Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Great White North

Canada Sez, "We Don't Need No Steenking US Missile Defense System"

2005-02-23

EFL

Prime Minister Paul Martin will deliver a firm No to Canadian participation in the U.S. missile defence plan and break a lengthy silence that fomented confusion on both sides of the border. News of the announcement follows a day of confusion on Parliament Hill after Frank McKenna, Martin's choice to be the next ambassador to the U.S., sparked a political firestorm by saying participation in the controversial continental missile defence system is a done deal. The end of Martin's silence will come as an about-face for a prime minister who had repeatedly stated his support for missile defence when he was a Liberal leadership candidate barely a year ago.
He voted for it before he voted against it!
The U.S. was informed of the Canada's plans at a NATO summit in Brussels, attended by Martin and President George W. Bush, and the news was also conveyed Tuesday through ~~a text message on Condi's BlackBerry~~ diplomats in Ottawa and Washington. "(The Americans) were told we will not participate," a federal official, who asked to remain anonymous, told The Canadian Press. "It is a firm No. I am not sure it is an indefinite No."
How...nuanced.
"The will to participate is no longer there," another government official said several days ago. "I think the internal conflict - the dissension within the party - is now almost insurmountable. This is because of domestic considerations." Public opinion polls have suggested two-thirds of Canadians opposed missile defence.

Oh, yeah. I oppose it, too. I'm looking forward to seeing a nuclear-tipped missile arriving in Yellow Knife. That's a firm opposition, too. I'm not sure if it's an indefinite opposition...

That opposition grew in the vacuum of any public support from the federal government. Within Martin's cabinet, only Defence Minister Bill Graham and Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan lobbied in favour of the project. Leading opponents included Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew and Infrastructure Minister John Godfrey.

Will somebody tell Harry Potter where that guy is? I'm tired of hearing from him.

Bush made a bold pitch for Canadian participation during his visit here late last year. The program would cost billions of dollars and the U.S. hasn't requested any money. The Americans were offering Canada a decision-making role in the system's deployment. McKenna backed his argument by citing last summer's deal that allows Norad, the joint Canada-U.S. air defence command, to monitor for incoming missiles - a critical element of the missile shield program's operation. "There's no doubt, in looking back, that the Norad amendment has given, has created part - in fact a great deal - of what the United States means in terms of being able to get the input for defensive weaponry," said McKenna.

Posted by:Desert Blondie

#19 You're right Steve, but this is where we rant at times. Besides, I'm still po'ed about having my windshield smashed by vandals in low crime Vancouver.

Nova Scotia, on the other hand, was beautiful with nice people and a generous exchange rate. If you ever want to see what the world is all about today, visit Fortress Louisbourg and then Colonial Williamsburg. Nothing has changed in the last 300 years except technology.

Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-02-23 6:09:38 PM

#18 Nope, sorry, I don't think retaliation is in order here. I wish the Canadians would come to understand that the Mad Mullahs don't distinguish between an American and a Canadian, no matter how much the Canadians try, but that's a complaint for a different day.

Canada is our best trade partner. Treating them poorly would hurt only us. We have the longest undefended border in the world between us. Treating them poorly might change that, and that would be a damned shame.

Canuck is especially correct on one issue: Canada has a limited military budget. Time was, a few decades ago, the Canucks punched well above their weight, but creeping socialism, national health care, and Euro-style attitudes have changed that. Not going to change soon, and so if the Canadians have to stretch limited defense dollars, I'd rather seem them buy the hardware their troops will use everyday. They'll be more effective, and a more effective Canadian military is in our interest.

We can design and build the ABM without their help. In that case, it might not defend Canada all that well, but as long as the Canadians understand that, fine by me.

Posted by: Steve White 2005-02-23 5:54:13 PM

#17 Mrs Davis, I have read your posts on many topics and I assure you that your knowledge is beyond mine... My understanding of the key component of Canada's role in missle defense was to include it in the NORAD agreement. We contribute staff and the second in command is Canadian. So if there is a missle launch, a Canadian radar guy can't say, "whoops, not my problem". With respect to money, any contribution would be nominal on our part: the US$ 50B budget (?) for missle defense is about our entire national budget. With respect to radars, once missle defense is part of NORAD, all our/your radars are part of it. Plus you have Alaska (damn it) and California with silos - so I don't think there is a need for bases in Canada. I don't think it effects the design (if there is one) or we would have caved to it already....I really think it was a pressure tactic (and a right one). There is only so many times we can say no to the US re military affairs before we get slapped really hard. We were given an option: snub us (the US) on missle defense because it doesn't matter now that you have signed the NORAD amendment and look good to your own population and get yourselves re-elected but then you have to cough up some big bucks for your military. (oh, yeah and we - the US - are still pissed at the Iraq thing so make it really big bucks)

Posted by: Canuck 2005-02-23 5:49:46 PM

#16 Canuck,

Are we talking about Canada paying part of the tab for ABM or making territory available for radars and weapons systems? If it's just money, that's one thing, but if it has an effect on the system design, that's another. I was under the impression it was the later.

Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-02-23 5:25:25 PM

#15 AlanC, a significant portion of our population is french and opposed to the weapons in space (I know, I know don't bother commenting) and so they are part of the equation in domestic politics....However what I meant, personally, by "stupid domestic reasons" is that our vocal minority - french and english alike - does not understand world politics/affairs too well. We focus too much on land mine treaties and ignore the big, ugly picture. We prefer to speak softly and not even bother carrying a stick. That will take a while to correct or even improve. That is what I meant by that comment.

Posted by: Canuck 2005-02-23 5:11:00 PM

#14 Hey Canuck,

What you say has some things that are nice to hear. The one thing that bothers me, and I suspect others, is the "...our refusal of missile defense which is for stupid domestic reasons, ..."

In other words the fact that you have to act like snotty French for "stupid domestic reasons" in the first place. Makes me wonder just what in hell the US did to "you" that justifies this attitude? Was it the comic insult dog? ;^)

Posted by: AlanC 2005-02-23 4:58:40 PM

#13 My gut feeling is that Australia is a much better ally and that the U.S./Canadian border needs tighter control.

Posted by: Tom 2005-02-23 4:46:13 PM

#12 ok, yes it is great fun for the yanks here to bash on Canada. And I will be the first to admit that we do not spend enough on our military, we are not paying our way in world affairs and we should have supported the war on Iraq publicly (even though we are helping out big time militarily in the war on terrosim). BUT, I think there is a bigger game going on with respect to Canada/US relations than missile defense. Yes, we are kinda sorta maybe saying a definite no to missle defense but we also signed onto the NORAD agreement which is all the US really cared about on that file. The rest was bargaining. And our high tech companies will still participate in the development of the system. However, missile defense is only a small part of how the US (rightly) sees a role for Canada's military in the world....So in exchange for our refusal of missile defense which is for stupid domestic reasons, our government is ramping up military spending. Which is what the US wants more than our participation in missle defense. Oh, and guess what the Cdn $12Billion in extra funding over five years for the military just might include: new Hercs, new SAR planes, plus C-17s - all from US based manufacturers. Maybe even some used littoral (sp?) ships from the US Navy....All in all, I think the US would be much happier with Canada doing that than Canada signing on to missle defense because right now you are only going to get one or the other....I defer to the group for their opinions....

Posted by: Canuck 2005-02-23 4:40:34 PM

#11 They should get a brain, first of all. Then they should buy an atlas. I'm not sure most Canadians realize, especially recent immigrants, that the well-being of the US means the well-being of Canada.
As an aside, we now have our own John Kerry up here. His name is Paul 'Kerry' Martin.

Posted by: Rafael 2005-02-23 3:40:49 PM

#10 Just another Free Rider. Good folks up there, but they ought to be ashamed and a little less brazen.

Posted by: Shipman 2005-02-23 3:25:16 PM

#9 Inspections of automobiles and occupants entering the United States from Canada and Mexico should be made at least as comprehensive as those Americans must endure to fly from Cincinnati to Cleveland. Cars should be parked and inspected and people should go through metal detectors. They aren't friends or allies any longer.

Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-02-23 2:35:09 PM

#8 My sentiment exactly, rjschwarz. As if the US will wait for permission when the need arises...as if. The entire Canadian Air Force can be dealt with in 15 minutes if need be (120 planes, 60 of them are flyable).

Posted by: Rafael 2005-02-23 2:10:56 PM

#7 please be so kind as to not permit any fallout from traversing our common border. Such pollution would violate the spirit of NAFTA

'moose - You RASCAL! he he he

Posted by: BigEd 2005-02-23 1:59:46 PM

#6 Maybe a nice note: "Dear Canada, when your cities are smoking radioactive holes, please be so kind as to not permit any fallout from traversing our common border. Such pollution would violate the spirit of NAFTA, and invite a punitive trade response. Yrs, UP. Oh, we mean US."

Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-02-23 1:42:15 PM

#5 Realistically Canada doesn't need a missile defense shield because if the US sees something coming over the pole we'll shoot it down, we won't wait to determine if it'll hit the US Canada or Mexico.

Just as an invasion of Canada by the Soviets would have been prevented by the US because of our own defense requirements.

This way Canada can keep their pacifist street creds and avoid paying for anything or any illusions that they are run by honorable folks.

Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-02-23 12:51:14 PM

#4 BH is right. The Canadians, as implemented by their government, are no more than a pacifist Euro style leach on the American defense umbrella (can I mix any more metaphors?).

Personally I'd like to see the US basically treat Canada, France, Germany, etc. as nothing more than the annoyances they have become. Give them a slap when they start down a dangerous path (providing nukes to Iran, arms to China, etc.) but otherwise ignore them.

Posted by: AlanC 2005-02-23 12:32:07 PM

#3 If I were them, I wouldn't be counting on North Korea's aim being all that good.

Posted by: Tom 2005-02-23 12:20:27 PM

#2 Canada doesn't need missile defense. The ROPers know that they still have a better than average chance of taking Canada through the tried and true method of gradual immigration followed by political pressure and the threat of violence. Canada's European, so they'll use the European model.

Posted by: BH 2005-02-23 12:10:15 PM

#1 OK - Canada gets a terrorist strike, and all of a sudden, it's like those old people in the ads on TV

"Help me, help me, I've fallen and I can't get up!"

If Ottawa or Toronto "glows Iranian or North Korean or Islamo green" because no one wanted missile defense up North, will create a situation of "Fewer but better Liberals"

Posted by: BigEd 2005-02-23 12:01:46 PM

00:00