Canada has officially submitted a request to join the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), a coalition of NATO countries established to enable quicker responses during crises, which is led by the United Kingdom.
Prime Minister Mark Carney made the announcement on Wednesday during a meeting with British Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
In his remarks, Carney referred to JEF as an “important initiative” and pointed out Canada’s strong defence collaboration with the U.K., including its role as an observer in the development of the next generation of fighter jets.
Over a decade ago, the U.K. invited Canada to become a part of JEF after its establishment during the final stages of the Afghanistan war. Although the idea was brought up during the 2014 NATO leaders’ summit in Wales, the administration of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper ultimately declined the invitation.
-
Canada joining international program to build next generation of fighter jets
-
Canada urges U.K. to join new global bank for defence projects
At that time, the Canadian military was experiencing significant budget reductions imposed by the Conservative government, which made them hesitant to join.
In a 2014 interview with The Canadian Press, Lt.-Gen. Jonathan Vance, then commander of the military’s joint operations command and later chief of the defence staff, expressed several concerns regarding participation in the British expeditionary force.
He indicated that it would represent a considerable commitment for the military and could obligate the nation to respond in a predetermined manner to future crises, which may conflict with the federal government’s preferred approach.
Vance remarked that joining the force without a defined mission would imply “a commitment to future operations, having done the training, that you may — or may not — be able to honour.”
In his recent statement, Carney did not elaborate on the practical implications of Canada’s involvement in JEF. Furthermore, the current chief of the Canadian military, Gen. Jennie Carignan, has not yet commented on the potential ramifications of this membership.
Canada’s top military commander, Gen. Jennie Carignan, has not yet commented on joining JEF. (Chad Hipolito/The Canadian Press)
Initially, the Joint Expeditionary Force was designed to maintain the battlefield relationships established during the Afghan conflict.
In 2012, the then U.K. chief of defence staff, Gen. Sir David Richards, envisaged a future force capable of rapid overseas deployment, eliminating the need for Britain to form a completely new coalition for every situation.
It was anticipated that the British Army would provide the command structure and much of the military infrastructure, while other nations would contribute forces as necessary to JEF.
The urgency of the concept intensified following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.
At the NATO summit in Wales that year, Britain, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, and Norway officially agreed to form JEF under NATO’s new Framework Nations Concept. Finland and Sweden joined in 2017, prior to either nation becoming NATO members, and Iceland was incorporated in 2021.
It is crucial to note a significant distinction. Although JEF comprises NATO nations, it lacks an equivalent to NATO’s Article 5 collective defence clause.
-
First phase of Army restructuring creates division focused on defending Canada
-
Canada, Ukraine forge 100-year pact built on drones and defence
-
Analysis
No longer taboo, Canada’s defence industry steps into Europe’s spotlight
Essentially, it forms a coalition of willing nations capable of deploying forces for specific contingencies without needing consensus among all NATO member states.
Since 2018, multiple military exercises have taken place under the JEF framework.
However, Russia’s comprehensive invasion of Ukraine in 2022 transformed JEF into a security coalition focused on Northern Europe.
A 2024 report from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in the U.K. suggested that JEF holds significant advantages, particularly in decision-making speed compared to NATO, though it has yet to undergo serious political or operational testing.
The report clarified that the expeditionary force is not a permanent military organization; instead, governments contribute forces as necessary.