We can’t beat it, so let’s join it

Avec la participation de Michael Hogg

Though the Nov 2 election will determine its form and timing, missile defence is inevitable - and Canada should sign on.

The U.S. government has been developing defence systems to counter ballistic missile attacks since 1955. After almost 50 years and billions of dollars, the final touches on a limited missile-defence system are being completed as this goes to press. The first, admittedly limited version of the shield (composed of 10 land-based interceptor sites and multiple radar systems) should be completed by this fall.

A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office found serious problems in the system’s effectiveness. Many also question its official purpose - to protect U.S. territory from a missile attack by a rogue state or from an accidental launch. There has never been an accidental missile launch, and as far as rogue states go, only Iran and North Korea are potentially able to arm themselves with nuclear warheads and the missiles needed to launch them, but it’s too early to tell if either could reach continental North America. Only Russia and China could strike the United States with a nuclear missile. So why develop a missile shield ?

We must understand that the missile shield is not an end in itself. Rather, it’s one of many means that the United States has been developing to meet new international security threats.

In 2002, the Bush administration completed a nuclear review, shifting its strategy from classical nuclear deterrence to deterring non-conventional attacks and countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. National Missile Defence (NMD) is a part of this new vision.

Many critics point out that the deployment of a missile shield is an affront to efforts at international arms control and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In 2001, the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, arguing its irrelevance in the face of new geopolitical realities - even though other bilateral accords relied on the assurances provided by the ABM treaty.

The decision to terminate the ABM alarmed the Russians and Chinese ; both fear a new arms race. Washington’s unilateral undertakings have also negatively affected the international non-proliferation regimes for weapons of mass destruction, and created a precedent that could be used to justify potential non-compliance with regimes such that limiting chemical and biological weapons.

But ever since the Reagan administration’s launch of the Strategic Defence Initiative, also known as Star Wars, policy makers in the United States seem to have reached a bi-partisan consensus on the shield’s benefits. The threat of weapons of mass destruction attacks on the American people seems enough to justify the effort. Now the only debate is about resource allocation and the missile shield’s final form, as the current U.S. presidential campaign shows.

In 2004 the Bush administration spent $9-billion on National Missile Defence ; it is budgeting a further $10-billion for 2005.

In his senatorial career, John Kerry was a staunch critic of missile defence, and his platform proposes to cut, by a third, the financial resources allocated to the plan. Still, he can’t be seen as opposing a project that aims at protecting U.S. citizens against WMD attacks, or a system already being deployed. Both candidates are trying to show that they’ll do everything necessary to protect Americans. Whatever its shortcomings, missile defence is a symbol that transmits an important message about protection both at home and abroad. So the missile-defence shield’s future seems assured, whoever wins the November elections.

That’s why Canada must get involved in missile defence - though not at any cost. Ever since the creation of the Permanent Joint Board on Defence in 1940, Canada and the United States have collaborated in a network of institutions to defend North America (and currently, the Canadian government considers weapons of mass destruction to be one of North America’s biggest threats). Given the asymmetrical military and economic relationship between our two countries, treaties and institutions impose a framework of bilateral rules and regulations that help ensure Canadian sovereignty. This system does not give Canada an absolute veto over decisions made in Washington (or vice versa). But without this network, U.S. power in defence issues would be detrimental to Canadian interests. In return, Washington expects Canada to honour its commitments to defence organizations such as NORAD.

Canadian acceptance of modifications to NORAD last August indicates how far we are willing to go to retain influence. Without our acceptance, the United States would have been forced to create a new air-defence system, marginalizing NORAD - and Canada’s voice in continental defence.

It’s true that some of Canada’s defence-policy objectives - multilateralism and our opposition to the weaponization of space - are directly contradicted by missile defence. Still, our participation in NMD can be justified.

First, the complete take-over of North American air defence by Washington would have serious negative consequences for Canadian sovereignty. Ottawa would be at the mercy of decisions taken unilaterally in Washington without consideration of Canadian interests. Second, Canadian interests will be more readily heard if official mechanisms for communication are in place. Third, Canada must maintain close defence relations with the United States in order to assure the best defence of North America.

For these reasons, Canada should accept participation in the NMD project - but certain limits must be negotiated. Above all, Canada must maintain the non-weaponization of space as a core interest. Ottawa must have full access to information from Washington, and a guarantee that Canada will be informed before any modifications are made to NMD.

The details of our participation must also be clearly laid out so that Canadians can make an informed decision. Participation would ideally not entail large costs to the Canadian taxpayer.

Finally, our government should ensure a mechanism exists to withdraw from NMD in the event that it becomes too dangerous or moves in an unacceptable direction.

Canadian participation in NMD does not mean that Ottawa shares Washington’s vision of the world. It is more about playing an active, and moderating, role in a project that is both contentious and unavoidable. Should we refuse to take part and continue to denounce U.S. unilateralism, we’d only give support to the unilateralist elements in Washington. By associating ourselves with the project, we can protect national interests, and those of the international community, from within Washington’s decision-making framework.