Posted on 02/23/2005 5:59:27 PM PST by srm913
U.S. perplexed by Canada on missile defence
FROM CANADIAN PRESS
Canada's apparent decision to stay out of a North American missile-defence system has dumbfounded Americans as an unnecessary giveaway of sovereignty, Washington's envoy to Ottawa said today.
"We don't get it," Paul Cellucci said in Toronto.
"If there's a missile incoming, and it's heading toward Canada, you are going to leave it up to the United States to determine what to do about that missile. We don't think that is in Canada's sovereign interest."
Despite strong pressure from the U.S. to sign on, Prime Minister Paul Martin was expected to pull the plug on Canada's participation in the missile program on Thursday.
However, reaction from American officials suggested the decision had already been made.
Regardless, said Cellucci, Washington would press ahead with its plans.
"We will deploy. We will protect North America," he said.
"We think Canada would want to be in the room deciding what to do about an incoming missile that might be heading toward Canada."
In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Canada had yet to inform the U.S. of its decision.
He refused to speculate on the effect a negative decision would have on relations between the two neighbours or whether it would cause a rift.
"We have a very solid basis of co-operation in many areas and we'll see how that sees us through," said Boucher.
A senior Canadian official who requested anonymity said today that Canada's decision was relayed at this week's NATO summit in Brussels attended by Bush and Martin.
But Canada's interest in Norad, the joint Canada-U.S. air defence command, remains paramount, said the official.
"The key for Canada is preserving the Norad relationship. It's such an important command that losing it would not be in Canada's best interests."
Boucher noted Canada and the U.S. amended an agreement last August to allow Norad to track any incoming rogue missiles.
Washington had hoped Canada would go further and participate in building the continental defence shield, an elaborate system that some worry could lead to weapons in space and an international arms race.
Cellucci compared the situation to one that occurred during the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. He noted that it was a Canadian general at Norad who scrambled military jets under orders from U.S. President George W. Bush to shoot down a hijacked commercial aircraft headed for Washington.
Had that plane been flying over Canada, it would have fallen to the prime minister to make the decision to shoot it down, Cellucci said.
That's why Americans were "perplexed" as to why Canadians would want to leave it up to the Americans to decide what action to take in the event a missile was aimed at Canada.
David Biette, director of the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington, agreed with Cellucci's assessment that Canada is giving up sovereignty.
"I fear that it risks marginalizing Canada and Canada is ceding sovereignty by not being there when the decisions are being made," said Biette.
"It's making people unhappy in this administration that Canada is happy to take a free ride."
However, Biette said he didn't think the issue would ultimately hurt Canada-U.S. relations.
Unpopular with most Canadians, the multibillion-dollar program to shoot down incoming missiles has been a political nightmare for Martin's minority government.
There's been intense pressure from Bush, who unexpectedly raised the issue during his visit to Canada last December and reportedly was blunt with Martin in a private meeting.
Some U.S. analysts were shaking their heads at the intrigue and confusion stirred this week by Frank McKenna, who takes over as ambassador to the United States next week.
McKenna told a Commons committee Tuesday that Canada is effectively already part of the missile-defence program, given Norad's increased responsibility.
"We're part of it now and the question is what more do we need?" he asked. "What does `sign on' mean?"
Behind closed doors today, Martin indicated Canada hadn't joined the missile program and suggested McKenna erred by saying otherwise.
"Did Frank express himself badly? Perhaps," is the way one Liberal described the prime minister's message at today's caucus meeting. Another Liberal confirmed the account.
Liberal MPs have also been sent speaking notes from party brass, urging them to get out and toe the government line on missile defence.
"Canada is obviously not participating in BMD," said a copy of Tuesday's Liberal Research Bureau message obtained by The Canadian Press.
"The government has not taken that decision yet and the ambassador never intended to leave the opposite impression."
U.S. defence analyst Dwight Mason said Canada's refusal to get more involved would be "unfortunate in a symbolic sense."
"It's the first time since 1938 that Canada would have refused to participate in continental defence. It's a turning point. But the impact would be much greater if Canada pulled back from where it is now."
Paul Martin is only doing this because he will be facing a leadership vote at the liberal party convention in two weeks.
There are 20 proposed amendments that are in opposition to BMD. If Dither's actually came out in favour of BMD, he couldn't survive politically. He would lose any support he had in Quebec and drive the left wing of his party to the NDP splitting the vote. We conservatives would walk up the middle and get enough seats to form a majority government.
The problem is Bush has given us folks up here a chance to show our committment to North American defence, frankly I don't think Bush cares a rats bare behind if we signed on or not. What this does is it allows your administration the legitmacy of acting unilaterally in the interest of Continental defence, and Martin can't say diddly.
It almost like our liberal government didn't learn anything from the run up to the Iraq war. The UN was given ample time and opportunity to do something about Saddam then.
Same thing here, we had a choice of signing on to BMD or could have started carrying our weight. We have done neither. The weiners that are opposed to this can promptly walk their ass down to the CF recruiter if they don't want the US to cover our ass anymore.
me too.......up in Alberta which by nature is more conservative anyway......and you don't like curling....or most well known as Canadian Rugby
I would listen to our new Ambassador to the US over Martin. Martin is playing politics ... and not too well I might add.
We should let the first one hit just to teach them a lesson. The next ones we catch as bombs would rain fallout on us.
Canada Dry.
Kick em out of Norad and seal the borders.
I've stopped trying to figure out what parts of Canada are conservative, because no representatives from those parts seem to ever get any visibility here. A friend in Toronto makes ME look liberal.
Thanks for posting this article.
Canada...?????? Oh... here is an explanation.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php
And there's an underlying reason for that which is that the Canadian people know they can be, and wish to be, free riders with no responsibility. If they didn't, the political reality you speak of would not exist.
The problem is Bush has given us folks up here a chance to show our committment to North American defence, frankly I don't think Bush cares a rats bare behind if we signed on or not. What this does is it allows your administration the legitmacy of acting unilaterally in the interest of Continental defence, and Martin can't say diddly.
Good point.
It wouldn't be that easy. There are NORAD radar installations on the very northern parts of Canada. The US would have to come up with something to replace them and continue to have the same capability from US soil or maybe some sort of space radar that can take the place of NORAD radar installations in Canada.
Funny link.
Where on EARTH did you find that???
I'm amazed at the resourcefulness of folks in Freeperland.
Or at least we should "talk" about it. Canada seems to think that because we are "neighbors" we will put up with anything they do. That may be a mistake they come to really regret. As President Bush said, we are slow to anger - but watch out when we get there!
"the multibillion-dollar program"
THeres your answer. They don't want to spend a dime when they know we'll protect them because it's in our national interest to do so. Naturally, the American taxpayers will foot the bill for Canada's defense.
Amen. We've had more terrorists arrive via Canada than through are porous Southern boder. Canada's government is not a friend but merely a group of cynical opportunists. eff em.
That can be arranged. I have no doubt that if we decide to have a spaced based radar station we could quickly do it. I would love to see the look on the faces of the liberal Canooks when we tell them that our satallite will stop missiles aimed at the US, but good luck to them at stopping anything aimed at Canada.
too bad Bush is leaving our southern defenses to the Mexicans.
Bonus question. How many know that the Canuk is IN CHARGE of NORAD one-half of the time? Raise your mouse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.