Matt Gurney: It’s time for Canada to openly embrace America’s missile defence
Matt Gurney | 13/04/22 | Last Updated: 13/04/22 12:25 PM ET
More from Matt Gurney | @mattgurney
In 2005, in the face of heavy pressure from Washington, then-prime minister Paul Martin decided that Canada would not join the American National Missile Defense program. The real reason was political — his Liberal party did not want to be seen as too close to controversial American president George W. Bush. The Martin government tried to dress up the decision, of course — they said they feared the weaponization of space and adding to international controversy (Russia and China were both worried that an American missile defence system would render their arsenals ineffective, and thus skew the balance of power in America’s favour).
Eight years later, the threat from ballistic missiles has only grown more acute, and the ostensible reasons for Mr. Martin’s hesitation have been proven groundless. Reports have emerged that the U.S. is considering asking us to join again. It’s time for us to do so, specifically, the component known as Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD), which includes two bases of interceptor missiles, located in Alaska and California.
Join it officially, at any rate. Canada is already unofficially a part of it, and certainly benefits from it.
Related
Canada may be considering request from U.S. to join missile shield
U.S. sends in $900M anti-missile radar array as North Korea vows to fire up nuclear reactor
Matt Gurney: Remind me again why Canada opted out of missile defence?
In 2004, the year before Mr. Martin surprised officials in both capitals by refusing to sign on, Canada agreed to let NORAD serve as the early warning component of America’s missile defence project. NORAD — the North American Aerospace Defense Command — is a jointly run bi-national military command. Canadian and U.S. officers work together at a central facility to track, classify and, if necessary, engage, any possible threat to the territory of both countries. NORAD has been watching for incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles since the Soviet Union built its first models in the late 1950s (and was watching for incoming manned bombers before that). It was the right tool to watch the skies.
Let’s not pretend that Canada isn’t involved in the process: NORAD is jointly funded, and day-to-day command of the facility is frequently left to Canadian officers. That Canada would agree to help locate and track an incoming ballistic missile, but then take a pass on the (obvious!) decision to attempt shooting it down, has always been bizarre.
And it cannot be denied that Canada benefits from the existing GMD system. In a revealing report published last year, the National Research Council (part of the United States National Academies) did a full analysis of the state of America’s missile defence projects. The report was highly detailed and focused mostly on the technical side of the program — where bases should be cited to intercept missiles, the optimum launching times for successful intercepts, and the like. But it accepted as a given that the U.S. GMD system must include the ability to defend not just America from attack, but Canada as well. To that end, it recommended constructing a third interceptor base in New England, to provide better coverage from missiles coming in from the Middle East — the better to protect the U.S. eastern seaboard and eastern Canada.
Clearly, Canada is already a part of the program, and benefits from its protection. But even more telling is how, in the years since 2005, the publicly stated reasons for Canada’s absence have been shown to be nonsense.
America’s missile defences are scattered across land-based bases and naval warships. There is no discussion of weaponizing space, and if anything, the U.S. is showing less interest in space than ever (the current barely benign neglect of NASA is proof of that).
Canadian sovereignty isn’t enhanced by refusing to be part of the process that protects us from attack
And rather than a source of international controversy, America’s ballistic missile programs are proving a source of international interest. A system being set up to defend Europe has been warmly embraced by all but the typically truculent Russians. America’s allies in Asia are also keen for a missile defence system, and South Korea and Japan recently welcomed the deployment of missile defence assets to the area in light of continued North Korea provocations. China and Russia responded with … silence.
The U.S.’s GMD system still doesn’t work 100% of the time. It’s an emerging technology, but it is improving. It is also already in place. Canada would not be on the hook for substantial costs. But by conferring our official political blessing, we’d be given a seat at the table where the defence of our territory is decided. Canadian sovereignty isn’t enhanced by refusing to be part of the process that protects us from attack.
We should have joined in 2005, but now that even the flimsy excuses offered then have been proven wrong, now would be better late than never.
National Post
Matt Gurney: • mgurney@nationalpost.com |
