on canada and missile defence
Ok, I've been meaning to do a post on all the latest developments in the ongoing will-they-or-won't-they saga of Canada's possible involvement in Bush's missile defence shield for a while now. And what better context to do so than at noon on a Saturday with a whiskey sour hangover, when you somehow manage to write sentences as abominable as that first one?
(If you're on the main page and want to read the rest of this post, just go ahead and click here.)
Small Flightless Bird has explained at length what's wrong with the program - with the fundamental ideas behind the program, in fact, so I won't go into it here. What we haven't gone into is this whole deal with Bush asking Canada to be involved, because there was never much to report. Prime Minister Paul Martin had expressed support for the program before being elected, but once in office he would never give a straight answer to a straightforward question: will Canada sign up?
Then Bush visited. I was there to shout things and express my general displeasure; meanwhile, Bush was exasperated by Martin's silly preoccupation with "democracy", and made a speech in Halifax the next day saying, seemingly out of nowhere, that he expected Canada to be involved in missile defence. But Martin still managed to avoid making a clear statement about whether or not Canada would be involved.
Finally, this past week, Martin's pick for the next Canadian ambassador to the U.S. made a brief statement to the press that Canada was already "part of" the program. He was referring to a deal made in August of last year to allow Norad to share information with the people running the missile defence program. This claim, as echoed by opposition leader Stephen Harper, was the one that forced Martin to show his hand - on Thursday, the PM flatly stated that Canada would not be a part of missile defence. This was pretty good news, but it also raised some interesting questions.
The first, for me, was: what did everyone mean by "sign on"? The term itself makes it sound as if Bush just wanted Martin's autograph. And the Norad agreement certainly seemed ominous. But John Ibbitson put it into perspective in the Globe and Mail on Wednesday:
But what Canada will gain from refusing to participate [fully] in missile defence is not easy to guess. In fact, Martin didn't do all that much: he said Canada would not participate, but then tossed out some gems such as these:
Which brings me to maybe the most important point in all of this: Paul Martin has clearly been paralyzed by having a minority government. That crazy old fiscal conservative who was once Finance Minister has been reduced to Mr. Dithers, not by the pressures of "Canada's top job" (as the Economist put it) but by his lack of seats in Parliament. That's why, aside from the gay marriage thing (which has really just been tying up Chretien's loose ends), Martin hasn't done much so far other than present an unspectacular budget. If he had a majority government, I bet he'd have signed on to missile defence months ago.
So Martin gets to appease a bunch of voters and two of the other parties while simultaneously giving verbal support to missile defence and lending the program Norad capabilities. It's win-win! And, as evidenced by the budget, you can bet that these kinds of scenarios will keep playing out until the next election.
(If you're on the main page and want to read the rest of this post, just go ahead and click here.)
Small Flightless Bird has explained at length what's wrong with the program - with the fundamental ideas behind the program, in fact, so I won't go into it here. What we haven't gone into is this whole deal with Bush asking Canada to be involved, because there was never much to report. Prime Minister Paul Martin had expressed support for the program before being elected, but once in office he would never give a straight answer to a straightforward question: will Canada sign up?
Then Bush visited. I was there to shout things and express my general displeasure; meanwhile, Bush was exasperated by Martin's silly preoccupation with "democracy", and made a speech in Halifax the next day saying, seemingly out of nowhere, that he expected Canada to be involved in missile defence. But Martin still managed to avoid making a clear statement about whether or not Canada would be involved.
Finally, this past week, Martin's pick for the next Canadian ambassador to the U.S. made a brief statement to the press that Canada was already "part of" the program. He was referring to a deal made in August of last year to allow Norad to share information with the people running the missile defence program. This claim, as echoed by opposition leader Stephen Harper, was the one that forced Martin to show his hand - on Thursday, the PM flatly stated that Canada would not be a part of missile defence. This was pretty good news, but it also raised some interesting questions.
The first, for me, was: what did everyone mean by "sign on"? The term itself makes it sound as if Bush just wanted Martin's autograph. And the Norad agreement certainly seemed ominous. But John Ibbitson put it into perspective in the Globe and Mail on Wednesday:
"The Americans wanted an open declaration that Canada supports missile defence as a joint effort. They wanted some form of Canadian participation, not only in the NORAD command structure, but in the actual decision making. In effect, they wanted a Canadian in the room, cheering them on, if they had to try to shoot down a missile."Another issue that arose concerned Canada's sovereignty. We here in Canada are always going nuts about our sovereignty when it comes to dealing with the States. Most Canadians these days want nothing to do with Bush or his programs, but we've also had a long-standing fear of getting sucked too far into American politics, of becoming another state. So even a lot of people who didn't like the idea of missile defence wanted Martin to sign on to it, just to ensure that we'd have a voice at the table when decisions were being made. Others, including NDP leader Jack Layton and BQ leader Gilles Duceppe) say that the only table Canada should sit at is the disarmament table (to paraphrase Layton himself).
But what Canada will gain from refusing to participate [fully] in missile defence is not easy to guess. In fact, Martin didn't do all that much: he said Canada would not participate, but then tossed out some gems such as these:
"Let me be clear: we respect the right of the United States to defend itself and its people."To be honest, that wasn't all that clear. By not giving a strong reason for refusing to participate, Martin is losing a chance to make an actual point to Bush: his program sucks, it's unfeasible, it doesn't work, it's dangerous, etc. Those are the kinds of things that people who oppose missile defence want the President to hear, and they're the kinds of things that would make the international community take notice of Canada and its independence.
Which brings me to maybe the most important point in all of this: Paul Martin has clearly been paralyzed by having a minority government. That crazy old fiscal conservative who was once Finance Minister has been reduced to Mr. Dithers, not by the pressures of "Canada's top job" (as the Economist put it) but by his lack of seats in Parliament. That's why, aside from the gay marriage thing (which has really just been tying up Chretien's loose ends), Martin hasn't done much so far other than present an unspectacular budget. If he had a majority government, I bet he'd have signed on to missile defence months ago.
So Martin gets to appease a bunch of voters and two of the other parties while simultaneously giving verbal support to missile defence and lending the program Norad capabilities. It's win-win! And, as evidenced by the budget, you can bet that these kinds of scenarios will keep playing out until the next election.
