Missile Defence Shield

What Canada Must Do

COMMENT: This intelligence assessment is from STRATEGIC FORECASTING, an American non-government organization. It concerns North American missile defence and Canada’s military capability and vulnerability. It echoes the official US estimates. This report does not make pleasant reading but the truth is often hard to bear.

Although the conclusions may be difficult to accept, all Canadians should read this assessment.

Mr. George Kamoff-Nicolsky, Member, RUSI of VI, 25 Feb 04

Dissent has been brewing in Canada over Ottawa’s cooperation with the United States on missile defence. There is an uneasy attitude north of the U.S.border regarding the future of Canadian strategic defence; however, Ottawa has no choice but to acquiesce to U.S. proposals—or risk the loss of even a minimal say in its own strategic security.

Analysis

Canadian Defence Minister David Pratt answered a hypothetical question on Feb. 22 and enraged a number of Canadian politicians, including opposition New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Jack Layton. When asked whether Ottawa would allow the United States to base U.S.-controlled missiles on Canadian soil, Pratt waffled, saying, “We are not going to say no, we are not going to say yes.” His answer is symbolic of the strategic difficulties Canada faces.

The United States has proceeded wholeheartedly with its pursuit of a missile defense shield, despite international reticence. Canada was approached as a prospective partner, and a majority of Canadians agree with the necessity for an anti-ballistic missile defense - 64 percent, according to a Feb. 11 poll in the National Post. However, that support comes on the condition that United States will not “weaponize” space – a likely key component in future U.S. defense plans – and will not deploy missile interceptors on Canadian soil. Canada has tried to negotiate these issues with the United States, but ultimately Ottawa will be forced to accept missile defence on Washington’s terms – or run the risk of being excluded from its own defence policy.

U.S. missile defence plans call for placing land-based interceptors in Alaska, with future deployments to various sites throughout the United States as well as aboard U.S. ships. However, U.S. planners hold out the weaponizing of space – including space-based lasers – as a likely offshoot of current plans. While there are no concrete plans for either space-based weapons or the deployment of land-based interceptors on Canadian soil, the possibility cannot be ruled out.

Canada already relies on the United States for the bulk of its conventional defence. Recently, the Canadian Parliament has considered scrapping Canada’s armoured forces. The argument in favor of such a move was that there was little need to maintain a huge tank inventory because the United States would be able to provide all of Canada’s armoured needs in the future. This – and an overall weakness in the Canadian military – points to an ever-shrinking Canadian junior partnership with the United States in North America’s collective defence strategy.

Despite being one of the largest contributors to NATO peacekeeping operations, Canada’s armed forces number only 53,000 active-duty personnel with a defence budget of roughly $9 billion annually. In comparison, the United States has 1,434,000 personnel on active duty and a defence budget of approximately $379 billion.

Despite flagging military power and importance, Canada has managed to maintain a modicum of influence via its presence in the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). However, if Canada balks at U.S. plans to build a missile defence around North America, it will most likely be expelled from NORAD – the United States would not want an uncooperative Canadian military privy to sensitive U.S. national security information – and lose the limited sway it maintains.

In order to keep a voice in the debate about its own defence, Canada eventually will cast its vote – despite ongoing debates in Ottawa – by electing to participate and concede the bulk of U.S. missile defence demands. The Ministry of Defence already has missile-defence-related radar tests. The Canadian government will finally accept the reality of U.S. influence because the danger of ignoring it – and facing strategic obsolescence – is a risk few in Canada are willing to take. _

      top
 previous article   |   News 2/04 index   |   next article