Quote:
Canada's historic missile snub will have unpredictable consequences: analysts
ALEXANDER PANETTA
OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's rejection of missile defence is a historic shift in its relationship with the United States and could have deep unforeseen consequences, analysts warn.
This week's announcement is more significant than Canada's refusal to join fighting in Iraq or Vietnam because, some say, this time the country has rejected a domestic defence plan. One military analyst in Washington says Canada has turned its back on a 67-year-old agreement signed by then-prime minister Mackenzie King and president Franklin Roosevelt to jointly defend North America.
"This is a significant policy change, and it will clearly have consequences," says a briefing paper released Friday by Dwight Mason.
He served for eight years as chairman of the American section of the Canada-U.S. Permanent Joint Board on Defense and was a diplomat in Ottawa.
The first impact, he suggested, will come next year when the Norad agreement comes up for renewal, but it could also have economic consequences as yet unknown.
"The decision to opt out of missile defence is an abandonment of some Canadian sovereignty," he writes.
"This brings the basic partnership policy underlying the U.S.-Canadian defence relationship into question. These developments will have long-term consequences that will take time to be revealed fully."
One immediate consequence could affect Prime Minister Paul Martin's role on the international stage.
If he had any hope the United States would help him create his cherished G-20 group of world leaders, those hopes may have been extinguished permanently.
One U.S. official emitted a deep, extended laugh when asked for an assessment of the prime minister and said Canada no longer qualifies as a trusted ally.
While wary of speaking on the record, the Americans are particularly annoyed with Martin over what they perceive as weak leadership.
They say he expressed support for missile defence, then did nothing to refute misconceptions about it, and finally pulled out when public opinion mushroomed against it.
Most analysts believe the Canada-U.S. trade relationship will continue unhindered because the countries rely heavily on each other's goods and services.
But Canada's refusal to sign on to the missile plan could further marginalize its concerns and interests when trade-related issues like softwood lumber appear before U.S. Congress, said one Calgary observer.
"This is one more issue that goes into the balance scale, one more reason to say, 'Screw Canada,' " said David Bercuson, director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.
"There's a lot of precedent for us not participating (in military operations) overseas.
"To my knowledge, this is the first time we've said no to the United States on what the Americans consider a crucial matter of continental defence."
He said the missile-defence snub was more significant even than the debate over whether to store nuclear-tipped Bomarc missiles on Canadian soil.
Thursday's announcement already has both countries debating some of the consequences.
A defiant Martin declared again Friday that the United States must seek permission before firing any missile over Canadian airspace.
He was responding to warnings that Canada has abdicated sovereignty by refusing to take part in the U.S. project.
The top U.S. envoy to Canada - Ambassador Paul Cellucci - says Canada would be "outside of the room" when his country decides whether to fire at incoming missiles.
But Martin said Friday: "We would expect to be consulted.
"This is our airspace, we're a sovereign nation and you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission."
Martin repeated Friday that Canada reaffirmed its sovereignty this week with a $12.8-billion investment over five years to help rebuild the military.
But critics said the prime minister is deluding himself if he expects a heads-up. Bercuson said only military officials involved in missile defence would be in on any strike.
"Somebody has obviously not explained to the prime minister how these arrangements work," Bercuson said.
"The reason you put these arrangements in place beforehand . . . is that you don't have to run back to your respective government every time you have to make a decision.
"The White House would be informed that there was a missile launch against North America. It would not be asked for its permission to shoot the missile down."
One Conservative critic openly mocked the idea that Martin would get a phone call.
"What, are (the Americans) phoning a 1-800 number on missile consultation?" said Conservative foreign affairs critic Stockwell Day.
"These missiles are coming in at, you know, four kilometres a second."
But the leader of the NDP said the only delusion is in the minds of people imagining scare scenarios of some potential missile attack.
"These are the kind of hypothetical questions that (George) Bush has tried to create in the minds of people to elevate a sense of fear," said Jack Layton.
"The fact is that if Canada is a part of a program like this, then we become a target."
|
Link To Article
It's kinda of a lose lose situation for Canada, We said no for the missile defense system and that screws up the relations with america as far as defense goes and maybe even more. If we agreed with it, we would become a target having to rely on america's military to help defend canada..Which isn't a bad thing, But the whole point is..Canada doesn't want to be a target.
I will admit after reading this and other information it opened my eyes more to the whole situation.
Daswig also made a good point which didn't even cross my mind, at first..I didn't know that missile launchers would be placed on Canadian soil..I thought the whole argument was about america shooting thier missile's into Canadian airspace..When in fact if they were placed on Canadian soil as daswig stated, enemy missile's would be intercepted over the ocean and not canada. Which makes more sense to me than shooting them down over Canada if one were to be over Canada.
What about alaska, America is going to place some of these missile defense systems there aren't they? Especially if enemy missile's will be coming from the west..That's kind of a gimme.