Canada hedging its bets on missile defence

National Post ^ | January 13 2004 | David Rudd

[knighthawk]

Canada is about to grit its teeth and begin discussions on a U.S. plan to create a missile defence grid covering North America.

The plan to build one or two sites comprising long-range surface-to-air anti-ballistic missiles and radars was conceived in the 1990s by the Clinton administration, albeit at the behest of a Republican-controlled Congress. The justification was, and is, ostensibly, to defend the continental United States (and Canada) from missiles fired by "rogue" states which cannot be deterred from gross misbehaviour by America's nuclear arsenal. The countries most often cited as potential threats to the United States include North Korea, Libya and Iran.

So far as one can tell, Canada has never completed an independent assessment of whether the current or projected arsenals of these countries pose a clear and present danger to North America. Ottawa has never formally endorsed U.S. threat perceptions, and has, in the past, expressed grave reservations over the technical feasibility and political desirability of the defence grid.

The possibility that America will one day deploy anti-missile weapons in space does not sit well with some Cabinet members and parliamentarians, even though such defences are not entirely forbidden by international treaty. (It is an open question whether opposition is not partially based on a general feeling of antipathy toward the Bush administration.)

So what prompted Prime Minister Paul Martin to agree to exploratory talks with the Americans?

A general desire to improve Canada-U.S. relations -- strained by the mutual (and often petty) antagonisms between Jean Chretien and George W. Bush -- provides insufficient incentive to say Yes to missile defence. There are other ways of pursuing rapprochement without fostering disunity in the federal Cabinet.

More likely the about-face stems from three factors. First, Mr. Martin has come to the realization that the fearsome scenarios put forth by missile defence opponents -- that deployment would re-ignite a nuclear arms race -- were unrealistic. Russia and China (and America's European allies) have largely muted their reservations about the strategic impact of the defence system.

Second, Ottawa is aware that Canada's sovereignty depends on its ability to survey and control national territory, including its airspace and maritime approaches. Membership in the bi-national North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) facilitates this in a cost-effective manner, since Washington pays for 90% of NORAD's upkeep. If Canada were to conclude that NORAD, which is responsible for missile detection and tracking, should not incorporate missile defence into its mandate, would Washington agree? Unlikely, given the time and expense involved in creating a separate organization for missile defence -- one in which NORAD's existing duties would have to be duplicated.

Thus America would simply calculate that the political and financial costs of keeping Canada within the NORAD fold are too high. The bi-national command would dissolve, and Canada would be obliged to spend whatever was necessary to monitor and exercise unambiguous control over its own territory. This would have significant financial implications for a deficit-conscious government.

Thirdly, although Canada and the United States have signed more than 200 treaties and memoranda covering mutual defence and security, none has the political import of NORAD. The dissolution of the command would not only cut off access to U.S. intelligence-gathering assets, it would sever the most important link between the defence decision-makers in both countries. Under such circumstances, Washington would no longer take seriously into account Canadian views when deciding how to combat threats to continental security.

And while a polite No would find favour among nationalists and Bush-bashers, Mr. Martin evidently agrees that it would send the wrong signal to a neighbour that, for good reasons or bad, has made the link between continental security and the free flow of trade. This link will endure even if Mr. Bush loses the 2004 election.

Mr. Martin's pragmatism does not end there. Recognizing that the defence grid is plagued by spiralling costs and technological uncertainty, he seems to have ruled out any major financial contributions to the project. With the taxpayer off the hook, Canada's most likely contribution will be a few extra air force officers to operate the computers systems at NORAD headquarters in Colorado. This is a burden Canada can easily live with.

Looking ahead, Mr. Martin's cautious acquiescence may be justified. The three nations which form President Bush's "axis of evil" have all indicated that their ballistic missiles and/or weapons of mass destruction may be bargained away. North Korea has recently indicated it would trade its missile and nuclear programs for aid and security guarantees. Iran has opened up its nuclear facilities to international inspection in return for European Union trade considerations. Libya's Muammar Gadaffi has struck an informal deal with the United States and Britain which would see him roll back his exotic weapons programs in return for the lifting of U.S. sanctions that have hobbled Libya's economy.

One cannot be sure that all three "rogues" will disarm fully. North Korea is given to bouts of capriciousness. The accords with Iran and Libya do not require either to dismantle their ballistic missiles. But if the weapons of mass destruction which might have otherwise sat atop them are eliminated, the threat posed by these delivery vehicles drops significantly. With that, the defence grid's most ardent supporters will be hard-pressed to justify its construction. Ottawa may be banking on the probability that U.S. plans will be overtaken by events, and that a political headache over the possible weaponization of space can be avoided.

David Rudd is president of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies (CISS).

[Always Right]

The plan to build one or two sites comprising long-range surface-to-air anti-ballistic missiles and radars was conceived in the 1990s by the Clinton administration

Star Wars was a Clinton idea.....????

[prairiebreeze]

One cannot be sure that all three "rogues" will disarm fully.

Says it all right there. And Canada will happily rely on the US for defense, (likely complaining and criticizing all the while) and continue to subsidize it's socialist programs. And Martin pays no political capital either way.

Prairie

[Always Right]

Says it all right there.

Yes, and that a point that needs to be made more often about Iraq. It is impossible to know what Saddam did and did not have. That's why we had weapon inspections and since Saddam failed to cooperate, we acted. It was never our burdon to prove Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, it was up to Saddam to allow us free access so we could see for ourselves. Saddam failed to cooperate time after time after time, we attacked.

[bobjam]

Canada has had the luxury of relying on Great Britain and then the United States for its protection for 150 years. If they play their cards wrong, they may wind up with both countries either unwilling or unable to continue providing defense services. The day our socialist neighbors to the north are forced to face a serious threat by themselves will be a long and hard one for them.

[knighthawk]

Double post, original here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1057159/posts