Canada Opts Out of U.S. Defense Shield

AP-YahooNews ^ | Feb. 24, 2005 | AP

[Unam Sanctam]

TORONTO - Prime Minister Paul Martin said Thursday that Canada would opt out of the contentious U.S. missile defense program, a move that will further strain brittle relations between the neighbors but please Canadians who fear it could lead to an international arms race.

Martin, ending nearly two years of debate over whether Canada should participate in the development or operation of the multibillion-dollar program, said Ottawa would remain a close ally of Washington in the fight against global terrorism and continental security.

He said he intended to talk to President Bush (news - web sites) later Thursday and that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) had been informed of the decision earlier this week.

A State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States had been informed beforehand of the decision, adding that Washington expects that cooperation with Canada will continue on a wide variety of issues.

Talking to reporters several minutes after his foreign minister first announced the move in the House of Commons, Martin said Canada would instead focus on strengthening its own military and defense in proposals laid out Wednesday in the federal budget.

"Canada recognizes the enormous burden that the United States shoulders, when it comes to international peace and security," Martin said. "The substantial increases made yesterday to our defense budget are a tangible indication that Canada intends to carry its full share of that responsibility."

The federal budget presented to the House of Commons calls for $10.5 billion in the next five years to increase the country's beleaguered armed forces — including an additional 5,000 soldiers and 3,000 reservists — the largest commitment to defense in two decades. It also called for another $807,950 to improve Canada's anti-terrorism efforts and security along the unarmed, 4,000-mile border with the United States.

When Bush visited Canada in December, he surprised Ottawa by making several unsolicited pitches for support of the defense shield, which is in the midst of testing interceptors capable of destroying incoming missiles targeted at North America.

Martin, who leads a tenuous minority government, has said Ottawa would not support what he called the "weaponization of space." Though he initially supported joining the program when he was a candidate for the Liberal leadership, Martin has retreated, since polls indicate that a majority of Canadians oppose it. Many believe that the umbrella, when fully implemented, could lead to an international arms race.

The Bush administration has tried to make a public show of understanding that Martin heads up a minority government that could fall over such a contentious debate.

But U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci told reporters Wednesday that he was perplexed over Canada's apparent decision to allow Washington to make the decision if a missile was headed toward its territory.

"Why would you want to give up sovereignty?" he said. "We don't get it. We think Canada would want to be in the room deciding what to do about an incoming missile that might be heading toward Canada."

[RockAgainsttheLeft04]

RE: "Paul Martin, "Rebel Without a Clue"


Bingo! You know, there's nothing like a sniveling, weak, socialist weasel like Martin to make one yearn for the days of Brian Mulroney. At least HE did the best he could to provide for Canada's national defense under the situation (and I'd call having to govern Canada a bad "situation").

[Michael81Dus]

I am not argueing that the French do economic espionage, and they use the EU for that, too. As you said, it´s a big game.

Re: Fischer. FINALLY (!) after 4 years, he is no longer the most popular politician, since he is damaged by a visa-affair.

[jaykay]

I seem to be quoting Burnham very often lately. It is because what he predicted is happening, which is scary.

"what Americans call 'liberalism' is the ideology of Western suicide." - from 'Suicide of the West,' by James Burnham - "Liberalism permits Western civilization to be reconciled to dissolution."

It is actually even worse than Burnham thought. The Left in the West are not just reconciled to the demise of the West, many are now actually eager for it.

[borntobeagle]

Dear Mr. Mitchbert of Canada,

Thank you for the wonderfully refreshing rant you shared. I certainly hope that you will share these thoughts as often as possible with your fellow Canadians on as many forums as possible.

I can honestly empathize with the conservative Canadians that have endured the loss in your country's heritage and pride.

I grew up in Minnesota, and as a child, had always enjoyed my family's trips to your beautiful country. At that time (and I am not going to say how many years ago), we always felt welcomed and enjoyed our visits. Times certainly have changed.

My Parent's recently brought my oldest daughter to Canada, while my father had a work-related job to do with one of your country's Brick Companies. It was so very dis-heartening to hear that My parents and Daughter were greeted by Canada's Border Patrol with threats of placing my 11 year old in custody, because she was so intimidated to speak to a gruff man who asked how she was related to my parents.

Many Americans may not realize the fact that we too, could be facing the same possibility of losing our sense of "who we are" as well.

As an American, I apologize for the general assumption by many fellow Americans that all Canadians agree with and endorse your socialistic government.

I hope and pray that Americans will not fall suspect to the same move toward a more government controlled way of life; which would ensure a loss of pride in our heritage, a lack of understanding that Liberty and freedom has a cost, and a general disbelief that our Constitution preserves our rights as citizens above all else.

I hope many on our forum will consider that this too, could be the fate in store for us if we refuse to do more than sit aside and allow our government and special interest groups to run amuck, destroying all that we hold dear to our American way of life.

I certainly can't tell you what to do, but I would be happy to invite you to move south and join your country cousins.

[Atlantic Friend]

Then it was during our second cohabitation - we had Socialist Francois Mitterrand and Conservative PM Edouard Balladur. IIRC, our FM was Alain Juppe, Chirac's then right-hand man.

[Robert DeLong]

Canada would opt out of the contentious U.S. missile defense program

Well that makes sense, why would Canada spend money on something they can get for free. If they did spend money on their own defense then they might be able to provide thier "free" healthcare to everyone.

Is anyone really surprised by this decision?

[Atlantic Friend]

"My" Germany, as a sovereign country, is as free as "my" Canada to choose its path freely when it comes to its national interests or foreign policy. Most people call that "Freedom" and "Independence" and tend to view them as good things.

The missile system does not destabilize the world, IMHO of course, since I'm not, repeat NOT versed into the technical aspects of ICBM defense systems. I think I understand the rationale behind the old interdiction to develop ABM systems under the SALT treaties. That was probably sound at that time, but things have changed since and I can understand the interests at stake in developing an ABM system to sanctuarize one's territory from rogue states attacks.

My only beef with the missile shield is that it won't prevent any kind of terrorist-like attack - either from a terrorist group or a rogue state. And History has proven time and time again that the race between the sword and the shield, or if you prefer between attack systems and defense systems, is won by the attacker who soon learns to bypass one's defense.

[Robert DeLong]

Unfortunately Mitch, much of what you say could apply to America as well. Especially whent he democrats are in office. I'm afraid the liberal fools will some day learn the errors of their ways but by then it will be too late.

[Light Speed]

I guess they are just hoping that the US gets hit, like Ward Churchill and Michael Moore hope

Really...

Exactly what have we physically done to your nation that would lend credence to support your comment?

I have worked over 2 decades in the oil/gas process Fabrication sector.
My last firm was out of Houston.
Their are Americans all over Alberta having a swimming good time.
Your Military likes to come up and Play at our Northern Air ranges.
You get natural Gas from us,
Hydro,
Your Business's are dotted all over our Land.
We like that : )

Sure...con artist experts do work their way past Canadian immigration and find their way into the U.S.
But its nothing like the mmmmmillions which pour into your nation from other directions...and then are about their agenda's in your land.
Your Country is swimming in crime which these illegals participate in...and or uniquely generate themselves.

If we are just ...so much of a detriment to you.

Close the border.
Take your business's elsewhere.
Buy your Nat/Gas and oil elsewhere...
Hydro electric too.

If We are useless like you and so many others here forward.

Why are you wasting your time in relations with us.?

Whats keeping you from the obvious decision to go elsewhere's.?

A bad investment is a bad investment.
Haven't you guys learned anything since Enron and Worldcom?

Canada.....Oppressing and Terrorizing the U.S. since 1812 : )

[msjhall]

Ping!

[trubluolyguy]

Will someone please tell me what the Canadians will say after they get bombed and we get protected by the shield?

I think they will blame the cold heartless americans for not protecting them.

[FunnyCide]

I can't believe everyone is getting angry at the Canadians because we aren't being your sheep anymore. If you don't know, our army is rather pathetic and maybe the government just doesn't want to send 3/4 of it for someone else's wart. We have enough budget problems as it is inside our own nation. A large amount of the population doesn't want our money to go to warfare and what not. If the Prime Minister wants to stay Prime Minister he needs to pay attention to the needs of the voters.

And also, we don't want you lot to get attacked...if you notice...you're the ones that attacked us in Afghanistan. We sent loads of support groups and what not after 9/11. We're happy people up here in Canada and don't want our neighbors to South being bombed by Terrorists again.

[FunnyCide]

Yes that's right, we're going to blame you guys if you we get bombed...kind of like you blamed us after 9/11. Something about it was our fault that you let the Terrorists through your border.

And just out of curiosity did you fail gr. 9 social studies....or are you just stupid? Because you do realize...that Canada is not a socialist country eh? We have what's known as a Mixed Economy...meaning...that we have a mix between a Democratic and Socialist economy. Do you understand me so far? Or would like me to go into a bit more depth on the subject.

[CharlesThe Hammer]

The idea of opting "in" or "out" is a bit of a fallacy. The U.S. is going to proceed regardless of Canadian consent. Our defensive shield will doubtlessly employ data generated from bases sited in Canada by prior treaties. The Canadians could be "in" for a minimal financial contribution and some cooperation, and could then partake in the decision making process. Since ABMs/SDI will be green-lighted by the U.S. as necessary, the Canadians have missed an opportunity to maintain sovereignty in this very important arena at a fairly low cost. Opting "out" was illogical and foolish.

[FunnyCide]

We've never actually sovereinghty. We're still under British Rule...but the only role they actually play is symbolism...technically they could say no to a Law and it couldn't be passed...but they haven't so...

[America's Resolve]

But U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci told reporters Wednesday that he was perplexed over Canada's apparent decision to allow Washington to make the decision if a missile was headed toward its territory.

Nothing difficult to understand at all.

Like in so much else, Canada is a PARASITE and its people are PARASITIC.

They know that a missile headed to Canada is going to be intercepted anyway (by the country that they hate, I might add), so why should they put any resources into it. This way, they get the benefits without the work involved. Same with their economy. Same with their military.

This way, they get to be "morally superior" to us war-mongering Yanks.

[Red6]

Bottom Line Up Front:

The primary means of detection today is SPACE BASED and it’s been that way for a long time.

(That said)
The “North Warning System” just like the DEW line is for more than just missile defense (It runs through AK also and is for finding things like Bear bombers). However, the systems that may be of interest to you that are specifically for missile defense are:

http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/briefs/cr_upgrade.html

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/nuclear_bunkers/bmews.html (Good pictures of the pyramids)

They are located as I stated earlier in Alaska, Greenland, and Great Britain. They are there for a reason. A MAJOR component is sea-based and completely overlooked.

Canada is not much involved with the construction of the subcomponents or technology in this system.

Canada is not a major financial contributor either.

The system is near done and partially on line today already.

Canada being against missile defense today is as if they declared that they disapprove of the B-2 Spirit or Seawolf sub. In “some” way it’s probably arguable that there too they are an important part of the equation in those systems (But that too is a joke). The Canadians having reservations today about missile defense and talking about something where they are a marginal player anyway is a farce.

Red6

[Red6]

NO! Actually not.

With freedom comes responsibility. When declaring alliance you give up some of that free choice.

If Europe had been attacked in 1986 it would not have been right for the US to reevaluate its relationship and security policy with Europe. After all, we are a free nation and make our own decisions, right?

The problem with the US is that we have many “sunny weather only” allies. Or those who “when it serves me only” allies. Security issues have lost importance in the West as a whole and politicians are less willing to take heat or are more willing to play games with these issues.

A dangerous precedent was set and it’s good that Bush pushed so hard reference Iraq and after 9-11. We were attacked and over 2,900 civilians died in a single attack. Truth is that under Clinton we were attacked 4 times by the same group and his reaction was muted. Bush not only is acting, he demands that allies stand by our side and help us. The speech “Your either with us or against us” set the tone. Truth is that many nations who call themselves allies backpedaled as soon as they could; exploring every angle to escape responsibility to help us . Had it been an option some would have done NOTHING. It bothers some to be called out, to be asked to stand good for their word. Bush made it painful for those who stood in the way or wanted to not stand good on their word.

You need a mix of capabilities. Missile defense is but one aspect of security. It protects you only against a certain threat. Yet it's needed and without it you make yourself very vulnerable today, since N. Korea just tested missiles that can reach Alaska/Hawaii. It’s hard to “uninvent” something just as with nuclear weapons. Iran, Libya, Syria……are all developing longer range delivery systems. Even a 3rd rate banana republic today can buy missiles or possibly build them. 30 years ago only certain nations had certain technologies required to build true long range effective missiles (That’s why Sputnik was so important! It meant the Russians mastered orbital mechanics and can shoot the US). Today this is getting accessible to those rouge nations. While missile defense will NOT protect from terrorism as you state, it will protect us from a particular threat.

Red6

[americanbychoice2]

you have to start somewhere?

[dilford]

Are we seriously considering the possibility of Iran, China or N. Korea (what about Israel?) launching a missile strike against Canada? Under what scenario(s) would that be likely? I thought I had a good imagination, but I'm stumped by this one.