anticlimates Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 Little Lost CanadiansThu Mar 3 2005 By JOHN CLEARWATER THERE has been a great deal of muddled thinking over the missile-defence issue and its relationship to the North American Aerospace Defence Command. For the past two years, Canadians have been warned that failure to join Washington's quest for ballistic missile defence would have disastrous consequences for both our trade relations and the very survival of NORAD. For the past week, commentators have blasted away at the leaked, then announced, decision of Prime Minister Paul Martin to decline official BMD participation. Their main theme is that, by declining to participate, Canada has doomed NORAD. [snip] The fact is that Canada formally rejected missile defence almost 40 years ago -- and even went so far as to put it in writing in the NORAD agreement. [snip] When the NORAD Treaty was renewed on March 30, 1968, Ottawa added an interpretative clause, which stipulated that the agreement "will not involve in any way a Canadian commitment to participate in an active ballistic missile defence." The Americans had no problem with this. Trade, diplomatic contact and military co-operation increased annually. The sky did not fall. And neither did NORAD. [snip] On Sept. 7, 1985, the Mulroney government declined a U.S. invitation to participate in the research stage of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). So, within our lifetimes, there are two examples of both Liberal and Conservative governments saying no to participation in missile-defence schemes, and neither caused an end to NORAD. What could have led anyone to think that a negative answer would doom the institution this time? [snip] Since Canada already provides manpower for the NORAD early-warning and battle-command posts at our expense, and as these are free gifts to the operation of the missile-defence program, there is no reason to think that Canada is getting a free ride. In fact, Washington gets the extra staffing without paying the bill. read whole article here Well, well, well. I certainly thought there was something.....shall we say "political".....about all the outrage North of the border. South of the border I think the outrage is more attributable ignorance of the facts listed here, coupled with the effects of a the Bush attitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.