Steven Staples: Harper's moving rapidly on Americanization of military, foreign policy

NORAD deal undermines sovereignty and opens door to Canada's role in missile defence and space weapons

The Americanization of Canada's military and foreign policy is moving very rapidly under Stephen Harper's Conservatives. Just look at what has happened in the last few weeks:

Harper is expanding the Canada-U.S. NORAD military command despite the fact that it does nothing to promote our sovereignty in the Arctic, and could drag us into missile defence and space weapons programs. Here is our op-ed from today's Globe and Mail…

Harper's budget topped up even further the already huge military spending increases brought in under the 2005 Liberal-NDP budget, though he fudged the numbers to make it appear as though the increase was much smaller. Here is our letter to the National Post...

Harper took a page from George W. Bush's playbook for the war in Iraq to try to downplay Canadian casualties in Afghanistan by refusing to lower the flag and curtailing media coverage of caskets returning to Canada. Here is our op-ed in the Toronto Star…

We are moving into a crucial political moment. As you may have seen in the news this weekend, public opinion is turning against our military role in Afghanistan — a mission that the government justified in the Throne Speech as our contribution to the U.S.-led War on Terrorism.

Ottawa Citizen columnist Susan Riley says the only cloud on Harper's horizon is shaped like Afghanistan

Ottawa Citizen columnist Susan Riley called me at home yesterday to talk about the gap she is seeing between Parliament and the policy elites on one hand, and Canadians on the other. I agreed, and suggested that these important issues are getting lost in the political posturing and manoeuvring in Parliament.

During our conversation I told her the NDP, while hesitant, is moving in the right direction, but what happened to the Bloc Québécois and progressives in the Liberal Party? And are all of the Conservatives willing to jump into bed with George W. Bush?

On an optimistic note, Susan pointed out that she felt that the only cloud on the horizon for Stephen Harper "is shaped like Afghanistan." You might agree with her. I urge you to read Susan Riley's article in today's Ottawa Citizen…

I will be getting back to you with a more complete and thorough analysis later in the month.

Steven Staples,

Polaris Institute
& founder of Ceasefire.ca

Why MPs shouldn’t vote for this NORAD deal by Steven Staples May 8, 2006 Today, Members of Parliament will vote on a new NORAD agreement. The government is laudably putting the agreement to a vote, but it’s "take it or leave it" –MPs aren’t allowed to make amendments. Without improvements, MPs should just leave it. Here’s why. This new NORAD agreement makes two significant changes: maritime warning for North America is added to NORAD's missions, and the agreement is no longer renewed every five years (but can be amended at any time upon agreement of both governments). Any change to NORAD should not be taken lightly, especially if it may be difficult to fix later. NORAD impacts Canadian sovereignty as well as continental military arrangements, and implicates Canada in missile defence and possibly space weapons. Established in 1958 during the Cold War, the bi-national North American Aerospace Defence Command has an American commander and a Canadian deputy commander. NORAD uses radars and satellites to warn of threats to North America in the form of aircraft or missiles. For suspicious aircraft, NORAD exercises control over the airspace and can dispatch dedicated Canadian and American military jets to intercept them and potentially shoot them down. If NORAD thinks someone has launched an intercontinental ballistic missile at us, it warns U.S. commands that can decide to launch a nuclear counterattack –or maybe someday, launch missile interceptors or use space weapons to try to destroy the incoming enemy missile. But now the governments want NORAD to warn of possible threats from ships along coastlines, in the Arctic, or on internal waters such as the Great Lakes. National commands, such our new Canada Command, retain control of sovereign waters and can then decide to intercept and board the suspicious ship. It may sound reasonable enough to add maritime warning to NORAD, but what are the implications? Parliamentarians have plenty to be concerned about. Most importantly, adding maritime responsibilities does nothing to resolve, and could only complicate, sovereignty and territorial disputes between Canada and the United States, especially in the Arctic where the U.S. considers the thawing Northwest Passage as international waters –not Canadian. When the NDP’s Dawn Black asked whether the agreement included the sharing of maritime surveillance in the Northwest Passage during last week’s debate, Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor, alarmingly, didn’t know the answer. "If there were vessels going through the Northwest Passage, I am not certain we would report that to the United States. That is up for question," he admitted. Clearly, our sovereignty must be assured before any deal is approved. Secondly, this NORAD deal ignores another major security and sovereignty concern for Canada: nuclear submarines. Why should NORAD’s maritime role stop at the water’s surface –why not continue underwater? During the election Stephen Harper pledged to stop foreign submarines from venturing into Canadian waters without Ottawa's permission. That included U.S. submarines, and he promised to set up a new Arctic national sensor system to track them. This surveillance could be delivered to NORAD if the Americans agreed to disclose their submarine movements. Thirdly, the provision of missile warning information to U.S. commands responsible for missile defence, agreed to in the August 2004 NORAD amendment, leaves a back door open for further Canadian involvement in missile defence and even space weapons. For instance, the government could try to argue that the establishment in Canada of a missile defence X-band radar, used for targeting, is consistent with the NORAD agreement. In fact, the Americans have already scouted a location in Goose Bay, Labrador, for a radar site despite the Canadian government’s policy of not participating in ballistic missile defence. The agreement should explicitly prohibit the use of NORAD for the aiming of missile defence, anti-satellite or space-based weapons, as a condition of Canadian participation in NORAD. The current NORAD agreement expires on May 12, but the government should not use this looming deadline to try to strong-arm Members of Parliament. Instead, Stephen Harper should adopt a more reasonable approach and seek Parliament’s approval to extend the current NORAD agreement by another two years so that outstanding concerns can be examined and addressed. If not, Members of Parliament cannot be faulted for rejecting such a flawed NORAD deal. Steven Staples is the Director of Security Programs for the Polaris Institute and author of the forthcoming book, Missile Defence Round One.

Donations by mail and inquiries may be directed to: Polaris Institute Attn. Karen Craine, Program Assistant kcraine@polarisinstitute.org 180 Metcalfe Street, Suite 500 Ottawa ON K2P 1P5 Canada Tel. 613 237-1717 Fax 613 237-3359 www.ceasefire.ca/ www.polarisinstitute.org

posted by Annamarie at 10:52 PM