Jeff Shantz, Toronto
A controversial report released by the Washington Post on January 23 has put a harsh spotlight back on the Canadian government's plans for involvement in the US-sponsored missile defence shield program.
The report, which includes statements from a Canadian official who participated in a meeting between Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and US President George Bush during the latter's November visit to Canada, confirms that Bush has pushed hard for a Canadian commitment to the missile shield program.
Bush even threatened that the future of Canada-US relations might be at stake. More than this, however, is that it is already becoming clear that the Canadian government is already moving ahead with missile defence, despite it's public claims to the contrary.
During his recent visit to Canada, Bush seemed to surprise Martin by publicly suggesting that Canada should be moving forward in joining the US in creating a North American ballistic-missile defence shield. Since then it has become increasingly apparent that Martin's show of surprise was purely an attempt to manage public opinion by a leader of a minority government faced with a population that greatly opposes missile defence plans.
A closer look at the situation suggests that Canada is well on its way to full participation in the US missile defence program. An amendment to the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) agreement signed by Ottawa last summer already permits the joint continental defence program to serve as an early warning network for the missile program.
Conservative commentators, such as Baker Spring of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, suggest that the NORAD amendment signed in August is enough for Washington to proceed as planned. That amended plan means that Canada and the US are already committed to work together to intercept any missiles entering North American airspace.
Following a briefing from government defence and foreign affairs officials on December 15, Alexa McDonough, foreign affairs critic for the New Democratic Party, said it is now "absolutely clear" that the Canadian government is moving ahead to join the US. She reported: "We didn't get any presentation that said here are the pros, here are the cons. They just simply were rationalising their way to support Canada's participation."
Canada is expected to participate directly in missile interception, either by allowing missiles on Canadian soil or through some mobilisation of the Canadian military. As well there will be an expectation of financial contributions towards the program from Canadians.
Unfortunately NDP critics have focussed almost exclusively on the possibilities of a weaponisation of space rather than an outright rejection of all aspects of the program, which will be used to further the US government's wars for profits.
Martin, in a series of year-end television interviews this week, claimed that Canada could seek written guarantees against the "weaponisation" of space before signing on to any US plan for a missile defence shield.
As the conservative Spring suggests in his straightforward assessment of US intentions regarding Canada's eventual participation in the missile program, "the US would never allow an ally to exercise a veto over any attempt to upgrade US security." In this the Bush administration has little to fear since Martin is firmly in the camp that ties Canadian ruling class aspirations to American imperialist expansion.
In communities across the country there has been growing opposition in Canada to US missile defence plans as protests against Bush's recent visit showed. At the same time, with the Liberals moving forward, we have to develop a more sustained and disruptive force than has been approached up to now.
From Green Left Weekly, February 2, 2005.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.