Posted on 05/08/2003 9:31:40 AM PDT by knighthawk
A few months ago, Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham was denouncing the very idea of National Missile Defence. Now he, Defence Minister John McCallum, and even Prime Minister Jean Chrétien have been making noises that suggest Canada will buy into the Americans' plan for a continental missile protection plan. What's changed?
The first point that is clear is that U.S. President George Bush, his determination no longer in doubt after the Iraq war, is going to press ahead with development of a small National Missile Defence (NMD) system and has made plans for initial deployment by 2005. No effective NMD system yet exists, but if money and technical skill can make it work, the Americans will get it right. The second is that opposition to missile defence from Russia and China has markedly decreased.
There are also some peculiarly Canadian factors as well. The United States was not happy about Canada's position on the Iraq war, and it seems obvious that a major gesture toward Washington was required. A commitment to NMD might actually get President Bush to Ottawa this fall.
Most important, a positive decision on National Missile Defence will keep open Canada's door to North American defence planning. The North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) is Canada's main defence link with the U.S. military, but NORAD, with its focus on traditional air defence, is increasingly marginalized in the U.S. military establishment. No one any longer fears an attack by bombers over the Arctic, and NORAD has likely survived as long as it has because of its bi-national structure and because the fighter jocks who run the air forces of both nations want to keep flying. But if Canada buys into NMD, and if NMD comes under NORAD's command and control, then Canada's place at the NMD table can be ensured and its continuing access to space-based surveillance from U.S .satellites preserved.
This matters, the objections of reflexive anti-Americans in Canada notwithstanding. Those, like Toronto Liberal MP John Godfrey, simply fail to grasp that sovereignty can be enhanced by cooperation and lost by non-participation. The Americans are proceeding with NMD so, at root, the sole issue for Canada is deciding how best to serve the Canadian national interest. Do we pretend that NMD will never be there and allow the debris of destroyed missiles to fall on our territory? Or do we try to get a voice in deciding where the "terminal" phase missile interceptors will be located and how the system will be commanded and controlled? That choice is no choice at all. Participation is the only way to maximize Canadian sovereignty.
In fact, there are few risks in Canada's joining NMD and some real advantages. There might be missile debris on Canadian soil when interceptions occur, but debris is certainly better than nuclear missile strikes. With rogue states like North Korea investing billions in developing long-range missiles, with Chinese and Russian fail-safe controls over their missiles sometimes suspect, cooperation in NMD is a sensible decision in our own national security interests. Moreover, NMD -- at least, so far -- is not a space-based system, though it might eventually turn into this. Canada wants to keep weapons out of space, an effort that is almost certain to be largely futile, but that fight is for another day and a positive NMD decision does not force us into a compromised position. And, finally, the United States is paying the bills for NMD, not Canada, and there might be contracts for Canadian firms with the requisite technological capacities.
The real advantage, however, remains the continuation of NORAD as a Canada-U.S. joint command. NORAD has surveillance and tracking systems in place, and with National Missile Defence under its control, NORAD will be poised to maintain an important role in aerospace defence for the foreseeable future. That choice between the future or marginalization, between involvement in the continent's defence or relegation to the sidelines, is the key reason for Canada to press ahead with NMD.
But let's be clear. NORAD is not essential for U.S. planners. If Canada opts out of NMD, the Americans will assign responsibility for it elsewhere, most likely to their new Northern Command whose geographical area of responsibility covers all of North America. From a U.S. point of view, that might even be an easier route, obviating the necessity to deal with the frequently difficult Canadians. But the Administration and U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci in Ottawa want to bring Canada along, the Iraq unpleasantness notwithstanding. You can almost see the telegrams humming over the wires between Washington and the embassy: Let's give them until June to determine if they want to be involved, but make sure the Canadians understand we're going ahead whatever they decide.
Faced with a stark choice between involvement or irrelevance, Ottawa is on the verge of deciding to enter negotiations with the United States. Mr. Graham, good nationalist that he is, has seen the future and now appears to understand where the nation's interests lie. Mr. Godfrey and some of his friends in caucus, still blinded by their nationalism and knee-jerk anti-Americanism, have not.
J.L. Granatstein is Chair of the Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century
BTTT!
First as was posted above, lots of barren empty space for testing,
The US has plenty of open-spaces sites to test.
…as well as access to the North for forward detection
The US has many satellites that will give us plenty of early detection.
Second, backup facilities like the fall-back command facility for NORAD underneath North Bay, Ontario (there's a Canuck on the command team in Cheyenne).
The US can easily build it own fallback command facilities thousands of miles away and still on US soil.
We're also no slouch when it comes to satellite and space technology and that may come in useful.
Good, Canada can build it’s own defense, if perchance, they feel their new allies in France aren’t up to the job.
I know there are millions of great folks in Canada, and I am sure you are too. But in the last year there has been far too much anti-America sentiment, words and actions coming from Canada for it to be considered much of an American ally.
I have to say this is an unfair and poor analogy.
Thank you for your well-spelled opinion.
You’re welcome. I gave it everything it deserved.
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.