The Globe and Mail - April 29, 2002
By Colin Kenny
Most Canadians these days are not nearly as psychologically in tune with Americans as we were in those emotional weeks following September 11.
There are plenty of reasons for this, including some particular incidents: the tragic loss of four brave Canadians to U.S. “friendly fire;” President George W. Bush’s seeming indifference the following day; the boorish booing of the Canadian national anthem at a basketball game in Detroit; plus the shabby treatment of Canada’s softwood lumber industry at the hands of what is supposed to be the greatest free-trading nation in the world.
Some other reasons are more general: the passage of time since the horror of September 11; the Bush administration’s belligerently unilateral approach to world affairs; the continuing truth that, as similar as we are, most Canadians see Canada as an alternative to America.
In short, we aren’t exactly hugging our southern neighbours at the moment. Coincidentally, the U.S. government’s newly-announced concept of “Northern Command” – a continental concept of U.S. “home” defence – is worrying a lot of Canadians. It is perceived by some to be a threat to Canada’s identity, indeed to our sovereignty. These people will ask the Canadian government to turn its back on Washington.
I an not an American wanabee – you won’t find a membership card to the Alliance Party hidden away in my closet. I am a passionate Canadian, and I am as sensitive to the issue of U.S. domination as are most Canadians, so the unease over the concept of Northern Command doesn’t surprise me. But as a lifetime student of military preparedness (and lack of military preparedness) I believe that we Canadians must think this concept through. It may be essential to maintaining Canada as the safe haven it has provided to its citizens in a very chaotic world.
Having just completed chairing the Senate committee that explored the state of Canada’s military, and state of security at our borders, let me offer a description that I think all Canadians will understand: as a sovereign nation, we are trying to walk through a blizzard in our underwear.
We can, to some degree, dress ourselves more warmly in this very hazardous world by increasing expenditures on our military, our airports and our sea ports. But there are limits to what a country of moderate economic means can do to protect such vast geography.
My premise is this: it is imperative that the federal government set out two overriding interests: Canada’s identity, and Canada’s survival. The first means nothing without the second. Some of our more vocal nationalists would surely be dismayed to discover how quickly the nuances of distinct Canadian culture would scuttle into the background if our cities, our people and our economy begin to explode before our eyes.
Why worry about these things? Won’t the Americans protect us anyway if North America comes under attack? Maybe. But are Canadians really freeloaders? And why gamble? Why not ensure that Canadians take part in the contingency planning to defend North America on the ground and at sea, the way we already are under NORAD in the air? If you’ve got a forest fire or flood threatening a large piece of geography, community boundaries quickly become secondary to marshalling all resources to deal with the common threat. It helps to have intelligent plans laid out as to how everyone is going cooperate if disaster does strike.
Northern Command is all about this kind of planning. The Commander in Chief for Northern Command will be in charge of planning which American resources (and potentially – with Canadian concurrence – with Canadian resources) will come into play in any given circumstance. Even within the U.S. military structure, these “CINCs” don’t have control of various units of the armed forces from day to day. They make urgent calls to acquire the components they need when emergencies arise. They are able to do that quickly because contingency plans are in place. We Canadians can be part of that planning process, without giving up the right to reject any final decision involving our land and our people.
I do not fear cooperating with the Americans in continental self-defence, especially if everyone agrees in advance what roles each party will play, and as long as our government has the final word as to what is going to happen in any responses involving Canadian territory and/or Canadian citizens. Surely, with these safeguards, we would be fools not to cooperate in a scheme that has far more likelihood of protecting Canadian lives and Canadian infrastructure that we could ever mount on our own.
When the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence visited Washington last fall, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld did not in the least try to pressure me or other senators on the advisability of Canada’s participation in Northern Command. He said “your options are open. It’s Canada’s call as to whether you want to be involved.” We told him that Canada would act in its best interests. He said he understood that.
Canada and the United States currently share 80 treaties and 250 memoranda of understanding on defence issues. These agreements are not threatening our sovereignty, nor our identity. Hollywood movies may be a threat. American television may be a threat. But joint defence of North America is not a threat. It actually offers Canadians a better shot of what Margaret Atwood one defined as the historical nut of Canada’s identity: survival.
Survival a word too many Canadians take for granted in soft modern times. But, as the people who built this country understood all too well, survival in difficult times takes both partnership and commitment. We should investigate the terms of partnership. We should be prepared to commit.
Our friends, the Americans, use us. We should be prepared to use them. Americans can be annoying. But they can also be extremely handy in the crunch.