scm77
07-12-2004, 08:50 PM
PM's decision on missile defence pending
Alexander Panetta
Canadian Press
Monday, July 12, 2004
OTTAWA -- Just days after the federal election, Prime Minister Paul Martin informed American officials he would soon decide whether Canada will join the U.S.-led missile defence program.
Sources on both sides of the border indicate privately that Canadian participation is seen as a near-certainty, and a government website has already begun extolling the benefits of the missile shield.
But an aide to Martin insisted the prime minister was non-committal when he called U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci last week and suggested that - with a fall deadline looming - Canada was approaching its decision.
"He provided no assurance of any kind, whatsoever, with respect to timing - period," said Martin adviser Scott Reid.
"He did not provide assurance it would be soon."
The prime minister merely called to discuss a wide range of Canada-U.S. issues following the election, Reid said, and to return a congratulatory phone call days earlier from Cellucci following the Liberal victory.
Martin spent much of the election campaign dismissing NDP suggestions that the missile defence program would lead to the weaponization of space.
The first step toward Canadian participation in the project would require expanding the Canada-U.S. Norad program to link existing warning systems based in Colorado to newly constructed missile installations.
A decision must be made before October, when the first of up to 20 interceptors will be inaugurated at military sites in California and Alaska.
A senior federal source said Martin agrees with Norad changes, which would open the door to Canadian military personnel joining their U.S. colleagues in administering the program.
There are fears in Ottawa that refusing to join would trigger the demise of Norad, which for decades has been a backbone of Canadian defence policy.
Later phases of the plan call for more detection sites throughout the world and for adding missile defence systems at sea and in U.S.-friendly countries.
In a hint of where Canada is leaning, the Foreign Affairs Department's website and its officials already have detailed arguments to defend the project from criticism.
A briefing document was posted on the site months ago and it concludes with: "The government is committed to ensuring . . . the security of Canada and Canadians.
"Examining possible Canadian participation in the Ballistic Missile Defence of North America is one aspect of meeting this commitment."
Numerous concerns have been raised about the program, and the government has prepared a point-by-point response to peck away at each one:
- Would backing the U.S. military plan signal a loss of Canadian independence? Not according to the federal government.
"Ensuring that Canada continues to participate in the defence of North America would be an enhancement of our sovereignty - not a diminution," says Foreign Affairs spokesman Rodney Moore.
...Continued
- To concerns about the weaponization of space, Moore responds that such plans are far beyond the realm of current scientific possibility.
"Space is currently free of weapons and we feel it should remain that way," he said.
- As for fears the plan would mean missiles stored on Canadian soil, Moore replies that the current plan doesn't call for so much as a radar station in Canada.
"The U.S. has not requested any Canadian territory or that anything be placed on Canadian soil," he said.
American sources say the most notable Canadian contribution would be the political support that would lend international legitimacy to the plan.
Canadian officials say the plan could also turn into a cash crop for science-and-technology and military industries in this country, with the U.S. expected to shower more than $45 billion US on the project by 2009.
Denmark, Japan, Australia and Israel have all either agreed to contribute technology or pieces of territory. India has expressed an interest in participating.
Russia and China have said the plan would either lead to a new arms race or the weaponization of space. But federal officials downplay those concerns and say the shield could actually discourage terrorists or rogue states from obtaining ballistic missiles.
Some critics also worry the program will lead to nuclear proliferation. Moore dismisses those claims as ridiculous because high-speed impact - not a nuclear explosion - is all it takes to blow an incoming missile out of the sky.
As for fears that ballistic debris could rain down on humans following an aerial collision: "That's still better than a successful missile strike on Earth," Moore said.
But the main question critics will ask is: "Why?"
In a world of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists can wreak havoc with simple sticks of dynamite and box-cutter knives, skeptics question the logic of pouring billions into a high-tech global missile shield.
NDP Leader Jack Layton called last week for a debate in Parliament so Canadians could be more involved in the outcome.
"They could come back (from their summer vacations) to find out that we have signed on to a George Bush militarization project," he said.
But one supporter says the value of the project would become evident if terrorists ever obtained missiles by overthrowing a national government or by procuring them on the black market.
And he said the project enjoys wide support from both major U.S. political parties and will happen regardless of whether Bush is re-elected this November.
"Political Ottawa is beginning to accept what military Ottawa has known for a long time: there will be missile defence," said David Bercuson, director of the centre for military and strategic studies at the University of Calgary.
...Continued
"We can pretend to be reluctant dance partners all we want, twirl around the floor, and at the end of the day we're going to dance with them."
© The Canadian Press 2004
---------------------------
Damn that's long.
I hope he agrees. I'm not into pumping billions of dollars into it, but he's got to atleast agree in principle, and maybe put some silos up north or something.
Alexander Panetta
Canadian Press
Monday, July 12, 2004
OTTAWA -- Just days after the federal election, Prime Minister Paul Martin informed American officials he would soon decide whether Canada will join the U.S.-led missile defence program.
Sources on both sides of the border indicate privately that Canadian participation is seen as a near-certainty, and a government website has already begun extolling the benefits of the missile shield.
But an aide to Martin insisted the prime minister was non-committal when he called U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci last week and suggested that - with a fall deadline looming - Canada was approaching its decision.
"He provided no assurance of any kind, whatsoever, with respect to timing - period," said Martin adviser Scott Reid.
"He did not provide assurance it would be soon."
The prime minister merely called to discuss a wide range of Canada-U.S. issues following the election, Reid said, and to return a congratulatory phone call days earlier from Cellucci following the Liberal victory.
Martin spent much of the election campaign dismissing NDP suggestions that the missile defence program would lead to the weaponization of space.
The first step toward Canadian participation in the project would require expanding the Canada-U.S. Norad program to link existing warning systems based in Colorado to newly constructed missile installations.
A decision must be made before October, when the first of up to 20 interceptors will be inaugurated at military sites in California and Alaska.
A senior federal source said Martin agrees with Norad changes, which would open the door to Canadian military personnel joining their U.S. colleagues in administering the program.
There are fears in Ottawa that refusing to join would trigger the demise of Norad, which for decades has been a backbone of Canadian defence policy.
Later phases of the plan call for more detection sites throughout the world and for adding missile defence systems at sea and in U.S.-friendly countries.
In a hint of where Canada is leaning, the Foreign Affairs Department's website and its officials already have detailed arguments to defend the project from criticism.
A briefing document was posted on the site months ago and it concludes with: "The government is committed to ensuring . . . the security of Canada and Canadians.
"Examining possible Canadian participation in the Ballistic Missile Defence of North America is one aspect of meeting this commitment."
Numerous concerns have been raised about the program, and the government has prepared a point-by-point response to peck away at each one:
- Would backing the U.S. military plan signal a loss of Canadian independence? Not according to the federal government.
"Ensuring that Canada continues to participate in the defence of North America would be an enhancement of our sovereignty - not a diminution," says Foreign Affairs spokesman Rodney Moore.
...Continued
- To concerns about the weaponization of space, Moore responds that such plans are far beyond the realm of current scientific possibility.
"Space is currently free of weapons and we feel it should remain that way," he said.
- As for fears the plan would mean missiles stored on Canadian soil, Moore replies that the current plan doesn't call for so much as a radar station in Canada.
"The U.S. has not requested any Canadian territory or that anything be placed on Canadian soil," he said.
American sources say the most notable Canadian contribution would be the political support that would lend international legitimacy to the plan.
Canadian officials say the plan could also turn into a cash crop for science-and-technology and military industries in this country, with the U.S. expected to shower more than $45 billion US on the project by 2009.
Denmark, Japan, Australia and Israel have all either agreed to contribute technology or pieces of territory. India has expressed an interest in participating.
Russia and China have said the plan would either lead to a new arms race or the weaponization of space. But federal officials downplay those concerns and say the shield could actually discourage terrorists or rogue states from obtaining ballistic missiles.
Some critics also worry the program will lead to nuclear proliferation. Moore dismisses those claims as ridiculous because high-speed impact - not a nuclear explosion - is all it takes to blow an incoming missile out of the sky.
As for fears that ballistic debris could rain down on humans following an aerial collision: "That's still better than a successful missile strike on Earth," Moore said.
But the main question critics will ask is: "Why?"
In a world of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists can wreak havoc with simple sticks of dynamite and box-cutter knives, skeptics question the logic of pouring billions into a high-tech global missile shield.
NDP Leader Jack Layton called last week for a debate in Parliament so Canadians could be more involved in the outcome.
"They could come back (from their summer vacations) to find out that we have signed on to a George Bush militarization project," he said.
But one supporter says the value of the project would become evident if terrorists ever obtained missiles by overthrowing a national government or by procuring them on the black market.
And he said the project enjoys wide support from both major U.S. political parties and will happen regardless of whether Bush is re-elected this November.
"Political Ottawa is beginning to accept what military Ottawa has known for a long time: there will be missile defence," said David Bercuson, director of the centre for military and strategic studies at the University of Calgary.
...Continued
"We can pretend to be reluctant dance partners all we want, twirl around the floor, and at the end of the day we're going to dance with them."
© The Canadian Press 2004
---------------------------
Damn that's long.
I hope he agrees. I'm not into pumping billions of dollars into it, but he's got to atleast agree in principle, and maybe put some silos up north or something.