BMD Focus: Canada joins the BMD team

By MARTIN SIEFF
UPI Senior News Analyst

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 (UPI) -- Conventional Wisdom has so far paid almost no attention to the strategic consequences of Stephen Harper's victory with the Conservative Party in Canada on Monday. Conventional Wisdom as usual is wrong. Harper's victory is likely to have very rapid significant consequences for the development of hemispheric ballistic missile defense, with a far greater longer-term strategic potential for Canadian-U.S. relations.

Harper this week led his Conservative Party back to power after almost two decades in the political wilderness. The Canadian general election's results allowed the Conservatives or Tories to form a minority government, succeeding the previous one of Liberal Party leader Paul Martin.

Because the Conservatives are the only one of Canada's five major political parties anywhere to the right of the political spectrum in U.S. terms, and because previous minority governments have governed cautiously and, like Martin's, tended to last not more than a year or two, there is a general tendency to assume that Harper will be unable to have a significant impact on long-term Canadian policies and that he will, in particular, be unable to or even unwilling to fulfill his pledge to make Canada a partner in ballistic missile defense with the United States.

However, Harper's decision to break the longstanding political consensus in Canada to steer clear of BMD appears to have won him a significant boost in support in what proved to be a tight race. And in contrast to domestic issues, where the potential majority of the other parties joined against him could block significant legislative initiatives by his new government, it may prove far easier for him to push ahead with BMD cooperation with Washington.

First, the debate during the election campaign indicated it was relatively popular with the Canadian public. And second, it may prove far easier to push ahead with that than to implement his domestic agenda. For taking administrative decisions to increase military cooperation with the United States would not require piloting new legislation through the House of Commons, the main chamber of the Canadian parliament, in Ottawa. Harper's prospects for doing that remain poor.

"Of the four other major parties, the Tories can count on support from none. Yet the Liberals can depend on the kindred New Democratic Party, the Bloc Quebecois, and the Greens for occasional support on social and environmental policy," Stephen Johnson of the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based conservative think tank, wrote in an analysis Wednesday.

Third, initial cooperation with the United States on BMD would not cost the Canadian taxpayer a cent under the terms that President George W. Bush offered Prime Minister Martin last February.

Fourth, Harper admires the president personally and has made clear that in may respects he wants to emulate Bush's political style. He took a significant risk in breaking the cozy old consensus in Ottawa to proclaim his support for BMD, and he has also studied how effectively Bush pursued the strategy after he was first elected on only a plurality vote in November 2000 of governing boldly and confidently, sitting high in the saddle and acting as if he had broad popular majority support for his policies. That paid off when the president was reelected to a second term four years later with more votes than any other president ever received in American political history. Taking a bold stand on BMD cooperation with the United States in the cause of protecting the Canadian people offers the same kind of payoff for Harper.

Fifth, Martin paid a far higher price than he ever expected for flip-flopping on BMD cooperation with the United States. First, he accepted Bush's offer, then under pressure from critics within and outside his own Liberal Party, he changed his mind. That quieted his party critics but left him looking foolish and indecisive on major national security issue before the Canadian people. By sticking to his guns and pushing ahead rapidly with BMD cooperation now, Harper may well cement his own leadership credentials with the public and stand out in contrast with Martin.

From the American side, Harper's decision has no immediate physical advantages, but its long-term diplomatic and strategic advantages may be profound.

The U.S. multi-tier BMD system being developed to protect the nation against nuclear armed ballistic missiles that could be fired by so-called "rogue states" like North Korea or Iran does not need Canadian cooperation or geographical locations to be effective. The radar detection web being fashioned in Alaska, California, on U.S. Navy Aegis-class warships in the Pacific and involving orbiting space-based assets takes care of all that.

Nor did the Bush administration seek or need any active Canadian involvement in BMD development: Washington had been looking for a moral declaration of support.

But by joining hands with the United States on BMD, Harper at one stroke has resurrected the tremendous tradition of strategic cooperation between the United States and Canada that guaranteed hemispheric defense through World War II and the long decades of the Cold War. And he also establishes a precedent of strategic cooperation that should make progress far easier in stepping up joint security work against Islamist extremists in Canada, believed to especially concentrated and well-organized in Quebec.

Also, with Britain and Australia already playing active, highly important roles in their BMD partnerships with the United States, Harper's decision goes far to making BMD cooperation a defining policy characteristic of the leading Anglosphere nations. This is especially the case since India signed off on far-reaching BMD cooperation with the United States only last year.

Furthermore, Martin's flip-flop on BMD had thrown into some doubt the question as to whether or how he would renew North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) accord when it comes up for renewal in May 2006. Harper, as Stephen Johnson noted, is far more likely to renew it without destructive or damaging amendments or quibbles.

Finally, Canada's accession to the cause of BMD comes within a year of India and Japan both signing on to vastly expanded cooperation with the United States on it, and after the new Conservative government in Poland has also made clear its enthusiasm for participation in BMD development. While new Christian Democrat Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany is hampered by the coalition partnership nature of her government with the Social Democrats, victory points to the possibility of future German participation in the BMD programs too.

In other words, around the advanced industrial democratic world, ballistic missile defense is now almost universally a vote-winner and support for it has characterized victorious and resurgent conservative parties in Asia and America, in North and South. Harper's victory confirms that trend.

--

Will this new trend in Canada give....

..... a boost to upgrading the military as well?

I don't know what kind of staffing BMD requires, or if it is military or a policing branch of government.

A potential future retelling of the next few years:

Harper signs onto BMD
Billions wasted in a program (both in failed ideology and failed functionality)
Election time: Truth about BMD and weaponization is revealed - Harper takes a thrashing for misleading the public and wasting billions of dollars on ineffectual paranoia driven and building programs
New government scaps participation in BMD
New government quickly distances Canada from militaristic governments and ideaologies
Canadian economy surges seeing better quality of life after government focuses on positive initiatives.
Who is Harper? As people and history forget....

Missile defence, may not work now, but that's why we invest in it so that it will work later. When missiles are flying, I'd like to know that Canada has some semblance of a plan in place to at least make the attempt of fend off missiles.

Who do we think is going to be shooting at us? Of the nuclear powers, Russia, China, France, GB, India, Pakistan, Israel, I can't see any of them attacking us. North Korea?, Iran?, Not likely. The U.S. stands in greater danger of someone bringing a bomb in a boat.

To tell you the truth, I think Iran would smuggle in a bomb, but I wouldn't put it past North Korea to fire on at the west coast.

I have said this over and over:

BMD is about China.

China is the emerging nuclear power, with the technology to deliver nuclear weapons around the world.

China is the emerging neo-fascist state, with eyes on expansion.

China is the booming economy, that increases its vast military budget by 15 to 20 percent per year, despite no involvement in conflict at this time.

China is the threat.


We are wise to join BMD.

I agree gunslinger

First though, they will only have four or five warheads(I don't know how accurate) and it would be obvious where they came from. North Korea would be molten slag.

Juan

They would evacuate the patrols on the DMZ first? Or do you believe they would be sacrificed without warning?

Joining BMD would not have cost Martin a dime never mind billions and billions of dollars.

The US would not sacrifice them by nuking them. They may be over run by NK's massive army. NK incoming missiles would presumably be intecepted over the Pacific. (Hopefully)

Wednesday's Child

I was speaking figuratively. If North Korea did get a lucky shot in and took out say, Anchorage, would they escape retaliation? The missile would have been tracked all the way by satellite. I think the biggest danger for the U.S. is a bomb coming in by boat

Juan

I understand that....I was only trying to point out circumstances of how this could be accomplished by N.Korea.

If the U.S. military were to be pulled out, the S. Koreans may surrender to the North just to save lives.... it would be a precursor to some kind of attack by N. Korea once the South was secured.

I don't know how strong the South Korean military really is because nobody has given them the opportunity to be on their own...always having the U.S. at their sides.

Perhaps they should do some pre-military exercises by pulling out the U.S. in stages to see what would come down the chute....

Changing the U.S. troops out might rattle a few N. Korean cages.

Wednesday's Child

--

If you hit "compare countries" on the upper right, and then type in the countries, you can get a pretty good comparison. Knowing the aggressive nature of North Korea, I'm surprised the South Koreans don't have a larger military-----on the other hand, if the have a division or two of American troops standing by, they don't need any more.

One needs to look at the entire cost, not just the BMD involovement.

The problem with the BMD program, is that it simply doesn't make sense for Canada. If anyone was going to attack us, it would be to take our land and resources. If they sent nuclear bombs, the land would be uninhabitable, and the entire seige would have been pointless. It just doesn't make any sense to join the program, and that's why we didn't.

I think its a good idea that since America is going to shoot missiles down over Canada, Canada just might want to get involved.

if america plans to shoot down missles over canda they might just find out the hard way what side we are really on!

Seems you've already made your choice.

My choice is for peaceful co-existance of all life.

But if you want to draw geopolitical lines in the sand, don't think I am going to give favourtism to the US. The US would use us just as quickly and mercilessly as any other geopolitical tyrant. The US is no better than any of the others out there either. Don't forget that.

Merely your opinion. But if you think we will sit back and not defend ourselves because of your threats, you're sadly mistaken.

Our threats?

See how escalation breeds nothing more than paranoia?

The only difference between the US and any geopolitical entity of a different ideology is that US citizens have been led to believe their system is better, that they have it better, etc. That is the matter of opinion.

Quit flip flopping you're making me dizzy.

The US citizens have been led to believe in our ideas, it's worked for us for over 200 years and that is our opinion.

i am not flip-flopping. I am peaceful and place no value on geopolitical lines. I merely stated that if the US decides to start shooting things down over us, they might discover exactly how we feel about such actions by aligning ourselves with much further away from the US.

200 years is a flash in the pan. Brag about it when it has actually been around for a measurable amount of time.

There is only one way for you to ensure you get a say where it's being shot down and you know the answer to that question. And I'm not bragging about it, I said it works for us, when it doesn't, then we will revolt....again.

I don't think we are in any position to talk about America like that when our country is falling apart.

We want a say ITN,

We could continue to pretend that the neighbour to the south is a "friend" and play along, or we could just enter into arrangements with other tyranical geopolitical entities (or do both).

The best way to keep the US from trying anything with us is to be ready to retaliate and have all our options out on the table so nobody gets trigger happy. That will work until the warheads and the warhead mentality can be irradicated.

You can have a say if you join BMD. And their is nor reason to "pretend" about anything. Interests matter to countries, there is no such thing as "friendship" (although our people have a sense of friendship), so do what's in your best interest and we will do the same, just don't dictate what and how we defend ourselves when you're out of the game. It's none of your business.

It is our business if the US intended to fire weapons over us!

Being "aligned" with the US alone does not help Canada nearly as much as being neutral and open to "all sides". In more than just defence it is in the best interests of Canada to be neutral and work towards the PCE.

It wouldn't be flying over you, there are no mainland missiles as part of the BMD, or at least that's my understanding of it. And by the time it's over Canada, it's too late to shoot it down anyway.

You can be neutral and be open to "all sides", that's another of saying I'm a backseat driver. If you would take a more active role who would stop you? Go ahead, be diplomats, make peace, who will stop you?