Centre for Security and Defence Studies), Queen’s University (Centre for International Studies), and the University of New Brunswick (Gregg Center for the Study of War and Society).
According to the last public annual report of the SDF (from 2009), it dispensed the following amounts to various political science groups:
Centre | Institution | Funding |
|---|---|---|
| Centre for International Relations | University of British Columbia | $120,000 |
| Centre for Military and Strategic Studies | University of Calgary | $140,000 |
| Centre of Defence and Security Studies | University of Manitoba | $120,000 |
| Laurier Centre for Military, Strategic and Disarmament Studies | Wilfrid Laurier University | $115,000 |
| York Centre for International and Security Studies | York University | $100,000 |
| Centre for Security and Defence Studies | Carleton University | $140,000 |
| Centre for International Relations | Queen's University | $115,000 |
| Centre d'Etudes des Politiques Etrangeres et de Securite | Universite de Quebec a Montreal | $110,000 |
| Research Group in International Security | Universite de Montreal and McGill University | $120,000 |
| Institut Quebecois des Hautes Etudes Internationales | Laval University | $115,000 |
| Gregg Centre for the Study of War and Society | University of New Brunswick | $120,000 |
| Centre for Foreign Policy Studies | Dalhousie University | $140,000 |
| Chair of Defence Management Studies | Queen's University | $165,000 |
The SDF was created during the Cold War and now specifies that recipients conduct research in areas like terrorism, defence procurement, and other issues of interest to the military. Word has it that the SDF may be in financial trouble as the government searches for ways to save every spare penny in DND in preparation for the F-35 purchase. Naturally, the forum scholars — who line up to testify that the funding has no impact on their views on defence matters — nevertheless complained to a man that the SDF money was needed to keep their centres alive. We’ll find out over the next year what the fallout was, since the centres are due for a new five-year injection of defence cash.
Tweet
mcdouche
awesome!
keep em coming!
Adam Chapnick
I take great offence to the implication that I am simply a shill for the military. I have full academic freedom as a professor at RMC who happens to be located at the CFC. Nothing that I say is cleared by the military, by the government, nor by anyone else. And my salary is paid by the Canadian taxpayer, not by the Canadian miliary.
My comments in the Embassy article neither supported nor condemned the F-35 purchase. Indeed, I have never made a public statement in favour or against the F-35 purchase because I do not have the expertise to do so.
My comments were consistent with what I have been saying about Canadian defence and foreign policy (not to mention about international development) in the media and in academic outlets for a number of years. Namely, it makes no sense that Canada’s national security needs could suddenly change because of a federal election. It follows that significant investments in national secuity (not to mention in development assistance) should be based on an approach to world affairs that resonates with both parties who stand a reasonable chance of forming a national government. As I have said consistently for a number of years, Canada’s position in the world as a non-great power makes its ability to be a reliable ally and partner all the more critical. Canadian governments therefore cannot afford to make long-term international commitments under one government, only to go back on them under another.
This is not to say that there should be no accountability. Rather, it is to argue that Canada’s basic international priorities should be determined in a non-partisan manner, and that the opposition’s job would then be to make sure that the government delivered on those priorities in a consistent and honourable basis.
It is far too easy these days to spread misleading, if not completely false, personally hurtful information through websites such as this one that end up leaving its readers thinking that the government and/or the military can control the words and thoughts of those who teach at universities. Such ideas do a disservice to the entire Canadian university system, and in the end put into question the value of a Canadian university degree.
Sixth Estate
Adam,
Thank you for taking the time to respond in depth. Actually I’m prepared to see that Embassy may have taken liberties in paraphrasing you. I inferred from your comments there the suggestion that there should be no need for a public debate because it should be based on objective data on which all parties should agree in private prior to a public announcement, after which democratic debate is relegated to whether the program is being implemented efficiently and effectively. I see that both as non-democratic and also putting the cart before the horse, given that the public hasn’t been treated to the military’s (or anyone else’s) solid explanation of why Canada needs the F-35. That partisan hackery is now the highest level of democratic debate in government is most unfortunate, and while it’s right to call them out on that, I think the public deserves more than a debate about simply whether or not a program agreed upon outside of the political sphere is being implemented effectively.
The idea of a nonpartisan foreign policy is nice, but in a democracy I’m not sure how it would work legitimately. There is very little middle ground between “we should buy the F-35″ and “we should never buy the F-35,” and since both positions are held by Canadians, some Canadians are going to end up marginalized by the decision. Possibly some people could be drawn onboard by a public discussion of what Canada needs from its military — but this hasn’t happened, and I believe should never, in any case, happen after a decision has already been made.
Having gone back and edited an initial, too-strong version of this piece, though, I do want to point out that I don’t really consider you a “shill.” Actually I note that neither you nor David are “sinister or deceptive” by virtue of your comments. This piece was more directed towards the SDF than against you, and, while I’m sorry you were caught up in the net, if the Canadian university system is discredited by the fact that people might be concerned about where the money to fund that system comes from, that’s a consequence of seeking money that comes with potential conflicts of interest. Now that the military has chosen to play a political role by publicly advocating for the F-35 purchase, it seems worth pointing out when an academic from a theoretically independent centre is partially dependent on the military for his funding. That would equally the case with another hypothetical department and another hypothetical big-ticket purchase, I want to emphasize — this is not simply an anti-military tirade.
Of course, the SDF could find ways around this. For instance, the funding decisions could be turned over to an independent body with academic funding experience and no real interest in the outcome of ongoing political debates on military subjects, like SSHRC, for example. (In the spirit of voluntary disclosure, I’ll freely admit that I’ve received money from SSHRC in the past.)
Anthony Hall
Professor Chapnick views may indeed not be dictated by those who fund his academic institution. But the real issue is CBC’s determination of who can speak and what the limits are of acceptable discourse. On this score the article’s main critique is entirely valid. Professor Chapnik’s contribution on the airwaves of the Crown broadcaster is there because of the selection made by CBC gatekeepers whose often informal subordination to the funding authority of their paymasters is becoming epidemic and insidious. Since 9/11 the mainstream media, including our own Crown broadcaster, have become central participants in maintaining the mythology of public fear on which the viability of the Global War on Terror, by whatever name, depends. We know how thoroughly the media was discredited through revelations about CIA funding of thousands of journalists and academics in the Cold War. As I see it, this pattern of heavily-financed psychological warfare in the press and the academy has become even more severe in the era of the 9/11 Wars. From my perspective the reporting on the CF-35 controversy should start with discussions about the rise and fall of the Avro Arrow. That kind of historical background is needed to help explain the kind of covert interests and agendas permeating a deal like the CF-35s integration into Canada’s/NAT’O's arsenal. From whence did the decision actually emanate and whose interests are being served?
Anthony J. Hall
Professor of Globalization Studies
University of Lethbridge
Sixth Estate
Thank you for your thoughts, Anthony.
We do not yet know precisely where the idea originated. Possibly simply bureaucratic inertia on the part of DND and its respective ministers.
Donkey
Hello, I’d like to make a few comments about this post, although I’m about a year too late, so who knows if anyone will actually reads this.
SDF was designed to provide the government with civilian advice on military and defence issues. I believe Trudeau started it because he didn’t trust the advice of the military (could be wrong on that point). Effective civilian oversight of the military is one important foundation of Democracy. SDF is (was) entirely managed by DND civilian bureaucrats. It is not funded by the “military” as you imply. There is a major difference.
I would also like to suggest that CMSS is primarily a graduate studies program where most students are very critical of government defence policy. I am one of them. But, the student work is not all “guns and bombs” as you suggest SDF mandates. Students also study a very broad range of security related matters outside of the realm of traditional military threats, such as gender and the environment.
As for an independent body to oversight funding, a lot of the research projects at CMSS, both for profs and students, are in fact SSHRC sponsored. In fact, I think almost every project applies to SSHRC for funding. The director of research at CMSS is a SSHRC appointed Canadian Research Chair. Like you, I was also a recipient of the SSHRC program. As it offers degree programs, the Centre is also independently audited to ensure it meets academic rigours.
Yes, Dr. Bercuson has close ties to the military. He was after all a member of the Minister’s Monitoring Committee, tasked to ensure that the Post-Somalia reforms were indeed carried out by the military. He was extremely critical of the CF and the government in that role. This was an appointment under a Liberal government, political connection might not be as big as an issue as you think. He invested a lot of his time ensuring the CF reformed after Somalia, no doubt he has an invested personal and professional interest in it today.
I certainly understand the skepticism that some have about the Centre and SDF. I am also aware of the funding arrangements that you think are murky. A very significant portion of that the money goes directly into student funding to ensure that it is competitive.
I know I’m totally biased. I would not have been able to attend graduate studies without the funding package I receive at CMSS. I am just trying to point out is that there is a lot more going on with the CMSS and SDF programs than some-kind of pro-military conspiracy. I think they have gotten a bad rap in this regard as the student angle often missing in their criticisms.
PS- For the record, I’m against the F-35 purchase. I think we are simply opting for the coolest toy around and not examining what the basic requirements of Canadian Air Power are.
Sixth Estate
SDF is (was) entirely managed by DND civilian bureaucrats. It is not funded by the “military” as you imply. There is a major difference.
To anyone outside of the military and defence police community, this is hair-splitting. It’s also unproductive hair-splitting. We could also say that the military doesn’t procure ships or aircraft: Public Works does. And it would be an equally trivial distinction to make.
As for an independent body to oversight funding, a lot of the research projects at CMSS, both for profs and students, are in fact SSHRC sponsored.
The fact that CMSS receives funding from other sources (including SSHRC), and that its grad students do a wide variety of research, really isn’t my point. I’m sure they (and you) do. DND is funding academic researchers, and when those researchers comment in public on questions of DND procurement, this should be pointed out. It puts them in an apparent conflict of interest when they’re asked to comment on the policies of a significant donor, and while it’s admirable when scholars can and do speak their minds freely anyways, I think this is an issue which should not be evaded.
If I recall CMSS has other little-publicized funding sources in places like the energy sector which probably render it a little stabler, in the absence of SDF support, than many of the other similarly oriented programs.