Posted on 02/24/2005 6:21:02 PM PST by quidnunc
Ottawa – Canada's announcement that it won't join the U.S. missile shield provoked an immediate warning that it has relinquished sovereignty over its airspace.
From now on, the U.S. government will control any decision to fire at incoming missiles over Canadian territory, declared the top U.S. envoy to Canada.
"We will deploy. We will defend North America," said Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada.
"We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty — its seat at the table — to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming towards Canada."
The response came just moments after Prime Minister Paul Martin ended months of ambiguity Thursday by announcing that he would not sign on to the controversial missile-defence program.
The warning was no slip of the tongue: Cellucci repeated several times that Canada's decision had in effect handed over some of its sovereignty to the United States.
"I personally don't think it's in Canada's sovereign interest to be outside of the room when a decision is made about a missile that might be incoming towards Canada."
Cellucci said he understood the political "challenge" that made it difficult for Martin's minority government to accept missile defence — and agreed it was Canada's right to make a decision.
The formal announcement completed a lengthy retreat for Martin, who expressed support for the project last year in his early days in office, then qualified his support, and finally fell almost silent on the issue.
Still, even the final announcement was not without confusion.
Martin said he would expect to be consulted on what to do about any missile passing over Canada.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at canada.com ...
Cellucci is well regarded, even when disgareed with. He's been very effective in stating his (your) case throughout his tenures (which ends soon).
The USA's #1 souce of foreign energy is Canada. At same time Canada is your #1 customer period.
If you really think you have a reason to not want that, it has to be a really good one.
Canada only accounts for 22% of US foreign trade. You missed what I said:
"To be a bit cold on the matter, Canada does not have any great strategic importance to the US. Canadian natural resources and territory yes, the polity and population of Canada, no."
Remember, it does not take Canadians to extract natural resources from Canadian territory, nor does the United States need the body politic of Canada for manpower or support a la WWII. Heck, let's go further and eliminate all defense treaties with Canada since there is no threat on the horizon and the only approach to invading Canada is over some long ocean routes which even Canada's small "Naval" and "Air Force" units could defeat. In fact, the only 'war' that some other nation could declare and fight with Canada would be to attempt a blockade of Canadian ports, even that would be iffy since most trade is not carried on Canadian-flagged merchant ships so those ships could not be sunk without bigger problems for the errant blockader at 'war' with Canada. Now an ICBM attack is something else, but since Canada is not a realistic target or enemy by those that current possess such weapons, Canada has no need for any such defense, whether a future homegrown system might suffice if other nations demonstrate operational feasibility. After all, who would want to 'nuke' Canada?
Canada should be perfect safe from invasion from unfriendly powers (or Mexico illegals) without having any defense treaties with the United States. If Canada did not have any defense treaties with the United States, then they would not get drawn into any conflicts because of said association and vice versa. This diplomatic "freedom" would allow Canada to completely go its own way in the world with no political baggage due to defense ties to the United States. Canada would no longer have exchange officers or joint training with the United States, hence none could be critical of Canada's foreign policy based on military cooperation with the defense establishment of the United States. This lack of defense ties would also enable Canada to equip its military with homegrown defense products (good for the local economy) or shop for fine European replacements for some of their ageing equipment (CF-18s, etc) since with no defense ties to the United States no advanced US technological military equipment is sold to neutrals or potential adversaries.
To repeat: Canada would still have the economic and trade ties to the United States, but complete diplomatic freedom on the world stage to go its own way with none able to be critical due to defense ties to the United States. Looking to the future, with no enemies and no realistic ways for Canada to be physically invaded, no "Cold War" from the past or on the future horizon Canada would be wise to become a defense 'neutral' with respect to the United States and vice-versa. The most that Canada gives up is buying US military weapons (plenty of European replacements) and military cross-training with the United States armed forces. Canada could concentrate on a limited self-defense structure and deployable peace-keeping forces per its foreign policy. The most that Canada gives up is access to a "missile shield" that is believed will never work properly and in any event is not necessary for the defense of Canada and its population. The US gains is not having any responsibility for the defense of Canada (or Canadian interests) from non-existant defense threats and can concentrate on the defense of the United States and its national security interests.
Looks like a "win-win" situation for both the United States and Canada...
dvwjr
Canada hasn't, the libs have.
It happens. Especially after 911. Canadians have "decided" that American "hegemony" is not in their interest. That is ok with me EXCEPT for the so called Canadian democracy deficit. I 'd love to see how Canadians would really vote on this and many other issues, but that is not going to happen.
Also, I think Schroeder behaved in a similar manner in the German election that first brought him to power.
We buy more from the USA than all of Europe combined. More than Japan. 25% might not seem that much to you, but I believe it is very significant. The largest purchase in my household was a Chrysler made in the USA. I had other choices. Not interested.
During the recent USA election I noticed that Gephardt and Edwards were anti Nafta. Both Missouri and North Carolina enjoy trade surpluses with Canada.
As an Albertan I am very aware that our province is a key and reliable source of energy for the USA.
The relationship between the two countries is very strong, and I don't like to see it denigrated for partisan political politics on either side of the 49th.
John Kerry is an amateur flip flopper compared to Paul Martin.
Exactly.
ROTFLMAO. They must be mixing something in with the beer up there. A consultation on a nuke traveling at 17,000 mph? There's hardly enough time to say your final prayers --- that's if the PC commies up there still allow that sort of thing.
PUT ON YOUR FEETY PJs AND HIDE UNDER THE BED (We'll handle things from here on in)
So, we defend Canada at no cost to them.....whats new.
This is a point that many miss ... Martin is not Canada. The libs are not Canada (or Canadian for that matter).
Also, we haven't heard the last of this issue ... there hasn't even been a debate in Parliament yet. Martin saying "no" is not the final word. This is a hot issue up here right now. See the poll here ...
http://www.canada.com/national/index.html
Do you support the PM's decision to not participate in the U.S. missile defence program?
Yes 46.28 %
No 53.72 %
... as of this posting.
"We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty.... "
It's simple: $$$ ! And take a free ride !
PUT ON YOUR FEETY PJs AND HIDE UNDER THE BED
still laughing at that one
Are you saying that you were unaware that Free Republic is an "American" site that its stated purpose is furthering grassroots conservatism "in America"?
And since you have not dealt with your false statement that no missile tests have succeeded - I think it is clear that you are not being mature or responsible about what you are posting.
It is also clear to me that you came on this thread in order to lecture us.
I think you guys are talking about two different sets of tests here. The successful tests were ship-based interceptors fired at short range ballistic missles ... described to be like scuds in this article ...
http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=e26fb03f-1659-4e0c-9c79-95c74cc2f9a2
The other tests that, I don't believe were successful, were from land-based interceptors, which would be responsible for taking out ICBMs.
Regardless, I don't see how the failures are an issue ... yet. The system is in the testing phase and failures are advantageous ... learn from your mistakes and all. I believe the system will eventually be successful ... unless the government is pressured to shut it down. I can't see that happening though.
Just my thoughts.
I read all your posts. And what you were doing was saying things that are not true - (that no missile tests have succeeded) - and lecturing Americans who were angry that Canada has once again betrayed us by trying to stop them from expressing their desire that once missile defence is in place - that we let missiles fall on Canada. Your lecturing was totally inappropriate, imo.
Your problem is I'm Canadian, you don't care that I'm a card carrying, active Conservative. You'd rather that there be no one here but Americans and you think you have liense to insult us.
There are Canadians that do not offend me at all. And there are Canadians and other foreigners who are not here to support conservatism "in America" but are here to argue with or lecture Americans or simply to defend their native country. They are not respectful of this site, imo.
There is nowhere on Free Republic's homepage that it says that foreigners are welcome - nor is there anywhere that it says that foreigners who want to debate or lecture Americans are welcome.
My opinion is that you were out of line. And you really ought to apologize to all of us for that.
Likewise, a nuclear attack on Canada would be way too close to us. 85% of Canada's population is within 50 miles of the U.S. border, so any nuclear attack on Canada would literally have to be on our border. There would be no benefit at all for any nation to attack Northern Canada, so that's not even an issue. The issue is: Can we allow a nuclear detonation that close to our border, and deal with the consequences that would manifest on our side of the border? The answer is a resounding no.
Now, if someone gets really pissed off at polar bear and moose, and decides to strike deep in Canada, fine, don't defend Canada. However, understand that any attack against any Canadian city would be a nuke on our border, and Americans would die.
opps, Mixing and pasting from different threads does not work like that... :)
Let me try again.
Here's rational for you.
It's quite simply. Canada is too freaking cheap to even spend money on a defense system for their own people.
There is but one reason Martin did this. MONEY. IF you don't join you won't be expected to help pay for the system that will eventually protect your sorry ass.
Of course after the last 20 years of massive slide to socialism that's what is expected up there.
I have spent enough time in Canakistan to hear and read all the smarmy comments about the US and how we SHOULD protect you freeloaders because we can afford it.
Well here's a news flash for you. The reason we can afford it is because we put it as a priority over a 6 month state paid maternity leaves, nationalized health care and other nonsense.
From all accounts up here there was to be no cost to Canada, so money was not the issue. In fact that's why the decision Martin made was even more crazy.
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.