By: KONRAD YAKABUSKI, The Globe and Mail
If you think the decision to sell arms to Saudi Arabia has inflamed old animosities between Liberal hawks and doves, realists and idealists, continentalists and anti-Americans, just wait until the debate about Canada joining the U.S. ballistic missile defence system gets fired up.
It is a debate Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would prefer to do without. But a lot has changed since the last Liberal government said “no” to signing on to BMD in 2005. Now Canada is increasingly out of sync with its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, seen as a free-riding non-participant in its own defence.
Harjit Sajjan can’t avoid this elephant in the room as he launches a review of Canadian defence policy. On Monday, the Defence Minister acknowledged that any consultation that omitted reopening the discussion on missile defence could not be considered an “open” defence review.
As his own department’s discussion paper unpinning the review explains: “Given the increase in the number of countries with access to ballistic missile technology and their potential to reach North America, this threat is expected to endure and grow more sophisticated in coming decades. In response to this change in the security environment, many of Canada’s partners and allies are working closely [on BMD] capabilities.”
But just how “open” is Mr. Trudeau to reconsidering a policy that tore apart his party the last time it crept onto the agenda? Not participating in BMD dovetails with the peace-seeker image he likes to project.
One of former prime minister Paul Martin’s first moves after taking over from Jean Chrétien was to ask the Americans, miffed about Canada’s decision to stay out of the war in Iraq, about joining then-U.S. president George W. Bush’s nascent BMD program. Mr. Martin’s defence minister David Pratt wrote in an early 2004 letter to his U.S. counterpart: “We believe this should provide a mutually beneficial framework to ensure the closest possible involvement and insight for Canada, both industry and government, in the U.S. missile defence program.”
Both Mr. Pratt and his successor at National Defence, Bill Graham, supported joining the U.S. initiative. But much of the Liberal brain trust was outraged.Lloyd Axworthy lashed out against Martin government ministers seeking to “appease Washington power brokers by signing on to an unnecessary missile defence system.” A who’s who of Canadian celebrities, including Alexandre Trudeau (then the activist Trudeau scion considered most likely to succeed in politics), formed “Stars Against Star Wars” to campaign against Canada joining BMD.
The issue became moot after Mr. Martin was reduced to a minority government in a mid-2004 election and was forced to rely on New Democratic Party votes in the House of Commons. (BMD was and remains a non-starter for the New Democrats.) Mr. Martin’s early 2005 decision to officially reject Canada’s participation in BMD was denounced as “delusional” by the Conservative opposition. But during his almost 10 years in power, former prime minister Stephen Harper never reversed the policy.
Whether it was public opinion or a shrinking (in real terms) defence budget that led to Mr. Harper’s non-action, it ran counter to NATO’s move to make BMD part of its “core task of collective defence.” As Mr. Pratt told a 2014 Senate committee: “We have 28 NATO nations saying that they endorse the need to protect their populations against rogue missiles, and Canada has been saying all the right things at NATO but not doing anything when it comes to our own situation here in North America.”
Since 2005, Iran and North Korea have continued to perfect their missiles – “to the point a threat has become a practical reality,” as the Senate defence committee’s final report put it two years ago. Russia and China are developing new weapons capable of striking North America, partly in reaction to a $1-trillion plan to modernize America’s nuclear arsenal that is championed by Barack Obama, the same U.S. president who won a Nobel Peace Prize for promoting nuclear non-proliferation.
The four-member panel appointed by Mr. Sajjan to review Canada’s defence policy includes Mr. Graham and former chief of the defence staff Ray Henault, both of whom are believed to have pressed Mr. Martin to join the U.S. program in 2005. Margaret Purdy, a former associate deputy minister of defence, may be similarly inclined. The same cannot be said for former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour.
Ultimately, it will be Mr. Trudeau’s call. Either way, it will divide his part
Showing posts with label Missile Defense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Missile Defense. Show all posts
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
BMD Debate: NO ‘SPECIFIC’ MISSILE THREAT TO CANADA - Says General
By: Lee Berthiaume, National Post (National Edition)
WE ARE IN A SPHERE WHERE WE COULD BE TARGETED.
A Canadian senior military commander responsible for protecting against airborne threats to North America says Canada would not be shielded from a ballistic missile attack.
But he also admitted he did not know of any direct ballistic missile threat to Canada.
Lt.-Gen. Pierre St. Amand, deputy commander of the joint U.S.-Canadian aerospace defence system, NORAD, made the comments Tuesday when he appeared before the House of Commons defence committee where ballistic missile defence was front and centre.
The Ottawa Citizen revealed this week the Liberal government’s defence review includes questions about whether Canada should join the U.S. in building a shield against foreign-launched missiles.
While the New Democratic Party opposes Canada’s participation, several Conservative MPs, including former defence minister Jason Kenney, favour reopening the debate.
St. Amand listed ballistic missiles as one threat among the many NORAD watches for every day. The difference between it and other threats is it is the only one in which Canada would not have a say in how to respond, he said.
“Canada will be advised (of an attack),” he said. “With respect to the defence itself, we’ll know that there is going to be an action taken because we’re sitting in the room … We’re kind of a silent observer, if you want.”
There has been a “proliferation” of such weapons since then-prime minister Paul Martin opted not to join the U.S. missile defence program in 2005, St. Amand said, before referring to recent developments by North Korea and Iran.
The U.S. spent about $100 billion over the last decade to develop land- and sea-based systems that would stop a limited ballistic missile attack from rogue states, like North Korea or Iran. (They would not protect against an all-out attack by Russia or China.)
St. Amand agreed with an opposition assessment that if there were an attack, the Americans’ ballistic missile defence system would only be used to protect the U.S.
But he added he did not know of any direct ballistic missile threat to Canada from North Korea or elsewhere. Rather, it could be targeted during a war because of its alliances with the U.S. and NATO.
“There’s nothing specific that I can talk about,” he said when asked about direct threats. “The fact that we have signed up to certain alliances, NATO, for example, and we are closely aligned with the United States, means we are in a sphere where we could be targeted.”
NDP defence critic Randall Garrison said the comment was proof Canada does not need to join ballistic missile defence.
“If there’s no credible or realistic threat from a state actor to Canada, then why would we enter into (missile defence)?” he asked.
But Conservative defence critic James Bezan said with North Korea and Iran continuing to develop ballistic missile technology, Canada needs to be prepared.
“They may be aiming for the United States, but (Iranian or North Korean missiles) could fall into Canadian territory,” he said. On a visit to Washington, Kenney also spoke in favour of Canada reexamining the issue.
WE ARE IN A SPHERE WHERE WE COULD BE TARGETED.
 |
| ADRIAN WYLD / THE CANADIAN PRESS There has been a “proliferation” of ballistic missiles since former prime minister Paul Martin opted not to join the U.S. missile defence program in 2005, says Lt.-Gen. Pierre St. Amand, left, a deputy commander with NORAD. |
But he also admitted he did not know of any direct ballistic missile threat to Canada.
Lt.-Gen. Pierre St. Amand, deputy commander of the joint U.S.-Canadian aerospace defence system, NORAD, made the comments Tuesday when he appeared before the House of Commons defence committee where ballistic missile defence was front and centre.
The Ottawa Citizen revealed this week the Liberal government’s defence review includes questions about whether Canada should join the U.S. in building a shield against foreign-launched missiles.
While the New Democratic Party opposes Canada’s participation, several Conservative MPs, including former defence minister Jason Kenney, favour reopening the debate.
St. Amand listed ballistic missiles as one threat among the many NORAD watches for every day. The difference between it and other threats is it is the only one in which Canada would not have a say in how to respond, he said.
“Canada will be advised (of an attack),” he said. “With respect to the defence itself, we’ll know that there is going to be an action taken because we’re sitting in the room … We’re kind of a silent observer, if you want.”
There has been a “proliferation” of such weapons since then-prime minister Paul Martin opted not to join the U.S. missile defence program in 2005, St. Amand said, before referring to recent developments by North Korea and Iran.
The U.S. spent about $100 billion over the last decade to develop land- and sea-based systems that would stop a limited ballistic missile attack from rogue states, like North Korea or Iran. (They would not protect against an all-out attack by Russia or China.)
St. Amand agreed with an opposition assessment that if there were an attack, the Americans’ ballistic missile defence system would only be used to protect the U.S.
But he added he did not know of any direct ballistic missile threat to Canada from North Korea or elsewhere. Rather, it could be targeted during a war because of its alliances with the U.S. and NATO.
“There’s nothing specific that I can talk about,” he said when asked about direct threats. “The fact that we have signed up to certain alliances, NATO, for example, and we are closely aligned with the United States, means we are in a sphere where we could be targeted.”
NDP defence critic Randall Garrison said the comment was proof Canada does not need to join ballistic missile defence.
“If there’s no credible or realistic threat from a state actor to Canada, then why would we enter into (missile defence)?” he asked.
But Conservative defence critic James Bezan said with North Korea and Iran continuing to develop ballistic missile technology, Canada needs to be prepared.
“They may be aiming for the United States, but (Iranian or North Korean missiles) could fall into Canadian territory,” he said. On a visit to Washington, Kenney also spoke in favour of Canada reexamining the issue.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
NDP blast Liberals’ decision to re-consider joining U.S. "Star Wars" System
By: Lee Berthiaume, Ottawa Citizen
OTTAWA — Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan stood by the Liberal government’s plan to re-examine ballistic missile defence following a flurry of NDP references to "Star Wars" — both the movie franchise and Ronald Reagan’s controversial plan to militarize space.
OTTAWA — Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan stood by the Liberal government’s plan to re-examine ballistic missile defence following a flurry of NDP references to "Star Wars" — both the movie franchise and Ronald Reagan’s controversial plan to militarize space.
 |
| A long-range ground-based interceptor missile is launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The U.S. spent about $100 billion over the last decade to develop land- and sea-based systems that would stop a limited ballistic missile attack from a rogue state like North Korea or Iran. |
The issue erupted on the floor of the House of Commons on Monday, after the Ottawa Citizen revealed that the government’s defence review includes questions about whether Canada should join the U.S. in building a shield to protect it from foreign-launched missiles.
Missile defence had been largely off the public and political radar since then-prime minister Paul Martin famously opted not to join the U.S. program following a heated and extremely divisive national debate in 2005. However, the military and others have been pushing for years for Canada to re-consider the decision.
Sajjan insisted last week that the Liberals would not privatize military search and rescue, after it was revealed the idea had been raised during the defence review. But he defended the decision to take a second look at missile defence. The review is expected to culminate in a new defence policy early next year.
Related
Matt Gurney: A Canadian role in ballistic missile defence
Liberals reopen debate 11 years after Martin government opted not to join U.S. ballistic missile defence
Defence cuts have left Canadian military in ‘fragile’ shape: Rick Hillier
“The government wants to ensure that Canada and North America are well defended from all threats,” he said. “We want to make sure that the defence review is open and wide. By not opening up the discussion on ballistic missile defence, allowing Canadians to have a say in this, it would not be an open defence review.”
But the NDP, which opposed Canadian participation in ballistic missile defence in 2005, immediately attacked the Liberals for re-opening the debate. NDP defence critic Randall Garrison linked missile defence to Reagan’s controversial Star Wars program in the 1980s, before saying he had “a bad feeling about this.”
Fellow NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice also referenced the Star Wars project in French, saying Canadians rejected the proposal 10 years ago, and adding: “Can’t the prime minister just watch the movie, instead of getting us into this useless thing that will cost us billions?”
The U.S. spent about $100 billion over the last decade to develop land- and sea-based systems that would stop a limited ballistic missile attack from a rogue state like North Korea or Iran. (They would not protect against an all-out attack by Russia or China.) The systems have had mixed success.
Supporters of ballistic missile defence have long disputed suggestions the program would militarize space by noting the equipment used to detect and intercept ballistic missiles from foreign states are all based on land or at sea. Critics, however, say it is only a matter of time until weapons are deployed in space.
Garrison told the Ottawa Citizen he remains concerned about ballistic missile defence touching off an arms race with other countries, and that he intends to make sure all viewpoints are heard during the defence review and not just those in favour of Canadian participation.
“I think it will be a very spirited debate if we reverse that policy,” he said.
Missile defence had been largely off the public and political radar since then-prime minister Paul Martin famously opted not to join the U.S. program following a heated and extremely divisive national debate in 2005. However, the military and others have been pushing for years for Canada to re-consider the decision.
Sajjan insisted last week that the Liberals would not privatize military search and rescue, after it was revealed the idea had been raised during the defence review. But he defended the decision to take a second look at missile defence. The review is expected to culminate in a new defence policy early next year.
Related
Matt Gurney: A Canadian role in ballistic missile defence
Liberals reopen debate 11 years after Martin government opted not to join U.S. ballistic missile defence
Defence cuts have left Canadian military in ‘fragile’ shape: Rick Hillier
“The government wants to ensure that Canada and North America are well defended from all threats,” he said. “We want to make sure that the defence review is open and wide. By not opening up the discussion on ballistic missile defence, allowing Canadians to have a say in this, it would not be an open defence review.”
But the NDP, which opposed Canadian participation in ballistic missile defence in 2005, immediately attacked the Liberals for re-opening the debate. NDP defence critic Randall Garrison linked missile defence to Reagan’s controversial Star Wars program in the 1980s, before saying he had “a bad feeling about this.”
Fellow NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice also referenced the Star Wars project in French, saying Canadians rejected the proposal 10 years ago, and adding: “Can’t the prime minister just watch the movie, instead of getting us into this useless thing that will cost us billions?”
 |
| THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian WyldDefence Minister Harjit Sajjan in the House of Commons on Monday: “The government wants to ensure that Canada and North America are well defended from all threats.” |
Supporters of ballistic missile defence have long disputed suggestions the program would militarize space by noting the equipment used to detect and intercept ballistic missiles from foreign states are all based on land or at sea. Critics, however, say it is only a matter of time until weapons are deployed in space.
Garrison told the Ottawa Citizen he remains concerned about ballistic missile defence touching off an arms race with other countries, and that he intends to make sure all viewpoints are heard during the defence review and not just those in favour of Canadian participation.
“I think it will be a very spirited debate if we reverse that policy,” he said.
Monday, April 18, 2016
Liberals Reconsidering Participation in Missile Defense System
By: Lee Berthiaume, National Post
OTTAWA — The Liberal government has signaled its willingness to reopen one of the most contentious debates in recent Canadian military history: whether the country should participate in ballistic missile defense. And the results could be very different this time around.
The question of whether Canada should reconsider its decision not to join the United States in building a shield to protect North America from foreign-launched missiles has been raised as part of the government’s comprehensive defence review.
Earlier this month, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan released a document asking for public feedback on what the military should — and should not — be doing. One section focuses specifically on ballistic missile defense, noting that the issue “has not been considered by Canada for over a decade.
“Given the increase in the number of countries with access to ballistic missile technology and their potential to reach North America, this threat is expected to endure and grow more sophisticated in the coming decades,” reads the document.
It goes on to note that many of Canada’s partners and allies are working together on ballistic missile defense while Canada remains outside such efforts. This is a reference to not just the U.S., but also European NATO members, as well as Australia and South Korea.
“Should this decision be revisited given changing technologies and threats?” it asks. “Would a shift in policy in this area enhance Canadian national security and offer an avenue for greater continental co-operation? Or are there more effective areas in which to invest to better protect the North American continent?”
Missile defence has been largely off the public and political radar since then-prime minister Paul Martin famously opted not to join the U.S. program following a heated and extremely divisive national debate in 2005.
Martin’s decision was seen by many as an attempt to bolster his minority Liberal government. The NDP, and many Canadians, opposed missile defence, in part because of its links to the Bush administration. But there were also questions about whether such a system was even technically feasible — or needed.
The U.S. has since pressed ahead with missile defense, spending about $100 billion over the last decade to develop land- and sea-based systems that would stop a limited ballistic missile attack from a rogue state like North Korea or Iran. (They would not protect against an all-out attack by Russia or China.)
The programs, which have had mixed success in testing, have been developed in co-operation with NATO allies as well as Australia and South Korea.
Canada has provided the U.S. with aerospace warning information for North American missile defence under an agreement signed between the two countries in 2004. It has also publicly supported missile defence in Europe. But it has not had any direct participation in the programs — so far.
Prime minister Stephen Harper did quietly agree that ballistic missiles posed a threat to Canada and the U.S. by removing the word “European” from a NATO leaders’ statement on ballistic missiles in 2014. But otherwise his government did little to change Canada’s policy of non-engagement.
Supporters, including military officials, experts and the head of the Senate defence committee, are confident that the circumstances are now ripe for Canada to participate. And they’re hoping the inclusion of ballistic missile defence in the Liberal defence review is only the first step to Canada’s full enlistment.
Two years ago, Conservative and Liberal members of the Senate defence committee, including retired general Romeo Dallaire, unanimously called for Canada to join the U.S. in building a ballistic missile defence.
The committee largely accepted the warnings from defence officials about the risks to Canada from Iranian and North Korean ballistic missiles, the importance of being at the table when the Americans are discussing missile defence, and even the potential industrial benefits to Canadian companies.
“I think it’s overdue, and I think that debate should ensue,” the committee’s chairman, Conservative Sen. Daniel Lang, said in an interview. “Times have changed, and there’s not a lot of reason not to join.”
Briefing notes obtained by the Citizen show defence officials have also quietly set the stage by warning successive defence ministers, including Rob Nicholson, Jason Kenney and, most recently, Sajjan about the threat posed by ballistic missiles from rogue states and other actors.
Officials have also noted that many of Canada’s allies and partners — “including all of NATO — are now engaged in missile defence activities.” And they called the program “much more effective,” even though the system is still in heavy development and testing.
Thomas Karako, a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies, believes the U.S. would welcome Canada’s involvement. He also says there are several ways that Canada could contribute, such as hosting interceptors or even providing command-and-control capabilities.
But any move to reopen the issue is sure to prompt many of the same questions and arguments against Canadian participation as a decade ago.
Eugene Lang, who served as chief of staff to Liberal defence ministers Bill Graham and David Pratt when the Martin government was dealing with missile defence 10 years ago, and is now an adjunct professor at Queen’s University, said the question of whether Canadian participation is necessary remains front and centre.
“The Americans are going to build this,” he said. “And they may be right about North Korea. But why do we need to be part of it? That was never a question we got a good substantive answer to. And I still don’t think they have a good substantive answer.”
Arms control groups have also long warned that missile defence actually hurts international security by undermining nuclear deterrence. This is among the reasons that Russians have strongly opposed the positioning of U.S. anti-missile defence systems in Eastern Europe.
There is also the question of cost and whether Canada would be required pay into the multi-billion-dollar project. The defence budget is already thin, and Canada’s participation in another development project, the F-35 stealth fighter, caused major political headaches for the Conservatives.
lberthiaume@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/leeberthiaume
OTTAWA — The Liberal government has signaled its willingness to reopen one of the most contentious debates in recent Canadian military history: whether the country should participate in ballistic missile defense. And the results could be very different this time around.
 |
| An RCAF BOMARC-B being launched as a target drone at Vandenberg Air Force Base Launch Complex BOM1, California (USA), on 1 May 1977. The BOMARC was Canada's last large guided missile defence system. The BOMARC program ended in 1972. Unknown to many today, a number of Canadian BOMARC's had Nuclear-warheads. |
Earlier this month, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan released a document asking for public feedback on what the military should — and should not — be doing. One section focuses specifically on ballistic missile defense, noting that the issue “has not been considered by Canada for over a decade.
“Given the increase in the number of countries with access to ballistic missile technology and their potential to reach North America, this threat is expected to endure and grow more sophisticated in the coming decades,” reads the document.
It goes on to note that many of Canada’s partners and allies are working together on ballistic missile defense while Canada remains outside such efforts. This is a reference to not just the U.S., but also European NATO members, as well as Australia and South Korea.
“Should this decision be revisited given changing technologies and threats?” it asks. “Would a shift in policy in this area enhance Canadian national security and offer an avenue for greater continental co-operation? Or are there more effective areas in which to invest to better protect the North American continent?”
Missile defence has been largely off the public and political radar since then-prime minister Paul Martin famously opted not to join the U.S. program following a heated and extremely divisive national debate in 2005.
Martin’s decision was seen by many as an attempt to bolster his minority Liberal government. The NDP, and many Canadians, opposed missile defence, in part because of its links to the Bush administration. But there were also questions about whether such a system was even technically feasible — or needed.
The U.S. has since pressed ahead with missile defense, spending about $100 billion over the last decade to develop land- and sea-based systems that would stop a limited ballistic missile attack from a rogue state like North Korea or Iran. (They would not protect against an all-out attack by Russia or China.)
The programs, which have had mixed success in testing, have been developed in co-operation with NATO allies as well as Australia and South Korea.
Canada has provided the U.S. with aerospace warning information for North American missile defence under an agreement signed between the two countries in 2004. It has also publicly supported missile defence in Europe. But it has not had any direct participation in the programs — so far.
Prime minister Stephen Harper did quietly agree that ballistic missiles posed a threat to Canada and the U.S. by removing the word “European” from a NATO leaders’ statement on ballistic missiles in 2014. But otherwise his government did little to change Canada’s policy of non-engagement.
Supporters, including military officials, experts and the head of the Senate defence committee, are confident that the circumstances are now ripe for Canada to participate. And they’re hoping the inclusion of ballistic missile defence in the Liberal defence review is only the first step to Canada’s full enlistment.
Two years ago, Conservative and Liberal members of the Senate defence committee, including retired general Romeo Dallaire, unanimously called for Canada to join the U.S. in building a ballistic missile defence.
The committee largely accepted the warnings from defence officials about the risks to Canada from Iranian and North Korean ballistic missiles, the importance of being at the table when the Americans are discussing missile defence, and even the potential industrial benefits to Canadian companies.
“I think it’s overdue, and I think that debate should ensue,” the committee’s chairman, Conservative Sen. Daniel Lang, said in an interview. “Times have changed, and there’s not a lot of reason not to join.”
Briefing notes obtained by the Citizen show defence officials have also quietly set the stage by warning successive defence ministers, including Rob Nicholson, Jason Kenney and, most recently, Sajjan about the threat posed by ballistic missiles from rogue states and other actors.
Officials have also noted that many of Canada’s allies and partners — “including all of NATO — are now engaged in missile defence activities.” And they called the program “much more effective,” even though the system is still in heavy development and testing.
Thomas Karako, a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies, believes the U.S. would welcome Canada’s involvement. He also says there are several ways that Canada could contribute, such as hosting interceptors or even providing command-and-control capabilities.
But any move to reopen the issue is sure to prompt many of the same questions and arguments against Canadian participation as a decade ago.
Eugene Lang, who served as chief of staff to Liberal defence ministers Bill Graham and David Pratt when the Martin government was dealing with missile defence 10 years ago, and is now an adjunct professor at Queen’s University, said the question of whether Canadian participation is necessary remains front and centre.
“The Americans are going to build this,” he said. “And they may be right about North Korea. But why do we need to be part of it? That was never a question we got a good substantive answer to. And I still don’t think they have a good substantive answer.”
Arms control groups have also long warned that missile defence actually hurts international security by undermining nuclear deterrence. This is among the reasons that Russians have strongly opposed the positioning of U.S. anti-missile defence systems in Eastern Europe.
There is also the question of cost and whether Canada would be required pay into the multi-billion-dollar project. The defence budget is already thin, and Canada’s participation in another development project, the F-35 stealth fighter, caused major political headaches for the Conservatives.
lberthiaume@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/leeberthiaume
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)