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."
54 40 or fight
Got me ... probably because Detroit could take a nuke and it would be hard to tell?
hand
Excellent!
Um, let's not be so hasty. Being in the Northeast, can we at least check the weather/fallout patterns first?
From another poster.
Go to ALBINOBLACKSHEEP.COM or ITSVIDEOS.COM if you like things like that.
Here's one I am still laughing about.
http://216.69.173.57/wmv1/cool/Yummy.wmv
"Yeah, but can we televise the nuke as it hits Ottawa or some other city.. and sell advertiseing to nasty capitalist companys with the American beer commercials, of course.?. "
Did Frank express himself badly? Perhaps
THis sounds kerryish.
Canada has a recent history of opposing various weapons systems on their soil. Most notably, one can refer back to the Bomarc anti-aircraft missle and Prime Minister John Diefenbaker opposing the missles being armed with nuclear warheads. It cost Diefenbaker an election to Lester Pearson who did order the missles armed with nuclear warheads.
A comparison of Soviet targeting data from the cold war reveals that the only nuclear target in Canada was Ottawa. Sure to make Ottawans unhappy to be sure. But in the great scale of disaster that ain't bad.
The Soviets had different targeting scenarios/operating plans based on the threat/attack. I believe it's reasonable to posit that the Soviets had many targets in Canada, again based on the threat/attack and the objectives they hoped to achieve.
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.