In the midst of a critical decision regarding Canada’s future submarine fleet, a senior executive from the German shipbuilder TKMS has raised eyebrows with a LinkedIn post discussing the implications of language and cultural compatibility in defence procurement. Philipp Schön, who oversees sales for TKMS’s submarine operations, asserted that a joint proposal with Norway for the construction of 12 submarines would better suit Canada than a competing bid from South Korea’s Hanwha. This debate comes as the Canadian government prepares to choose between the TKMS 212CD and the Hanwha KSS-III Batch-II submarines, a contract valued between $20 billion to $30 billion for the submarines alone, with additional operational costs expected to reach up to $50 billion.
Cultural Ecosystems and Defence Procurement
Schön’s commentary emphasised the importance of the “cultural ecosystem” that Canada would be joining should it select the German-Norwegian submarine proposal. He contended that adopting the TKMS model would align Canada with an international programme already established with English as its working language, thus avoiding potential language barriers that could complicate collaboration.
In his post, Schön questioned the long-term impact of Canada’s decision, asking, “Which cultural ecosystem will Canada become part of for the next 40 years?” He argued that effective defence cooperation hinges on direct communication, asserting that operational efficiency is compromised when partners must navigate linguistic differences. “Defence cooperation works best when partners can engage directly, not through translation,” he stated, highlighting the need for seamless collaboration between engineers and sailors.
The South Korean Bid
Hanwha’s proposal presents a significant shift in Canada’s procurement history, potentially marking the first acquisition of a major military asset from a non-Western supplier. Should the Canadian government opt for Hanwha’s KSS-III, it would not only signify a new chapter in Canada’s defence strategy but also forge deeper ties with South Korea, a nation with which Canada has developed extensive trade and security partnerships.
In response to Schön’s remarks, Glenn Copeland, CEO of Hanwha Defence Canada, countered the narrative surrounding language, asserting that his team possesses strong multilingual capabilities. He pointed out that many team members have international experience and are fluent in several languages, including English, French, and German. Moreover, he noted that the South Korean navy regularly collaborates with English-speaking allies, further dispelling the notion that language would hinder operational success.
Perspectives on the Submarine Programme
Schön’s post has ignited a broader discussion about the implications of framing Canada’s submarine decision around cultural considerations. Vina Nadjibulla, vice-president of research and strategy at the Asia Pacific Foundation, cautioned against creating unnecessary divisions between Canada and South Korea, stressing the importance of evaluating proposals based on capability and industrial benefits rather than perceived cultural compatibility.
Flavio Volpe, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association, echoed this sentiment, asserting that South Korean firms are adept at operating in English and have a proven track record in international collaboration. He suggested that Schön’s comments may stem from a misunderstanding of Canada’s diverse and multicultural landscape.
Why it Matters
As Canada stands on the brink of a pivotal defence procurement decision, the discourse surrounding language and cultural alignment raises essential questions about the future of international military partnerships. The outcome of this submarine bid will not only shape Canada’s naval capabilities but will also influence its strategic relationships on the global stage. In an increasingly interconnected world, the ability to collaborate effectively across cultural lines is paramount, making the choice between TKMS and Hanwha a defining moment in Canada’s defence policy.
