This article was signed by 10 concerned Canadians, including former external affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy, vice-chancellor, University of Winnipeg; Dale Dewar, president, Physicians for Global Survival; Mel Hurtig, founder of the Council of Canadians; Peggy Mason, Canada's former U.N. ambassador for disarmament; John Polanyi, Nobel laureate and professor, University of Toronto; and Steven Staples, of the Polaris Institute.
The federal election has unexpectedly reopened the debate on Canada's participation in the U.S.'s Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) system. The Canadian government, after a lengthy public debate, decided not to participate in the U.S. missile shield in February 2005. It was a popular decision because the majority of Canadians opposed participation and numerous events of the last year have borne out that it was the correct decision.
Conservative party leader Stephen Harper feels otherwise. He has promised that, if elected, his government will revisit the previous government's decision not to join the U.S. missile defence system.
In the past Parliament, all the political parties supported the government's decision not to participate in BMD with the exception of the Conservatives, who reserved judgment on the issue. Is it the Conservatives' assessment now that negotiating entry into the BMD program could be in Canada's best interests?
News and analysis from the United States shows Canada to be vindicated, as it appears that confidence in the viability of the ground-based, mid-course system is faltering.
A U.S. Senate defence subcommittee, led by missile defence advocate Republican Ted Stevens, recently warned supporters that the Missile Defence Agency had decided that the first generation of interceptor missiles in Alaska and California will also be the last.
The missiles are behind schedule, badly over budget and have yet to be fully tested or declared operational. In other words, as many prominent scientists and military experts have testified, the Pentagon is admitting BMD may never meet the challenge of achieving any acceptable reliability.
The Congressional Budget Office has also issued its own warning, predicting that the projected annual costs of the missile defence system could spiral upwards to $19 billion per year, more than twice its annual budget today.
In fact, after examining the key technologies and their likelihood of success, the budget office proposed halting missile defence deployment entirely. Had Ottawa joined and made a financial commitment, Canadians could have seen their expected contribution likewise skyrocket for a system that has little chance of functioning.
In any renewed discussion of Canada's participation in the ballistic missile defence program, the potential for the weaponization of space looms large. Like all other parties, the Conservative party shares an opposition to the weaponization of space, a chief international concern about the missile defence program.
But in the last year, President George W. Bush has shown no indication that he has renounced the Pentagon's and Air Force's declared and widely publicized plans to "dominate space" and to "deny others the use of space" through the use of space weapons.
On the contrary, doctrines for space warfare continue to be espoused in Washington.
Alarmingly, last fall the U.S. voted "no" for the first time on the annual United Nations resolution to prevent an arms race in outer space. Observers agree this is a clear indication that the decision to deploy space weapons may be imminent. Had Canada joined the ballistic missile defence program, we would have been unable to avoid responsibility for contributing to a new arms race in space.
The Canadian government approved detailed BMD talks with the Americans in May 2003 and rejected the idea in February 2005. Canadian questions about our potential participation apparently could not be answered satisfactorily. Would there eventually be U.S. weapons in space? Would Canada be stuck with a mounting tab as costs rapidly increased? Bush adamantly refused to give Prime Minister Paul Martin an undertaking that missile defence was not tied to the future weaponization of space.
What is more, the White House and proponents of BMD within the Canadian government were unable to convince Canadians that participating in the program is vital to their security.
Following the decision not to join, a Decima poll found that 57 per cent supported the decision, and 26 per cent opposed it. Virtually every constituency was opposed to BMD participation — from teenagers to senior citizens, men and women, urban and rural dwellers, and a majority in every single province. Simply put, strong links to the Bush administration make BMD an unpopular cause among many Canadians, who are clearly wary of Bush's aggressive military and foreign policy.
Canada was correct not to join missile defence in 2005, and nothing new has occurred that warrants reopening the debate.
Our country has long been a staunch advocate of diplomatic efforts to abolish nuclear weapons, and it has a strong interest in keeping Earth's orbit a demilitarized zone.
We believe that joining the "Star Wars" system being pushed by the Bush administration would undermine Canada's reputation as a peacekeeper and advocate for disarmament, and endanger the entire world.
Link
The federal election has unexpectedly reopened the debate on Canada's participation in the U.S.'s Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) system. The Canadian government, after a lengthy public debate, decided not to participate in the U.S. missile shield in February 2005. It was a popular decision because the majority of Canadians opposed participation and numerous events of the last year have borne out that it was the correct decision.
Conservative party leader Stephen Harper feels otherwise. He has promised that, if elected, his government will revisit the previous government's decision not to join the U.S. missile defence system.
In the past Parliament, all the political parties supported the government's decision not to participate in BMD with the exception of the Conservatives, who reserved judgment on the issue. Is it the Conservatives' assessment now that negotiating entry into the BMD program could be in Canada's best interests?
News and analysis from the United States shows Canada to be vindicated, as it appears that confidence in the viability of the ground-based, mid-course system is faltering.
A U.S. Senate defence subcommittee, led by missile defence advocate Republican Ted Stevens, recently warned supporters that the Missile Defence Agency had decided that the first generation of interceptor missiles in Alaska and California will also be the last.
The missiles are behind schedule, badly over budget and have yet to be fully tested or declared operational. In other words, as many prominent scientists and military experts have testified, the Pentagon is admitting BMD may never meet the challenge of achieving any acceptable reliability.
The Congressional Budget Office has also issued its own warning, predicting that the projected annual costs of the missile defence system could spiral upwards to $19 billion per year, more than twice its annual budget today.
In fact, after examining the key technologies and their likelihood of success, the budget office proposed halting missile defence deployment entirely. Had Ottawa joined and made a financial commitment, Canadians could have seen their expected contribution likewise skyrocket for a system that has little chance of functioning.
In any renewed discussion of Canada's participation in the ballistic missile defence program, the potential for the weaponization of space looms large. Like all other parties, the Conservative party shares an opposition to the weaponization of space, a chief international concern about the missile defence program.
But in the last year, President George W. Bush has shown no indication that he has renounced the Pentagon's and Air Force's declared and widely publicized plans to "dominate space" and to "deny others the use of space" through the use of space weapons.
On the contrary, doctrines for space warfare continue to be espoused in Washington.
Alarmingly, last fall the U.S. voted "no" for the first time on the annual United Nations resolution to prevent an arms race in outer space. Observers agree this is a clear indication that the decision to deploy space weapons may be imminent. Had Canada joined the ballistic missile defence program, we would have been unable to avoid responsibility for contributing to a new arms race in space.
The Canadian government approved detailed BMD talks with the Americans in May 2003 and rejected the idea in February 2005. Canadian questions about our potential participation apparently could not be answered satisfactorily. Would there eventually be U.S. weapons in space? Would Canada be stuck with a mounting tab as costs rapidly increased? Bush adamantly refused to give Prime Minister Paul Martin an undertaking that missile defence was not tied to the future weaponization of space.
What is more, the White House and proponents of BMD within the Canadian government were unable to convince Canadians that participating in the program is vital to their security.
Following the decision not to join, a Decima poll found that 57 per cent supported the decision, and 26 per cent opposed it. Virtually every constituency was opposed to BMD participation — from teenagers to senior citizens, men and women, urban and rural dwellers, and a majority in every single province. Simply put, strong links to the Bush administration make BMD an unpopular cause among many Canadians, who are clearly wary of Bush's aggressive military and foreign policy.
Canada was correct not to join missile defence in 2005, and nothing new has occurred that warrants reopening the debate.
Our country has long been a staunch advocate of diplomatic efforts to abolish nuclear weapons, and it has a strong interest in keeping Earth's orbit a demilitarized zone.
We believe that joining the "Star Wars" system being pushed by the Bush administration would undermine Canada's reputation as a peacekeeper and advocate for disarmament, and endanger the entire world.
Link
