Canada's Sovereignty in Jeopardy


quandary121
Green
#1
Canadian jurisdiction over its Northern territories was redefined, following an April 2002 military agreement between Ottawa and Washington. This agreement allows for the deployment of US troops anywhere in Canada, as well as the stationing of US warships in Canada's territorial waters.
Following the creation of US Northern Command in April 2002, Washington announced unilaterally that NORTHCOM's territorial jurisdiction (land, sea, air) extended from the Caribbean basin to the Canadian arctic territories.
"The new command was given responsibility for the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline. NorthCom's mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."
(Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR), http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm
NORTHCOM's stated mandate was to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s [US] civil authorities in times of national need."
(Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR),
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm)
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld boasted that "the NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – 'is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.'" (Ibid)
 
quandary121
Green
#2
The Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement (SPP)
The Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement (SPP) signed between the US, Canada and Mexico contemplates the formation of a North American Union (NAU), a territorial dominion, extending from the Caribbean to the Canadian arctic territories.
 
quandary121
Green
#3
NORTHCOM LEADERS

Gen. Gene Renuart, USAF
Commander
Biography (Français) (Español)
[also Commander of NORAD]
Lt. Gen. William G. Webster Jr., USA
Deputy Commander
Biography (Español)
Maj. Gen. Paul J. Sullivan, USAF
Chief of Staff
Biography (Español)

[also Chief of Staff of NORAD]

Command Sgt. Maj. Daniel R. Wood, USA
Command Senior Enlisted Leader

Biography
(Español)
[also NORAD Command Senior Enlisted Leader]
 
quandary121
Green
#4
this is just to prove to those of you who think that the threads that ive posted about your freedoms being taken away and that it wont happen to you cos your Canadian think again.

By endorsing a Canada-US "integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada not remains a full fledged member of George W. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing", it will directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in the US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East, including the massacre of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of POWs, the establishment of concentration camps, etc.
Last edited by quandary121; May 31st, 2008 at 01:23 PM..Reason: spelling
 
scratch
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by quandary121 View Post

Canadian jurisdiction over its Northern territories was redefined, following an April 2002 military agreement between Ottawa and Washington. This agreement allows for the deployment of US troops anywhere in Canada, as well as the stationing of US warships in Canada's territorial waters.
Following the creation of US Northern Command in April 2002, Washington announced unilaterally that NORTHCOM's territorial jurisdiction (land, sea, air) extended from the Caribbean basin to the Canadian arctic territories.

"The new command was given responsibility for the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline. NorthCom's mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."
(Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR), http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm
NORTHCOM's stated mandate was to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s [US] civil authorities in times of national need."
(Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR),
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm)
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld boasted that "the NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – 'is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.'" (Ibid)

Current would help.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#6
You're just a half century behind....

http://www.norad.mil/50/

Woof!
 
Colpy
Conservative
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

You're just a half century behind....

http://www.norad.mil/50/

Woof!

Exactly correct.......

I used to think "black helicopter" paranoia was only an issue with ultra right wing loonies.

We've been living with a unified defense structure for North America for over 60 years. That is why all you lefties have been able to live free in a country with practically no military.......the Yanks have been defending us.

Of course, what they get in appreciation is loathing, stupidity, and back-stabbing.

Now there are a bunch of Canadians trying to get us to accept American military deserters as refugees, for God's sake............it is ludicrous.

(see today's Globe and Mail commentary)
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#8
Poor Colpy.... Where would you be without your labels?

Woof!
 
Colpy
Conservative
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

Poor Colpy.... Where would you be without your labels?

Woof!

Got a problem with the post in which I said you were correct?

Perhaps you could expand on the subject.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Got a problem with the post in which I said you were correct?

Perhaps you could expand on the subject.

Nope.... Oddly enough we agree on something. It's the left-right thing. Seems to me righties were under that same NORAD umbrella....
 
quandary121
Green
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by scratch View Post

Current would help.


Continental Defence in the Wake of 11 September: A New Urgency

In the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks, defence of the North American continent returned to the forefront of American national security policy. The Bush Administration quickly formed a civilian-led, cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. On the military side, on 17 April 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that the American Unified Command Plan (UCP) was being updated to include a new regional command – Northern Command (NorthCom).

The new command was given responsibility for the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline. NorthCom's mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."

Rumsfeld boasted that the introduction of NorthCom – with all of North America as its geographic command – "is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan since its inception in 1947."

NorthCom is a wholly American command. Inescapably, however, its presence will profoundly influence those other states included within its geographic area of responsibility. Canadian military and political leaders, mindful of historic and continuing military ties to the United States, have engaged in an increasing number
of debates regarding the significance of this singular
UCP revision. The formation of NorthCom has revived familiar disputes regarding the need to cooperate with the US in continental defence, weighed against the likely impact of such cooperation on our nation's sovereignty.

Implications for Canadian Defence Policy

What impact will the formation of NorthCom have on Canadian national security policy? To address this question, we need to review the history of the Canada–US continental defence relationship, paying special attention to Canadian concerns regarding sovereignty. Such a review will highlight lasting trends in the North American continental defence relationship.

To grasp the increasing priority given to continental defence within the United States military and political leadership since 11 September 2001, we need to examine the details of NorthCom’s structure and function. With this back- ground information in hand, we can evaluate NorthCom's likely influence on Canadian foreign and defence policy. It is predicted that, 'after NorthCom', the evolution of Canada's relationship with the US, and any future Canadian contributions to continental defence, will follow closely the pattern of historical experience.

Sovereignty and Ambiguity

How has Canada approached cooperative continental defence with the United States in the past? Despite concerns about its sovereignty, Canada has tended to embrace joint continental defence efforts with the United States. At the forefront of these efforts is the Canadian military, which has been remarkably successful in convincing their political masters of the necessity of binational cooperation in the defence of North America.

In 1982, reflecting on the importance assigned to the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD), renowned Canadian diplomat John W. Holmes noted:
"NORAD, which seems a step in the continentalization of North American defence, can be regarded from another angle as a means of preserving a Canadian role and an appropriate degree of sovereignty in a situation in which, if there were no rules, the Americans would simply take over the defence of the continent."
Defence Against Help

Typically characterized as a "defence against help" strategy, the reality described by Holmes characterizes the Canadian approach to continental defence for the better part of the 20th century. To be precise, since before the Second World War, Canada has continually chosen to forego a pure, but vulnerable, sovereignty. Instead, Canada has opted for a somewhat truncated, but better secured, sovereignty by cooperating in the defence of the continent with the United States. In truth, of all the trends in the Canada–US defence relationship, this sovereignty/security trade-off has been an ever-present, acceptable accommodation.

Speaking at Queen's University in August 1938, American President Franklin Roosevelt pledged that "the people of the United States will not stand by if domination of Canada is threatened by any other Empire." Replying within the week, Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King declared that "enemy forces should not be able to pursue their way either by land, sea or air to the United States across Canada."

This 'Kingston Dispensation', as named by Michel Fortmann and David Haglund, reveals an early manifestation of Canada's sovereignty dilemma. Faced with an implicit suggestion that America would be willing to protect the continent alone if necessary, King realized that Canada had to bolster its own defences to alleviate its neighbour's concerns. While Canada and the United States did not establish any joint continental defence measures at this time, Canadian defence policy has nonetheless been influenced by American interests ever since. In fact, it was in Canada's interests to take account of America's sense of vulnerability.

Canada-US Permanent Joint Board on Defence

The Permanent Joint Board on Defence (PJBD) – formed in 1940 – continues to be the highest bilateral defence forum between Canada and the United States, providing both governments with senior military and diplomatic contact. Despite the success of the PJBD, however, the Second World War also alerted Canadian decision-makers to the need to be cautious in dealing with the United States. Early in the war, in an effort to build the Alaskan Highway, and man the Northeast Staging Route to Europe, the United States stationed a formidable number of its forces on Canadian soil.

Unsurprisingly, Canadian officials regarded this American presence with alarm. For instance, the Canadian High Commissioner in London, Vincent Massey, was unapologetic in his sentiment that "Canada has been too preoccupied with her own war effort to cope with the Americans who unfortunately, under the cover of the needs of war, are acting in the Northwest as if they owned the country." Luckily, before the war's end, Ottawa obtained guarantees of an American withdrawal. While Canadian officials did not question that these deployments had been made in good faith, the ease with which they had occurred signalled that concrete steps were needed to prevent a similar strain on Canadian sovereignty.
 
gerryh
#12
I'm sorry...but this doesn't show Canada losing her sovereignty..on the contrary, it shows that Canada has exercised her sovereignty every time the americans over stepped their bounds.
 
quandary121
Green
#13
"Integration" or the "Annexation" of Canada?
Canada is contiguous to "the center of the empire". Territorial control over Canada is part of the US geopolitical and military agenda. It is worth recalling in this regard, that throughout history, the "conquering nation" has expanded on its immediate borders, acquiring control over contiguous territories.
Military integration is intimately related to the ongoing process of integration in the spheres of trade, finance and investment. Needless to say, a large part of the Canadian economy is already in the hands of US corporate interests. In turn, the interests of big business in Canada tend to coincide with those of the US.
Canada is already a de facto economic protectorate of the USA. NAFTA has not only opened up new avenues for US corporate expansion, it has laid the groundwork under the existing North American umbrella for the post 9/11 integration of military command structures, public security, intelligence and law enforcement.
No doubt, Canada's entry into US Northern Command will be presented to public opinion as part of Canada-US "cooperation", as something which is "in the national interest", which "will create jobs for Canadians", and "will make Canada more secure".
Ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada will cease to function as a Nation:
-Its borders will be controlled by US officials and confidential information on Canadians will be shared with Homeland Security.
-US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as a result of a binational arrangement.
-Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on behalf of their Canadian counterparts and vice versa.
But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as nation.
By endorsing a Canada-US "integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada not remains a full fledged member of George W. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing", it will directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in the US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East, including the massacre of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of POWs, the establishment of concentration camps, etc.
Canada would no longer have an independent foreign policy. Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington's pre-emptive military doctrine, its bogus "war on terrorism which is used as a pretext for waging war in the Middle East. .
The Canadian judicial system would be affected. Moreover, binational integration in the areas of Homeland security, immigration, policing of the US-Canada border, not to mention the anti-terrorist legislation, would imply pari passu acceptance of the US sponsored police State, its racist policies, its "ethnic profiling" directed against Muslims, the arbitrary arrest of anti-war activists.
 
quandary121
Green
#14
Canadian Sovereignty
In August 2006, the US State Department confirmed that a new NORAD Agreement had entered into force, while emphasizing that "the maritime domain awareness component was of 'indefinite duration,' albeit subject to periodic review." (US Federal News, 1 August 2006). In March 2007, the US Senate Armed Services Committee confirmed that the NORAD Agreement had been formally renewed, to include a maritime warning system. In Canada, in contrast, there has been a deafening silence.

In Canada, the renewed NORAD agreement went virtually unnoticed. There was no official pronouncement by the Canadian government of Stephen Harper. There was no analysis or commentary of its significance and implications for Canadian territorial sovereignty. The agreement was barely reported by the Canadian media.
Operating under a "North American" emblem (i.e. a North American Command), the US military would have jurisdiction over Canadian territory from coast to coast; extending from the St Laurence Valley to the Queen Elizabeth archipelago in the Canadian Arctic. The agreement would allow for the establishment of "North American" military bases on Canadian territory. From an economic standpoint, it would also integrate the Canadian North, with its vast resources in energy and raw materials, with Alaska.
Ottawa's Military Facility in Resolute Bay
Ottawa's July 2007 decision to establish a military facility in Resolute Bay in the Northwest Passage was not intended to reassert "Canadian sovereignty. In fact quite the opposite. It was established in consultation with Washington. A deep-water port at Nanisivik, on the northern tip of Baffin Island is also envisaged.
The US administration is firmly behind the Canadian government's decision. The latter does not "reassert Canadian sovereignty". Quite the opposite. It is a means to eventually establish US territorial control over Canada's entire Arctic region including its waterways. This territory would eventually fall under the jurisdiction of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM).
The Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement (SPP)
The Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement (SPP) signed between the US, Canada and Mexico contemplates the formation of a North American Union (NAU), a territorial dominion, extending from the Caribbean to the Canadian arctic territories.
 
china
Conservative
#15
Understand Canadians ...oh what the hell.
 
MikeyDB
#16
We've been sitting like boiling frogs for decades.

As long as Canadian appetites are met....Canadians simply don't care.
 
quandary121
Green
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDB View Post

We've been sitting like boiling frogs for decades.

As long as Canadian appetites are met....Canadians simply don't care.

Thats the same the world over im afraid nobody wants to do anything until it effects them personally like in my country the elderly are not treated well in care homes and nobody give a **** or cares then when there old and in need they find that its too late to do anything !!! and the things which were spoken about before about how substandard issues in care homes and unclean treatments (eg:elderly left in soiled sheets all day) these same things continue to the next generation and the next never ever being address properly it is truly shameful
Last edited by quandary121; Jun 2nd, 2008 at 09:43 AM..Reason: spelling
 
MikeyDB
#18
I feel ya dude but hey....what's your solution?

I mean no offense here but ....you aren't the first person to raise this alarm.....
 
quandary121
Green
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDB View Post

I feel ya dude but hey....what's your solution?

I mean no offense here but ....you aren't the first person to raise this
alarm.....

Im not sure there is anything we can do but inform ourself as to what is going on you can be sure things like this will never be spoken in main stream media i suppose the only way that anything can be done is to continue to tell each other about whats going on and hope that if enough people know than maybe someone who has some clout will take up the debate
 
quandary121
Green
#20
 

Similar Threads

150
Rush Limbaugh NFL bid in jeopardy
by Kreskin | Sep 25th, 2012
19
Canada's sovereignty over the Arctic
by EastSideScotian | Aug 7th, 2006
5
Canada's Sovereignty Compromised: Bloc
by FiveParadox | Mar 16th, 2006