Yes to missile defence

National Post ^ | May 10 2003

[knighthawk]

The U.S. plan to field a missile defence system is putting strain on the ideological rivets keeping the Liberal party bolted together. America's launchers would be based in Alaska. But since missiles from Asia and the Middle East would likely pass through our airspace, the United States wants Canada on board the project. U.S.-friendly Grits, including Art Eggleton, the former defence minister, Finance Minister John Manley, and David Pratt, chairman of the Commons defence committee, argue for Canada's participation. Prominent left-wing Liberal MPs, on the other hand -- such as John Godfrey and John Harvard -- want Ottawa to have no part. We urge Jean Chrétien to listen to his hawks.

From the moment U.S. President George W. Bush announced his intention to pursue a missile defense system early in his presidency, opponents insisted it would exacerbate global tensions. A new arms race would start -- with the Chinese and Russians looking to ensure that they could overwhelm America's limited shield. Multilateralists complained Mr. Bush's move would require the United States to renounce the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, a cornerstone of arms control.

But such fears have been belied by recent developments. While Moscow and Beijing initially made angry noises about Washington's move to withdraw from the ABM Treaty in 2001, they have since softened their opposition. Recent developments have also demonstrated the obsolescence of Mutually Assured Destruction -- the theory of nuclear deterrence on which the ABM Treaty was based. As evil as Soviet Communism may have been, it was a materialistic philosophy, and the USSR's leaders could at least be counted on to avoid a conflict that would destroy their country. But rogue nations cannot be similarly deterred. As the events of 9/11 showed, militant Islamists and Arabists embrace an apocalyptic creed, and many would happily die a fiery death if they can bring the infidel West down with them. The Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq both courted confrontations with the United States they were guaranteed to lose.

The same may be true of nuclear-armed North Korea. It was only last month that Li Gun, a top North Korean official, threatened "a physical demonstration" of his country's atomic capabilities. Last November, North Korea's deputy foreign minister boasted that Pyongyang possesses even "more powerful weapons" -- likely an overstated allusion to weaponized biological and chemical agents. The North Korean government also distributes propaganda posters showing North Korean weapons blasting the White House to rubble. Last December, its spokesmen threatened Americans with "an uncontrollable catastrophe" if they did not take a more conciliatory line.

Iran, meanwhile, is building up its own nuclear program -- under the implausible theory that the oil- and gas-rich country needs an extra power source. While we doubt the regime in Tehran would be insane enough to launch a nuke at the United States, it is impossible to know who might end up with the country's weapons. This is the nation, remember, that last year was caught smuggling arms to the Palestinians on board the Karine A -- and which has provided thousands of rockets to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Addressing the Commons on the subject of missile defence this week, Mr. Chrétien declared: "We are having a debate. There might be some consultations with the Americans and it will take months before we will be in a position to be obliged to make a decision ... We are not rushing." But we should rush. Reports out of Washington suggest Mr. Bush will be making a decision about the missile shield command structure in the coming months. If Canada does not come on board soon, the President will likely put the shield under the direct control of the U.S. military -- not NORAD, the binational Canada-U.S. military command that protects North American airspace. Canada's non-participation won't affect the U.S. decision to erect a missile shield: It will merely ensure we have no say in its deployment and activation.

Mr. Chrétien's refusal to partake in the liberation of Iraq was a historic mistake. By keeping our forces at home, Ottawa showed itself unwilling to help the United States fight the deadly threat that lies at the intersection of rogue power, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Bush's missile shield is another project aimed at defending against this same threat. It would be a terrible thing for Canada if Mr. Chrétien were to flinch a second time.

[knighthawk]

Ping