Ottawa Citizen - October 13, 2006
Montreal Gazette - October 16, 2006
By Colin Kenny
When you search for the reasons that the former Liberal government and the current Conservative government have shied away from joining the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defence Program, it boils down to this: joining BMD would undoubtedly hurt both parties’ chances of electoral success, particularly in Quebec.
Neither minority government has been willing to take that kind of political risk, even if they believed that joining BMD makes sense. Which it does.
BMD should actually make more sense to Canadian voters than it does to American voters. There are a number of reasons that it doesn’t. None are particularly logical – either down there or up here.
If I were an American voter, I’m not sure I would want to pump billions of dollars into BMD, a defensive weapons system designed to shoot down missiles launched at North America by rogue states or terrorists.
While the possibility of such attacks exists, defending against it wouldn’t necessarily be at the top of my list if I were an American. I would likely push to use the money to counteract more high probability risks – to shore up security at ports, for instance, where there are huge holes that terrorists could easily take advantage of.
Having said that, Americans are paying for BMD, and most of them are eager to put the system in place. Polls show that high percentages of Americans find it disturbing that such a system doesn’t already exist.
Looking at the issue from a Canadian point of view, we should be more eager than Americans to sign on to BMD. Why? Because (a) BMD at least has the potential to protect hundreds of thousands of Canadians from a rogue attack; and (b) BMD is the closest we will ever come to a free lunch – to judge by Washington’s first offer, it wouldn’t cost us anything.
There are lots of Canadians who believe that signing on to BMD would signal that Canada has bought into the current American government’s militaristic approach to policing the planet.
If that were the case, I would agree with these people. I don’t believe you can create a more stable world by simply policing the planet. In fact, the last report of our Senate Committee on National Security and Defence says Canada should place greater emphasis on foreign aid to win the hearts and minds of people who threaten our way of life.
Our Committee does believe, however, that we Canadians need to defend ourselves. It also believes that we should take advantage of what the Americans have to offer us in defending North America. We need to do that in our own national interest, not theirs.
So it comes down to this: would participating in BMD offer Canadians a practical, cost-effective way of defending Canada without creating a more militant, dangerous world?
We are convinced that it would.
Here are some criticisms of potential Canadian participation in BMD, with the Committee’s responses:
· The technology behind BMD is unattainable on a reliable basis. But recent tests against new and more complex targets have been very successful.
· BMD could lead to an escalation of the international arms war, since other countries would want to counter increased U.S. capability. But BMD is a defensive system that counters threats to North America. It is not a threat to any other nation.
· BMD weaponry could eventually be launched from space. But space is already used for numerous military purposes, from communications to surveillance and intelligence.
· Money for BMD could be better used elsewhere. But the United States has not asked Canada to fund the BMD program – funding has already been approved by the U.S. Congress.
· The US will request that surveillance equipment and missiles be located on Canadian soil as the price for Canadian participation. But the U.S. plan is to locate all missiles on U.S. soil or in U.S. Navy ships.
· Hitting a missile with a missile will increase the likelihood of nuclear fallout over North America. BMD missiles don’t have nuclear warheads. BMD would respond to an attack by deflecting it.
· BMD is just part of American military muscle, and the more muscle the Americans have the more dangerous our world becomes. Traditionally, a nuclear attack on the United States would have been met by an immediate nuclear response. A successful BMD response would at least provide the possibility of a pause to sort things out.
· Rogue states will never have the capacity to launch missiles at North America. Really? If North Korea and Iran can create a nuclear capacity over a few years, how long will it take them to fire weapons?
Yes, Canadians love peace. But all those Canadians who say they don’t want any part of BMD because it will create a more dangerous world should stop pretending that they are making a logical case and say “We just don’t like America.”
Too often we Canadians let emotions get in the way of using the United States to our own advantage. Sometimes the Americans actually make us an offer that’s in Canada’s best interests. This appears to be one of those times.
We are better able to protect Canadian sovereignty by having a seat at the table where North American defence decisions are made.
But don’t expect logic to capture this argument. After, all, there is an election to be won.
Senator Colin Kenny is Chair of the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. He can be reached via email at kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca