As I mentioned in an earlier post I have looked at the options, the propaganda, and the discussions… and decided to come out against Canadian participation in what the Americans are calling their missile defense shield.
There are a couple of reasons for this, the first being the use of the word defense…. the logical question is to ask when looking at that phrase is “defense against who?”, or “defense against what?” - - and to expect more of an answer than “evil terrorists”.
What terrorist group has the technology at its’ disposal to launch a missile attack from outside America’s borders? What country with missiles that could reach America would actually do it even if they could? Who, and with what, can the existing military might and technology of the American military not already more than adaquately defend the American people against?
In asking these questons, and looking for answers to them, it did not esacpe me that these missiles just may not be strictly defensive in nature… that is, unfortunately, a far more logical path to follow when seeking answers.
Not so long ago Bush pulled the United States out of the international ABM treaty, recently he has decided that a new generation of mini tactical nukes would be a good thing to add to America’s list of weapons, and last week Russia announced that it was developing a new generation of nukes, which oddly enough are designed to penetrate the US shield before the technology even exists to put it in place. Are we seeing the emergence of a new arms race? The answer to that is obviously going to be personal speculation for any who care to hazard an answer - but my feeling is that it will….. and unfortunately the countries that are most likely to feel threatened by the new American missile system are the ones who can least afford to divert funds into an answer to this new preceived threat. (Given current US deficit and accumulated debt levels and the state of their social network they can’t really afford it either but that’s really a discussion for another day)
I fully acknowledge a shared responsibility with our southern neighbours in the defense of North America, I also acknowledge that of late we have not lived up to that responsibility, as a matter of fact, and to our national detriment, it’s something we have become down-right slack on - and I firmly believe that, for our own national reasons, our government should address that slackness sooner rather than later.
Having said that we are not, and have no need to be, a military force in the world…. we do not launch wars of aggression, we do not threaten those who offend us with bombs and fighter jets, and our Prime Minister has no need to fly in a plane to an air craft carrier somewhere for a military photo-op…… we have become known, and respected, as peace keepers, that is our role in the internaional community.
I ask myself, as a Canadian with global concerns, if I want my country aligned with a military super power that is willing to send its’ military off to achieve its own foreign policy ambtions - and the answer is no.
I ask myself if I am willing to give up our nations reputation as peace keepers and mediators to curry favour with the worlds last remaining military super power - and the answer is no.
I ask myself if, for the sake of some national friendship with the giant next door, I would be willing to join forces with them and give up the expectation of a warm reception in a foreign country while proudly wearing the Canadian flag because of how we are viewed in the world - and the answer is again, no.
There is a reason why we can wear our flag proudly when travelling, and I am not willing to abandon those reasons, and that philosophy, to appease the government of the country next door where many of their tourists find it necessary to don our flag to ensure a reasonable welcome in foreign lands.
It is a matter of logic, trust, and nationalism for me.
* I cannot find a logical enemy for American missiles to defend against from our soil
* I do not trust America not to use armed, potentially nuclear, missiles deployed on our soil as a threat against some other member of the international community, and
* I am proud of how our country is viewed in the international community and completely unwilling to lend my support to any scheme that would detract from that.
In short, I am not willing to sell Canada down the river to appease the hawks south of the border and, as such, you can expect to see me
* at rallies denouncing Canadian participation in America’s new missile system
* denouncing Canadian participation in America’s new missile system here on stageleft, and,
* actively working to replace Paul Martin as Prime Minister during the next federal election if he capitulates on this and allows an American missile system that is clearly not in our best national interests to be installed on our soil.
I don’t object in principle to the notion of sharing responsibility for continental defense, and I don’t object to Canada developing defense initiatives in collaboration with its closest allies (the US, or NATO). I do, however, have a number of reservations about the proposed missile defense system. Without going into editorial length commentary, here are a couple of them.
a) I don’t know of too many strategists who feel that the US is seriously threatened by missile strikes from “rogue states”. It is vastly more likely that any nation inclined to use WMD against the US would simply assemble their weapons with the US, or strike coastal targets with a nuke in a container ship. According to an analysis published in Foreign Policy journal, the US has done virtually nothing to enhance its security in these extremely high risk areas, leading cynics like to to question the real goals of the “war” on “terror”.
b) To me this initiative has the all the earmarks of a huge pork barrel, and I don’t think its a coincidence that a rather large number of arms and space technology contractors are based in key Bush states (specifically Texas and Florida). Billions have been spent so far to produce failed systems: I can foresee billions more being paid out to happy contractors without tremendous return.
c) As far as Canadian participation goes, I frankly don’t think we’re ever likely to be a higher priority target for the missiles of a “rogue nation” than the US. I think an enhancement of our conventional armed forces and ongoing training in peacekeeping training is a better long term investment in both Canadian and global security.
Bottom line: I think this is an overpriced initiative that fails to address America’s real security priorities, and would represent a bad investment for Canada. Out of neighbourly politeness, I would negotiate access to the Arctic for installations (if that’s what they want) with appropriate Inuit impact benefit agreements and rock-hard environmental protection, and possibly use that access as a lever to extract some American recognition of Canadian sovereignty in the region.