NORAD Canada Requested “Missile Defense” Role By Richard Sanders, Editor, Press for Conversion! On Jan. 15, 2000, n August 5, 2004, the Canadian Canada’s National government initiated a change Defence Minister, Oto the NORAD agreement in David Pratt, wrote to order to add a crucial “missile defense” task to the Canada-U.S. military alliance. U.S. Secretary of The U.S. promptly agreed to Canada’s State, Colin Powell, kind offer to share in the important expressing Canada’s “aerospace warning” function that is required for the tracking and targeting deep commitment to functions of America’s “missile “increased govern- defense” weapons systems. ment-to-government The process by which Canada attained its new “missile defense” job and industry-to-ind- within NORAD, was facilitated by an ustry cooperation on exchange of bureaucratic letters be- missile defence.” tween Canada’s Ambassador to the David U.S., Michael Kergin, and the U.S. Sec- Pratt said NORAD retary of State, Colin Powell.1 Kergin’s Pratt should be “a key focus letter reminded Powell of a previous of our co-operation in missile defence” and that Canada round of official notes, dated January wanted to “move on an expedited basis to amend the 15, 2004, between Canadian Defence Minister, David Pratt, and U.S. Secre- NORAD agreement to take into account NORAD’s tary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. contribution to the missile defence mission.” Pratt’s letter to Rumsfeld, which NORAD, Pratt explained, would provide a “mutually had been sent one short month after beneficial framework to ensure the closest possible Paul Martin became Prime Minister, pre- involvement and insight for Canada, both government and sented the Canadian government’s frank proposal on how it could get more industry, in the U.S. missile defence program. “ deeply ensconced in “missile defense” mation exchange. We believe this It is important to highlight the work by creating an “overall framework should provide a mutually beneficial Canadian government’s position that for co-operation.” framework to ensure the closest pos- NORAD should be “a key focus” of Here is part of Pratt’s up-front sible involvement and insight for Canada’s “co-operation in missile de- letter to the Powell: Canada, both government and in- fence.” In particular, Canada wanted “A key focus of our co-operation in dustry, in the U.S. missile defence NORAD’s “long-standing global threat missile defence should be through program. Such an MOU could also warning and attack assessment role” NORAD.... NORAD’s long-standing help pave the way for increased gov- to be used in “the execution of the mis- global threat warning and attack ernment-to-government and indus- sile defence mission.” This, it turns out, assessment role can make an impor- try-to-industry co-operation on mis- is exactly what Canada’s government tant contribution to the execution sile defence that we should seek to achieved seven months later, in August of the missile defence mission. We foster between our countries. 2004, upon successfully amending the believe that our two nations should I propose that our staffs work NORAD treaty. move on an expedited basis to together over the coming months to Pratt’s letter also reveals that amend the NORAD agreement to identify opportunities and mecha- Canadian government yearnings for in- take into account NORAD’s contri- nisms for such consultations and creased “missile defense” responsibili- bution to the missile defence mis- Canada’s contributions…. ties were not limited to a military-to-mili- sion. We should continue to explore tary role within NORAD. Although this It is our intent to negotiate in appropriate technical, political and alliance of the two countries’ institu- the coming months a Missile De- financial arrangements related to the tions of war is a logical structure within fence Framework Memorandum of potential defence of Canada and the which this important Canada-U.S. part- Understanding with the United United States against missile attack, nership is growing, Pratt also said that States with the objective of includ- within the framework of our laws. Our Canada wanted “the closest possible ing Canada as a participant in the staffs should discuss ways in which involvement and insight for Canada, current U.S. missile defence program Canada could contribute to this ef- both government and industry, in the and expanding and enhancing infor- fort.”2 (Emphasis added) U.S. missile defence program.” He then 10 Press for Conversion! (Issue # 56) June 2005 mentioned Canada’s desire for “in- wanted to “continue to explore appro- ately worded to denote the obvious creased government-to-government priate technical, political and finan- reality, also conveyed in Pratt’s letter, and industry-to-industry co-operation cial arrangements” to assist the highly- that the two countries were already co- on missile defence.” contentious U.S.-led weapons develop- operating on “missile defense.” This sense that Canada’s intent ment program. Some seven months after the was to enlarge upon already-existing In his very brief, officious reply, Pratt-Rumsfeld exchange, a consider- avenues of bilateral cooperation on Rumsfeld said: “I agree that we should able amount of heated public debate “missile defense,” besides those con- seek to expand our cooperation in the on “missile defense” had passed un- ducted by their militaries, is also con- area of missile defense.”3 (Emphasis der the bridge in Canada. Despite veyed when Pratt says that Canada added) Rumsfeld’s letter was deliber- strong, widespread public opposition From Flip-Flop Flashbacks to False Facades he Liberal government’s August 5, 2004, alteration of contradict Canada’s high-profile position at the UN, espe- the NORAD treaty, was not the first time that Canada cially with regards to the ABM Treaty. Also, Conservative Tinitiated changes to NORAD’s “missile defense” re- and Liberal governments alike knew that voters were largely sponsibilities. For many decades there have been debates opposed to Canadian participation in the U.S. scheme. about whether Canada should or should not support a U.S.- However, both governments were also closely tied to led “anti-ballistic missile defense” system. powerful corporate and military interests within Canada, not As Dr. John Clearwater, author of U.S. Nuclear Weap- to mention in the U.S. These special interest groups wanted ons in Canada (1998) and Canadian Nuclear Weapons the strongest level of government support for “missile (2000), has written: defense.” So, when the PC and Liberal governments could “When the NORAD Treaty was renewed on March 30, no longer delay their public responses, they acted almost 1968, Ottawa added an interpretative clause, which stipu- identically. While both governments publicly pretended that lated that the agreement ‘will not Canada had said “no” to the Ameri- involve in any way a Canadian cans on “missile defense,” both also commitment to participate in an continued to work behind the scenes active ballistic missile defence.’” to ensure their support for increased (“Little Lost Canadians,” Winni- corporate involvement in this weap- peg Free Press, March 3, 2005.) ons development plan. The Liberal This clause was inserted into the government was, however, better able treaty less than one month before the to disguise itself in sheep’s clothing. end of Liberal Prime Minister Lester Thanks perhaps to greater gov- Pearson’s five-year term in 1968. (See ernment support in the form of grants, “U.S. helped Pearson bring down loans, equipment acquisition pro- Dief...,” on page 12.) grams and scientific research and de- Pearson’s anti-BMD clause velopment efforts and patent trans- was not removed until 1981. That was fers, Canadian firms have had more done early in Prime Minister Pierre www.erickingraham.com triumphs in winning “missile defense” Trudeau’s final term. The Trudeau- Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: contracts during the Liberal reign of government decision, to once again Although Canada’s “missile the 1990s than under Mulroney’s PC allow NORAD facilities and person- defense” efforts have prospered government in the 1980s, even though nel to carry out “missile defense” under the Liberal’s protective those were the heady days of roles, came just in time for Reagan’s Reagan’s spending spree on “Star first term, when Pentagon propo- cover, the government has simul- Wars.” nents of the “Strategic Defense Ini- taneously managed to pull a thick Ironically, despite its greater tiative” (aka “Star Wars”) had gained cloak of wool over voters’ eyes. success in promoting Canadian par- tremendous ascendancy. ticipation in “missile defense,” the When Progressive Conservative (PC), Brian Liberal government has also been better able to hone its Mulroney, became Prime Minister in 1984, he inherited the fraudulent public image. Although Canada has always been Liberal government-approved arrangement allowing NORAD just as prone to cleave to the powerful U.S. military magnet, to have “missile defense” functions. He also faced the same whether a Liberal or Conservative government is in power, kind of public debate about Canadian involvement in “Star the wiley Liberal brand is widely thought to be more inclined Wars” that later confounded the Liberal governments. And, toward peacemongering. As a result of this subterfuge, al- the highly-postured response of the PC government was though Canada’s “missile defense” efforts have greatly pros- virtually identical to that of the later Liberal government. pered under the Liberal’s protective cover, the government Both did their very best to deny any official involvement in has simultaneously managed to pull a thick cloak of wool the U.S. scheme, while simultaneously doing whatever they over voters’ eyes. As such, the prevailing impression is that could to increase their involvement. Both leaders knew that the Liberal government has actually taken an anti-”missile taking a strong position in favour of the plan would directly defense” stance. June 2005 (Issue # 56) Press for Conversion! 11 to “missile defense,” Cana- In fact, as seen in quo- da’s Ambassador Kergin re- tations above, the January quested in writing that the 15 letters clearly spoke of U.S. agree to the addition of “increased…co-operation “missile defense” warning on missile defence” (Pratt) functions to NORAD. This and “expand our coopera- letter was, however, much tion in the area of missile cagier about the extent to defense” (Powell). which Canada and the U.S. Kergin then said, in typi- were already partnered on cally-obscurantist “missile defense.” Kergin bureaucratese, that: phraseology tried to main- “our two governments tain the Liberal govern- agree that NORAD’s aero- ment’s carefully-honed, space warning mission for public deceit that the proc- North America also shall in- ess being initiated would clude aerospace warning, merely mark the beginning as defined in NORAD’s of Canadian membership in Terms of Reference, in sup- the notorious U.S. weapons Michael port of the designated com- program. Kergin even tried Kergin mands responsible for mis- his hand at rewriting history sile defence of North by pretending to quote from On Aug. 5, 2004, Canada’s Ambassador America.”5 Pratt’s letter to Rumsfeld in to the U.S., Michael Kergin, discreetly This legalistic statement, January. Kergin said: initiated the addition of “missile defense” when translated into plain “I also make reference to functions to the NORAD treaty by English, expresses Cana- the exchange of letters exchanging notes with Secretary of da’s agreement to partake between…Pratt in “missile defense” by ex- and…Rumsfeld on Janu- State Colin Powell. The next day (Hiro- panding NORAD’s crucial ary 15, 2004, in which shima Day), Powell was in Greenland “aerospace warning” func- they stated that… our two signing a U.S.-Danish treaty to allow a tion. Then, in the very next Governments should ex- single radar facility there to be used for sentence, Canada’s ambas- plore extending our part- similar “missile defense” functions. Den- sador to the U.S. writes an nership to include coop- extremely abstruse line: eration in missile de- mark admits to being a partner in a “This decision is independ- fence.”4 (Emphasis missile-defense “coalition of the willing.” ent of any discussion on added) Canada claims it said “no” to “missile possible cooperation on U.S. helped Pearson bring down Diefenbaker’s Minority Government to get U.S. Nuclear Weapons into Canada iberal Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson allowed U.S. military brass, media personalities, a NATO general and nuclear weapons into Canada. The 1963 election cam Diefenbaker’s Minister of National Defence. They discred- Lpaign was fought over whether Canada should have iting Diefenbaker and then used a non-confidence motion U.S. Bomark nuclear missiles on to bring down his minority gov- Lester B. Pearson Canadian soil. Progressive Con- ernment. They then used dirty servative Prime Minister John tricks to sabotage his re-election. Diefenbaker was very opposed Almost immediately after to the U.S. plan and he paid the winning the election, Pearson fol- highest political price. The Lib- lowed through with his end of the eral Party changed its policy 180 deal. The Liberal government degrees saying that if elected quickly approved the placement of they would allow the nuclear American nuclear missiles in Que-
John Diefenbaker John missiles to be based in Canada. bec and British Columbia and they Few realise that key U.S. officials helped orchestrate were in the country by new year’s eve, 1963. the constitutional coup that ousted Diefenbaker in 1963. It Source: Richard Sanders, “‘Knocking Over’ Dief the Chief,” was a dirty, backroom campaign led by the U.S. ambassador Press for Conversion!, January 2001. COAT website: coat.ncf.ca/ to Canada and a few bureaucrats from the CIA, State Depart- our_magazine/links/issue43/articles/plot_made_in_us.htm ment and Pentagon. They teamed up with some Canadian 12 Press for Conversion! (Issue # 56) June 2005 missile defence.”6 commitment to America’s divisive “mis- treaty and “missile defense” responsi- What? How are we to interpret sile defense” program. bilities were immediately added to Cana- such a barefaced, self-contradiction as However, if one reads Kergin’s da’s workload at NORAD . this? Here we have a formal letter spe- enigmatic line very carefully, using the cifically designed to modify a major bi- corporate mindset of a government law- They Got What lateral military treaty by adding “mis- yer, it can be seen to be equivocal. It They Wanted sile defense” functions to their joint ef- can easily carry another sense alto- Back in 1999, the Ottawa Citizen’s “de- forts. And yet, although the entire pur- gether. The addition of a few words fence reporter,” David Pugliese wrote: pose of Kergin’s letter is therefore makes its more-plausible meaning clear: “The Canadian military wants to take clearly intended to state Canada’s com- “This decision is independent of any part in a controversial U.S. plan to mitment to participate in “missile discussion on other possible areas of build a North American ballistic mis- defense,” it simultaneously makes a cooperation on missile defence.” sile defence shield by contributing totally incongruous assertion. At first By this, Kergin was likely refer- more than $600 million in space hard- glance, this sentence seems to be a ca- ring to the “increased government-to- ware [through the Joint Space veat to convey the following meaning: government and industry-to-industry Project]. Canadian Forces officials “This does not mean that Canada has co-operation on missile defence that have been pushing for a role in the yet decided to cooperate with the U.S. we should seek,” that had been referred American national missile defence on missile defense.” to in Pratt’s earlier letter. system since 1997, according to Ac- Kergin’s equivocal line was However, regardless of Kergin’s cess to Information documents ob- probably crafted for the sole purpose apparent attempt at obfuscation, at tained by the Citizen. Under the Ca- of confusing and deceiving Canadian least Colin Powell knew exactly what nadian military plan its participation opponents of the “missile defense” the Liberal government was after. in the system would be deemed an weapons program. It certainly helped. Powell responded immediately and af- ‘asymmetrical’ role, where Canada During the seven months since Pratt firmatively to Canada’s offer to extend would not directly fund the Ameri- had crafted his relatively-forthright let- the NORAD agreement to include the can missile defence shield but pro- ter to Rumsfeld back in the early days crucial “aerospace warning” aspect of vide a variety of space and ground of Martin’s rule, the political climate had “missile de-fense.” (See below: equipment for surveillance and clearly changed. By the time Kergin “NORAD’s ‘Warning’ and ‘Control’ other jobs to support the North was finalising the Canadian govern- Functions.”) Powell replied by saying American Aerospace Defence Com- ment’s commitment to “missile defense” “the United States of America concurs mand.”12 (Emphasis added) through NORAD, the Liberal’s had with the provisions set out in your 7 So, as it turned out, Canadian clearly decided that they should work Note.” By doing so, Kergin’s amend- “missile defense” enthusiasts at DND harder to conceal the extent of their ment was incorporated into the NORAD NORAD’s ‘Warning’ and ‘Control’ Functions anada’s Department of National Defence (DND) had mission by dividing it into two interdependent functions, long been pushing for a robust operational assign- namely “Aerospace Warning and Control.”9 Cment for Canada within the U.S. “missile defense” Axworthy’s letter to Christopher referred to NORAD weapons program. As Ernie Regehr, the executive director of “terms of reference” that defined “aerospace warning” as: Project Ploughshares (an ecumenical agency of the Cana- “the monitoring of man-made objects in space and the dian Council of Churches), stated not long before Canada detection, validation and warning of attack against North initiated the transformation of NORAD, DND has: America whether by aircraft, missiles or space vehicles, “made it clear that it wants the U.S. to place responsibility utilizing mutual support arrangements with other com- for command and control of the BMD interceptors with mands. An integral part of aerospace warning will con- NORAD.... That would make it a joint Canada-U.S. opera- tinue to entail monitoring of global aerospace activities tion.”8 and related developments.”10 (Emphasis added) Although DND officials did not manage to convince But the meaning of NORAD’s “aerospace warning” their U.S. counterparts to make the command-and-control is not restricted merely to “detection, validation and warn- functions of Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) weapons a ing.” As Regehr has explained, in the case of BMD: “joint” operation under NORAD, they did procure a BMD “the early warning and assessment functions would have “aerospace warning” job for NORAD. This aspect of the to be directly linked to the command and control of the “missile defense” chore had been mentioned eight years missile defence interception forces. NORAD’s tracking of earlier, in March 1996, when Chrétien’s Foreign Affairs Min- the path of the incoming missile would in this case be the ister, Lloyd Axworthy, and Clinton’s Secretary of State, War- primary source of coordinates that would be needed to ren Christopher, renewed the NORAD agreement. At that direct the intercepting BMD missile toward the incoming time, they added provisions to the treaty to permit a future attack missile. So, the NORAD warning and assessment “expansion of roles and missions,” which specifically in- functions would be virtually inseparable from the planned cluded “missile defence.” They also “redefined” NORAD’s BMD interception functions.”11 June 2005 (Issue # 56) Press for Conversion! 13 On February 22, 2005, Canada’s Ambassador to the U.S., Frank McKenna, said: “We’re part of it [‘missile defense’] now, and the question is, what more do we need?” “I believe that we’ve given in large measure what the Americans want, which is the ability to use NORAD and their intercept information in order to be able to target weaponry.” • Frank McKenna is a board member of the Carlyle Group. .com • One of the world’s largest military firms, Carlyle is a private equity corporation owning missile makers like United Defense. • Osama bin Laden’s parents were major investors in Carlyle until shortly after September 11, 2001. • President George H.W. Bush still travels the world speaking on Frank behalf of the Carlyle Group. McKenna • The Canada Pension Plan has invested heavily in Carlyle. www.virginiatupper eventually got almost everything they When President George W. McKenna’s Bombshell: wanted. But, more importantly, their U.S. Bush visited Canada in December 2004, Canada Already Said “Yes” counterparts got what they wanted he used three public fora to urge As Regehr has noted, because Canada from Canada too. As noted by Dr. John Canada to join America’s expansive, had “already made the decision to co- Clearwater, a Canadian military histo- weapons development program. This operate with the U.S. on BMD”14 it was rian and expert on Canada-U.S. relations had the effect of driving home the illu- not clear what Bush was really asking with regards to nuclear weapons: sion that Canada was not already on for. Or, as Michael O’Hanlon, an ana- “The clear and simple fact is that Paul board. It also gave Martin the welcome lyst with America’s conservative Martin and the Liberals have already opportunity to please voters by pre- Brookings Institute expressed it, in given the United States exactly what tending to stand up to Bush. early February 2005, it is “hard to see it sought to begin with – full co-op- This is an age-old game. The what more Bush wants.”15 eration by NORAD in missile-de- American administration knows all-to- A few weeks later, on February fence work…. NORAD was al- well that their allies sometimes have to 22, this recognition that Canada had ready… an integral part of the mis- feign opposition to U.S. policies in or- already said “yes” was expressed once sile-defence structure. der to gain or retain domestic political again, this time by Frank McKenna, Since Canada already provides support. Such oppositional play-acting Canada’s newly appointed ambassador manpower for NORAD early-warn- does not, therefore, undermine U.S. to the U.S. “We’re part of it now,” he ing and battle-command posts at our goals. On the contrary, because duplici- said during a Parliamentary committee expense, and as these are free gifts tous trickery of this variety can meeting on foreign affairs, “and the to operate the missile-defence pro- strengthen the domestic standing of question is, what more do we need?”16 gram, there is no reason to think that one’s closest friends, such fakery is McKenna also commented that Canada is getting a free ride. In fact, tolerated and even encouraged. (See he could not fathom why, during Bush’s Washington gets the extra staffing “The Pretense of Opposition,” below.) 13 recent visit to Canada, the president without paying the bill.” had repeatedly asked Martin to sign on to the “missile defense” program. When grilled by reporters on whether Canada The Pretense of Opposition really was already taking part in “mis- n excellent example of the he sent a “psychological operations” sile defense,” McKenna’s near-sacrile- A “pretense of opposition” is the expert, named Paul Linebarger, to work gious statements seemed to astound 1950s case of Egypt’s strident, Arab- for the CIA in Egypt in the 1950s. the fourth estate. nationalist leader, Gamal Nasser. Al- Linebarger’s job involved helping the Journalists were flabbergasted. though he was a strong ally of the U.S., Egyptian Ministry of Information, and For years they had dutifully parroted having been helped into power by Na- government-backed media, to write anti- the standard, government line that zis in a U.S.-backed 1952 coup, he had U.S. propaganda that would subtly un- Canada was not sharing the “missile to publicly appear to be anti-American. dermine the USSR and assist the U.S. defense” burden. Now, they badgered In his 1989 autobiography, The Source: “CIA: tool of American colonial- McKenna to explain what he could pos- Game Player, Miles Copeland, a former ism, past and present,” KCom Journal, June sibly mean. McKenna tried to enlighten CIA specialist in Middle East politics, 30, 2001. Cited in Press for Conversion!, them by pointing to NORAD: revealed that Nasser was their “Mos- May 2003.
kind of unaccountable puff in political corporations, government scientists means, McKenna was publicly relay- Bill Bill Graham On budget day, Conservative MP Rick Casson, referring to the McKenna debacle, asked if National Defence Minister Bill Graham would resign. Casson said the “flip-flop” was a “deliberate sleight of hand” to mislead Canadians on the Liberal ’s real “commitment” to “missile defense.” Graham deflected the assault saying that Conservatives “would not want me to resign before the budget this afternoon.... [A]ll hon- ourable members will rejoice with me... that today is going to be a great day for national defence in Canada, a great day for the security of Canada... and a great day for the Liberal government.” Rick Casson Rick rhetoric that Canadian courts have and military personnel are concerned it ing a more-reassuring message to as- ruled is completely non-binding. In as- is still business as usual with regards suage “missile defense” advocates, sessing the significance of this “no,” to the Canada-U.S. partnership on “mis- both north and south of the Canada- the following should be considered. sile defense.” It is difficult to determine U.S. border. Martin’s public explanation of what, if anything, Martin’s “no” actu- the government’s alleged opposition to ally did to tangibly affect bilateral rela- Deflection from Huge, “missile defense” was brief, nonde- tions on this matter. The government’s DND-Spending Increases script and contained no substantive de- symbolic “no” was not linked to any February 23 was a busy day for the Lib- tails. There was no explanation of what authentic, government effort to slow or eral government. After many years of this so-called “no” actually meant: halt, let alone reverse, Canada’s exist- apparent “dithering,” it finally pro- The Liberal government’s “no” was ing commitments to “missile defense.” claimed that Canada would unequivo- not linked to any diplomatic ex- It was Foreign Affairs Minister cally say “no” to “missile defense.” change of notes with the U.S. Pierre Pettigrew who formally declared, That same day, the government re- 16 Press for Conversion! (Issue # 56) June 2005 vealed the details of their earlier by Stronach and federal budget. The 2005 Harper. Such overzealous budget, which just barely Liberal-government mili- squeaked through Parlia- tary spending may lead ment during a non-confi- some to wonder: Who dence vote on May 19, needs Conservatives, contained what the Lib- when we have Liberals like eral’s described, in Feb- these? ruary, as “the largest in- However, despite such crease in defence spend- pro-military extravagance, ing in 20 years – more the budget was met with than $12.8 billion over the very little criticism, even next five years.”26 How- though Canadians gener- ever, all this extra money ally place military spend- was just icing on the cake Belinda Stronach Stephen Harper ing far down their list of of the DND budget which priorities, after health, now stands over $13 bil- At the Conservative leadership convention in education and the envi- lion per year. 2004, top contestants Stronach and Harper, ronment. Even the NDP Even before this tried to outdo each other’s pledges to boost and the peace/anti-war new surge in military movement seemed to spending, the Canadian military spending. However, the Liberal mute their criticism of the government was already government’s actual military-budget increases of military’s boost in for- among the “top 10 per- 2005 – announced on the same day as their tunes. Why? cent of military spenders” supposed “no” to missile defense” – more than Answering this ques- in the world. In recent doubled even these Conservative’s best offers. tion immediately brings us years, this has placed face-to-face once again Canada’s military “close to the top of the military. Only a year earlier, Con- with the gripping misconception that the world’s 190-plus countries.”27 How- servative leadership hopefuls were fall- Canada is a “global peacekeeper.” In ever, thanks to this latest influx of riches ing all over themselves, at their Toronto particular, Canadians who dare speak into Canada’s budget for war, the coun- convention, trying to outdo one an- out against military-spending increases try will edge its way up even further other in their promises of generosity to always encounter the fervent and wide- into the prestigious club of the world’s the military. For instance, front-runner spread belief that our troops are as- most generous military spenders. Stephen Harper said that under his rule, toundingly underequipped. On budget day, Conservative the Canadian government would However, besides this perennial MP Rick Casson, referring to the spend an extra $1.2 billion per year on misperception, there was the matter of McKenna debacle, asked in parliament the military. For her part, high-profile the budget’s timing. Twinning the whether Canada’s Minister of National billionaire Belinda Stronach, heir to budget, with Martin’s ostensible “no” Defence, Bill Graham, would resign over Magna Corp., a Canadian export indus- to “missile defense,” was an exception- what Casson called the Liberal “flip- try that used to sell small arms and still ally well-crafted, public-relations coup. flop” on “missile defense.” He said the profits from lucrative military-vehicle Even adversaries of the government government was “misleading Canadi- contracts, vowed to give almost as have to feel a certain admiration for the ans” on its real “commitment” to the much. She said Canada’s military de- Liberal’s scientific skill at manipulating program by using a “deliberate sleight served an “extra $10 billion over the public opinion. Even outspoken oppo- of hand” trick. Graham deflected this next 10 years.”29 nents of “missile defense,” within the assault saying that the Conservatives Stronach later astounded Cana- NDP and the peace/anti-war movement, “would not want me to resign before dians on May 17, just two days before were so engaged in reacting to Mar- the budget this afternoon. I am look- the 2005 budget was expected to be de- tin’s much-hyped “no” that attention ing forward to that far too much. I feated in a non-confidence vote. She was deflected away from the military’s know all honourable members will abandoned the party that she had huge windfall. rejoice with me in knowing that to- wanted to lead, and joining the Liber- However, in practical terms, the day is going to be a great day for als. Her move changed the balance of Liberal’s 13-billion dollar gift to the mili- national defence in Canada, a great power, allowed the budget to pass and tary had far more real significance than day for the security of Canada for got Stronach an immediate Cabinet post Martin’s statement of opposition to Canadians and a great day for the overseeing human resources and the “missile defense.” And, ironically, the Liberal government.”28 government’s “democratic renewal” sizeable influx of new cash into Cana- Graham was probably quite process.30 da’s military coffers will actually ben- right, at least about the Conservative The Liberal government’s actual efit various “missile defense”-related Party’s support for the Liberal’s display military-budget increases more than projects that DND has been harbour- of over-the-top munificence towards doubled the best offers mustered a year ing in its books. June 2005 (Issue # 56) Press for Conversion! 17 Duplicity and Hypocrisy, Open for ‘Missile Defence’ Business.”) the Liberal solution was to create the as Usual One could not imagine a state- outward appearance of taking a stance A few days after the budget was an- ment that better epitomises the extreme against this U.S.-led weapons program. nounced, and Martin had issued his hypocrisy and duplicity on peace is- Martin and company had long-pre- historic “no” to “missile defense,” Min- sues that is regularly dished out by the tended to “dither” on whether to “join.” ister Pettigrew stepped onto the stage Liberal government. Although “missile Then, Martin played his best hand by once again, this time to inject some defense” undermines Canada’s sup- making a much-ballyhooed gesture de- much-needed clarity into the nebulous posed support for disarmament at the signed to create the impression that the meaning of Canada’s professed oppo- UN, Pettigrew said Canada did not op- government had said “no” to U.S. pres- sition to “missile defense.” On Febru- pose America’s pursuit of “missile sure on “missile defense.” ary 26, he was interviewed on the CBC- defense.” Canada, he said, is open for Meanwhile, the Liberals had al- One radio program, “The House.” His business on “missile defense.” He even ready given the go-ahead to “missile message must have been highly reas- seemed insulted that the government defense” and they were actually deep- suring to all those Canadians who iden- might be expected to restrict the profit- ening their involvement through a va- tify with, are supportive of, involved seeking rights of Canadian firms. riety of means including direct military- in, employed by or profiting from “mis- Through Pettigrew, the govern- to-military links within NORAD, and sile defense”-related work in Canada. ment talked from both sides of its through openness and support for all (See below, “Pettigrew Says Canada mouth. To appeal to millions of voters manner of corporate contracts. opposed to so-called “missile defense,” ...Continued on page 20 Pettigrew says Canada Open for ‘Missile Defence’ Business On February 26, 2005, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Petti- free market and we are not going to tell the market and pri- grew (PP) was interviewed by Anthony Germain (AG) on vate companies what they should or should not be doing. CBC Radio One’s, “The House:” AG: What are we saying no to? On February 26, Minister Pierre Pettigrew clarified the PP: Well, to the evolution or government’s “NO” on “missile defence” by saying: operationalisation of that system... “We’re not prohibiting the development They wanted a memorandum of un- derstanding. That is what they re- of it. We respect the American choice.... quired of Great Britain [and] Den- I would be very pleased if Canadian mark. business can contribute...that’s very AG: Does that mean…the Cana- good.... We’re not saying we don’t agree dian government will prohibit or ban with the U.S..... But we’re not being Canadian companies from participat- ing in building the system? judgmental. We’re not being judg- PP: No, we’re not prohibiting the mental..... We’re not being judgmental development of it. We respect the here.... we’re not being judgmental here. American choice. The U.S. has We respect their choices.” made their risk evaluation, it is the way they want to address their security and we are not go- AG: You don’t think there’s a bit of hypocrisy there? ing to question that.... PP: I certainly don’t think that there is any hypocrisy in AG: So if a company such as Montreal’s ...CAE, which has allowing Canadian companies to bid on contracts around a contract with Boeing to evaluate opportunities in missile the world. defence [and] if we’re going to be consistent with Canadian AG: For systems that we don’t agree with? values, how do we let Canadian companies build a system PP: Well, for systems we have decided not to participate which we do not favour? in. We’re not saying we don’t agree with the U.S.… We, as a PP: No, I do not believe we should control Canadian busi- country, have decided not to participate. But we’re not being ness.... I would be very pleased if Canadian business can judgmental. We’re not being judgmental. contribute to the defense system of the United States....that’s AG: Well we’re also…against the use of anti-personnel very good. [land] mines. Would you have a problem with a Canadian AG: You don’t think that’s a contradiction?... You want to company making those products?… oppose it, but you want Canadian companies to have a part? PP: [Missile defense] is a system that the Americans have PP: It is not part of the values we want to express through decided to invest massive amounts of money in. We’re not our defence, but we’re not going to stop business from con- being judgmental here. We are saying that as far as Canada’s tributing to the system. I don’t see any contradiction be- foreign policy...[and] defence security is concerned, we have tween saying, as a government, that we don’t believe that other priorities.... If the Americans have made another choice, Canada, as a country, should be part of the system…. This is we’re not being judgmental here. We respect their choices. not a totalitarian state.... In Canada you express certain val- Source: “The House,” CBC Radio, Feb. 26, 2005. Transcribed by ues and you let the private sector express itself. There is a Brooks Kind. www.cbc.ca/thehouse/media/05-02-26-thehouse. ram. 18 Press for Conversion! (Issue # 56) June 2005
What did Pettigrew know and when did he know it? Colin Colin Powell with a prize-winning black cat “Colin Powell.” hen Anthony Germaine asked Pierre Pettigrew W “What are we saying no to?”, his response was misleading. While it may be true that Canada does not have a memorandum of understand- ing (MOU) with the U.S. on “missile defense,” the fact is that the two coun- tries do not need one because they al- ready have the NORAD treaty. As Cana- Pierre Pettigrew Pierre da’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Pettigrew th should know that a treaty is as legally On Friday 13 of August binding as an MOU. 2004, just one week after Presumably, Pettigrew knows Pettigrew and Powell qui- that Canada and the U.S. are enmeshed etly formalised NORAD’s by more than 80 other treaty-level, mili- “missile defense” role, very tary agreements, more than 250 military MOUs and about 145 bilateral fora to few attended their media discuss joint military commitments.1 conference. It focused not Pettigrew may even know that on NORAD but on Iran’s the U.S.-UK MOU on “missile defense” potential nuclear weapons focuses on Britain’s main contribution threat. Powell was back 90 to the weapons project, namely, a sin- gle U.S. radar station on British soil. As minutes later, with a black the their “ballistic missile defense” cat named after him. The MOU states: photo op happened “amid “A key [UK] contribution to this U.S. furious camera clicks and blinding flashes from a horde of DoD [Department of Defense] de- photographers in the State Department’s Treaty Room.” ployment is U.K....support through an upgrade of the Early Warning Ra- two weeks into rookie Pettigrew’s stint company decided to sidestep the bright dar at Royal Air Force Fylingdales.”2 as Foreign Affairs Minister.5 spotlight that a high-level visit from Pettigrew perhaps even knows Powell was the very first U.S. Powell would have shone on Canada’s that the 1951 U.S.-Denmark MOU3, Secretary of State to visit Greenland. effort to formalise its commitment to deals with America’s Thule Air Force He was there on August 6 for a signing “missile defense” through NORAD. Base in Greenland. Throughout the ceremony and conducted at least one With Canada willing to allow Cold War, Thule housed a single, U.S. media interview. Such was the impor- NORAD to perform “missile defense” radar facility similar to more than 50 tance to the U.S. of changing the 1950s- duties, Powell wasn’t about to com- NORAD radar facilities across Cana- era, military agreement to add “missile plain. Knowing that the Canadian gov- da’s north. The MOU was amended to defense” functions to a single radar fa- ernment was trying very hard to allow the U.S. to upgrade its one Green- cility in Greenland. downplay its collaboration on “missile land-based, early-warning radar system In contrast, Powell did not stop defense,” Powell was willing to play for “missile defense” uses.4 over in Ottawa on August 5 to update along. The Canadian government’s “se- Perhaps Pettigrew knows that a the 1950s NORAD treaty. Neither did cret” was safe with him. conduct any media interviews to thank Canadian company maintains and op- References erates the Greenland- and UK-based Canada for adding “missile defense” functions to more than 50 NORAD ra- 1. U.S. DoD/UK MoD BMD MOU “missile defense” radar stations. (See www.basicint.org/pubs/Press/ dar facilities in Canada. A Pettigrew- “U.S. Air Force Space Command’s 2003sept9.pdf SSPARS,” on pages 24-25). Powell media conference in Washing- 2. Missile Defense, U.S. Embassy U.S. Secretary of State Colin ton on August 13, dealt not with website, Copenhagen, Denmark. Powell signed the amended U.S.-Dan- NORAD, but axis-of-evil member Iran. www.usembassy.dk/Policy/ ish MOU on August 6, 2004, the anni- Pettigrew was savvy enough IssuesInFocus/MissileDefense/ versary of America’s unilateral oblitera- not to mention NORAD during his CBC DundasMemorandum.htm tion of Hiroshima. Here’s another coin- interview about Canada’s “no” to “mis- 3. U.S., Denmark and Greenland: Thule cidence, August 6, 2004, was just one sile defense.” For his part, the inter- Upgrade agreement, August 6, 2004. viewer didn’t reference it either. Per- www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0408/ day after Canada asked the U.S. to add doc02.htm haps it was in this same spirit of avoid- “missile defense” warning and target- 4. “Pierre Pettigrew,” Wikipedia ing functions to NORAD. That was just ance that, last August, Pettigrew and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Pettigrew June 2005 (Issue # 56) Press for Conversion! 19 The Trap that some Canadians wrote letters to newspaper been the main promoter and financier Call a Victory editors and politicians, to sign petitions, of so many Canadian-led “missile Although most Canadians are deeply to hold educational events and to march defense” programs. Although the Lib- suspicious of the U.S. plan to build what in protests opposing “missile defense.” erals have expressed no intention what- the media so-often calls a “missile Many of these commendable actions soever of dismantling any of the defense shield,” most are still unaware were, however, marred because they mulitfarious “missile defense” support that, even setting aside Canada’s com- overtly stated their goal in terms of try- systems that they have so-carefully mitment to “missile defense” through ing to prevent Canada from becoming constructed over the years, many in the NORAD, their government, corpora- an accessory to the massive, U.S. weap- peace movement were put in the ex- tions, scientists and military forces have ons program known as “missile tremely compromising position of sup- had a long-standing role in this mas- defense.” This, of course, belied the porting the government for its decep- sive, U.S.-led program to develop and commonly-held assumption that tive stance on “missile defense.” improve advanced weapons systems. Canada was not already involved. Unfortunately, this response to The first mistake was to accept Like most Canadians, peace ac- the government’s trickery actually the validity of the central question tivists have yet to appreciate that their sabotaged the ongoing need for a pro- posed again and again by the corpo- rate media: “”Should Canada get in- Although Canada is more volved in missile defense?” By deeply involved in “missile uncritically accepting this phony ques- defense” than ever before, its tion, many in the peace movement ab- role is now more effectively dicated their ability to expose the real- ity of Canada’s existing involvement. cloaked and hidden. Because of Many activists worked so hard to the unskeptical willingness to spread the word to the media, politi- believe the Liberal govern- cians and the general public that ment’s subterfuge and the Canada should not get involved in “mis- eagerness by some naïve sile defense,” that the Canadian public became even more deeply entranced in elements within the peace the pleasant, but delusory, myth of this movement to claim a success, country’s non-involvement. efforts to stop Canada’s many So, when Martin trumpeted the ongoing “missile defense” claim that Canada was “saying no” to affiliations must now begin the controversial weapons program, a sigh of relief was heard across the coun- virtually from scratch. try. Not realising that Martin’s “no” was a symbolic one with no bearing on Cana- country is playing several essential longed struggle to withdraw Canada da’s already deeply-ingrained commit- parts in so-called “missile defense.” As from its already-sizable participation in ment to the missile scheme, Canadians a result, as soon as Martin uttered his “missile defense” programs. The mis- largely embraced Martin’s “no” at face famous “no,” many activists sprang taken impression that the “battle” to value and gave it much more practical into action, circulating thousands of prevent Canada from joining “missile significance than it really deserved. congratulatory emails, posting “We defense,” is now over because we have This trusting response was Win!” messages on their websites, “won,” stopped the growing momen- equally true of many peace activists. holding celebratory parties, telling the tum of opposition that had been built For several years, Canada’s peace/anti- media that they were drinking cham- up by the Canadian peace movement war movement had focused tremen- pagne and then soliciting funds from over many years. That momentum has dous efforts on opposing the “missile supporters for their supposedly, “well- now ground to a halt. defense” weapons program. Realising informed” campaigns that had so suc- It was an absolutely brilliant trap all-too-well that such work often goes cessfully stopped the government from set by the Liberal government. Now that unappreciated, it is with great reluctance joining “missile defense.” Canadians had been handed a symbolic that I offer even well-intentioned, con- The negative effects of accept- “no,” and the peace movement had cel- structive criticism. However, if our ing the Liberal government’s propa- ebrated its Pyrrhic victory, where does movement is to grow in effectiveness, ganda at face value have been mani- that leave those of us who wish to we must be willing to debate our suc- fold. Not only did the peace move- struggle against Canada’s very real and cesses and our failures. With this hope, ment’s response serve to concretise the long-standing role in “missile defense?” and with the greatest respect for friends already-widespread public mispercep- This struggle to withdraw Canada from and colleagues throughout our move- tion that Canada was “missile its entanglement in the “missile ment, I feel compelled to draw atten- defense”-free, it also lent the peace defense” web of deceit is still very im- tion to a trap into which we have fallen. movement’s good name and credibility portant. Although Canada is more Tens of thousands of concerned to the Liberal government, which has deeply involved in “missile defense” 20 Press for Conversion! (Issue # 56) June 2005 than ever before, its role is now more “missile defense,” we ignore that this vateers. Such innocent acceptance of effectively cloaked and hidden. Be- move was contrivance was cynically un- the government’s deliberate ploys to cause of the unskeptical willingness to dertaken to win voters’ support and deceive will only help to prolong Cana- believe the Liberal government’s sub- confidence. By doing so, we also ig- da’s position as one of the world’s top terfuge and eagerness to claim a suc- nore the many back-room deals that military spenders and exporters. And, cess, activist’s efforts to stop Canada’s continue to draw Canada deeper and it will only serve to continue Canada’s ongoing role in “missile defense” must deeper into a morass of weapons pro- position as a prominent team-player in now begin virtually from scratch. grams that deplete our public treasury the euphemistically-labelled program to Why would the public now join in order to enrich the coffers of war pri- build a “missile defense shield.” a campaign to end Canada’s complicity in “missile defense”? People have been References successfully duped into believing the 1. Letter from Canadian Ambassador to embarrassed-over-anti-missile-shield- lie that Canada was never involved. the U.S., Michael Kergin, to U.S. Sec. comment.html?d20050222 What’s more, with Martin’s “no,” the of State, Colin Powell, August 5. 18. “Martin will reject missile defence: re- www.fac-aec.gc.ca/department/ port,” Ballistic Missile Defence, CBC government is now seen as committed note_0095-en.asp News Online, Feb. 24, 2005. to stopping any future involvement. 2. Letter from Minister Pratt to Secre- www.cbc.ca/news/background/ To make matters worse, the mis- tary Rumsfeld, January 15, 2004. us_missiledefence taken impression left on the public by www.forces.gc.ca/site/Focus/Canada- 19. “Canada already onboard U.S. missile the media, and even some naïve ele- us/letter_e.asp defence: McKenna,” Canadian Press, ments within the peace movement, is 3. Reply from Secretary Rumsfeld to February 22, 2005. 20. House of Commons Debate, Hansard, that Martin said “no” because he is so Minister Pratt. www.forces.gc.ca/site/ Focus/Canada-us/letter_e.asp February 23, 2005. responsive to “well-informed public 4. Letter from Kergin to Powell, op. cit. www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/ opinion.” This blind faith in the Liberal 5. Ibid. house/debates/063_2005-02-23/ government’s democratic nature, con- 6. Ibid. han063_1440-E.htm veys the wildly-mistaken belief that 7. Letter from Colin Powell to Michael 21. David Ljunggren, “Canada Will Not Martin and his party can be trusted to Kergin, to August 5 (JLAB-0095) Join U.S. Missile Defense System,” follow the thoughtful lead of the peace www.fac-aec.gc.ca/department/ Reuters, February 23, 2005. note_0095-en.asp www.commondreams.org/headlines05/ movement, rather than the priorities of 8. Ernie Regehr, “BMD, NORAD and 0223-07.htm their real allies in the corporate world. Canada-U.S. Security Relations,” 22. Cognitive Dissonance Such false hopes for the Liberal Ploughshares Monitor, Spring 2004. www.learningandteaching.info/learn Party have often dragged down the www.ploughshares.ca/content/BRIEF- ing/dissonance.htm peace movement’s ambitions. In real- INGS/brf044.html 23. “Martin will reject missile defence: re- ity, both the Liberal and Conservative 9. Canada - U.S. Defence Relations port,” CBC News, February 23, 2005. 24. Oliver Moore, “Canada refuses further Parties are inextricably linked in a thou- www.forces.gc.ca/admpol/eng/defence/ ca_us_relation_e.htm role in missile defence,” Globe and sand ways to the corporate world. 10. “Exchange of Notes between Canada Mail, February 24, 2005. Both parties will use whatever and the U.S. to Extend the NORAD peaceandjustice.org/article.php? Machiavellian contrivances they can Agreement for a further five-year pe- story=20050224112706426&mode muster to serve their real masters. Hy- riod,” Canado-American Treaties. 25. Ibid. pocrisy, duplicity and the doling out of www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ca_us/en/ 26. Meeting our Global Responsibilities, pseudo-victories are standard devices cts.1996.36.en.html Budget 2005, Dep’t of Finance Canada. 11. Ernie Regehr, op. cit. www.fin.gc.ca/budget05/pamph/ in the toolkit of such political hucksters. 12. David Pugliese, “Canadian Military parespe.htm If we as a peace movement give seeks Star Wars role,” Ottawa Citizen, 27. Ernie Regehr, “Canada’s military credibility to the erroneous belief that February 3, 1999. spending higher than in WWII, but hu- the powerful leadership controlling the 13. John Clearwater, “Little Lost Canadi- manitarian aid has dropped,” Catholic Liberal Party is our ally, and that it will ans,” Winnipeg Free Press, Mar. 3 2005. New Times, July 4, 2004. work with us to forge a new Canada www.winnipegfreepress.com/west www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ mi_m0MKY/is_12_28/ai_n6102271 that stands against profiting from war, view/story/2610444p-3026697c.html 14. Ernie Regehr, op. cit. 28. House of Commons Debate, op. cit. then we are hopelessly naïve and co- 15. O. Ward, “Bush call on missiles ‘po- 29. Murray Brewster, “Stronach would opted. The Liberals and Conservatives litical posturing,’” Toronto Star, Feb- spend billions more on military,” Ca- draw their leaders from the same cor- ruary 2, 2005. Cited by Ernie Regehr, nadian Press, March 16, 2004. porate pool. They divide between them “Reviewing BMD Options and Impli- www.canada.com/national/features/ the lion’s share of support from Cana- cations for Canada,” February 2005. conservativeconvention 2004/ da’s powerful business elite, including www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/ story.html?id=91c3f468-248d-4081- BRIEFINGS/brf051.pdf af00-4b3537846f8c those that benefit from war. So, regard- 16. Beth Duff-Brown, “Envoy missile 30. “Belinda Stronach stuns political ob- less of which party gains electoral defense remarks spark uproar,” Asso- servers by defecting to Liberals,” Cdn power, this same elite always wins. ciated Press, February 22, 2005. Press, May 17, 2005. By unreservedly praising wily 17. “Ottawa embarrassed over anti-missile www.canada.com/national/ government public-relations gestures, shield comment,” Agence France- nationalpost/news/story.html?id= like the clever pretence of opposing Press, February 22, 2005. 6686e4e5-ba7f-47b6-a42e- canada.news.designerz.com/ottawa- 5cfe68139918 June 2005 (Issue # 56) Press for Conversion! 21