Celebrate! 1st Anniversary Of Canada’S BMD Role In NORAD!

And so it was that on August 5, 2004, Canada added the multi-billion dollar North Warning System and the Canadian Coastal Radar to America’s “missile defense architecture.” In one fell swoop, the Liberal government kindly handed over two networks of radar stations for use by the U.S. in their “missile defense” program. The NORAD radar networks, covering three ocean fronts, include more than 50 facilities based in BC, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Quebec, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. (For more details, see “ATCO-Frontec Corp.,” Press for Conversion!, issue 56, June 2005. http://coat.ncf.ca/missiledefense) Although Canada’s provision of 50+ radar stations for “missile defense” functions is only one of the many ways in which Canada is now participating in this major, U.S. weapons development program, Canadians are still largely unaware that their country is involved in any way whatsoever. Contrary to popular misconception, Canada is actually very actively involved in the creation, design, research, development, testing, deployment, maintenance and operation of numerous, essential "missile defense" systems. And, American “missile defense” proponents are extremely grateful to Canada because our government has literally spent billions in taxpayers’ dollars to subsidise a variety of important military initiatives and technologies that are of tremendous value to America’s controversial weapons development program. In spite of all this, the Canadian public is still blissfully unaware of their country’s impressive role in so called “missile defense.” And that, of course, is exactly the way the Liberal government wants it. As the Newspeak slogan in George Orwell’s novel 1984 expressed it: “War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength.” But how could Canadians be so out of touch with their country’s pivotal roles in the largest weapons development program in world history, which is so euphemistically labelled “missile defense”? Choosing the depths of summer to change the NORAD treaty is only one small tactic used by the Liberal government to ensure that Canadians would remain unaware of this one aspect of their country’s part in the “missile defense” weapons program. Here then is an article, adapted from an article in Part One of "Canada's Role in so-called 'Missile Defense.'" This report is available online and in hard-copy format as the June 2005 issue of the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade's magazine, Press for Conversion! Part One of this study, entitled: "NORAD, Government Largesse and the ABC's of Corporate Complicity," is now available at COAT's website: http://coat.ncf.ca/missiledefense (Part Two of this report is expected in September.) What did Pettigrew know and when did he know it? By Richard Sanders Coordinator, Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade, and editor, Press for Conversion!) http://coat.ncf.ca/missiledefense On February 26, 2005, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew was interviewed about Canada’s “no” to “missile defense” by Anthony Germaine on the CBC Radio One program called “The House.” When Anthony Germaine asked Pierre Pettigrew “What are we saying no to?”, his response was misleading. Pettigrew responded by saying: “They wanted a memorandum of understanding. That is what they required of Great Britain [and] Denmark.” (See below for a transcript of the interview.) While it may be true that Canada does not have a specific memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the U.S. on “missile defense,” the fact is that the two countries do not need one because they already have the NORAD treaty, as amended on August 5, 2004. As Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Pettigrew should know, a treaty is at least as legally binding as an MOU. Presumably, Pettigrew also knows that Canada and the U.S. are enmeshed by more than 80 other treaty-level, military agreements, more than 250 military MOUs and about 145 bilateral fora to discuss joint military commitments.1 Pettigrew may even know that the U.S.-UK MOU on “missile defense” focuses on Britain’s main contribution to the weapons project, namely, one single U.S. radar station on British soil. As the US-UK “ballistic missile defense” MOU states: “A key [UK] contribution to this U.S. DoD [Department of Defense] deployment is U.K....support through an upgrade of the Early Warning Radar at Royal Air Force Fylingdales."2 Pettigrew perhaps even knows that the 1951 U.S.-Denmark MOU, deals with America’s Thule Air Force Base in Greenland.3 Throughout the Cold War, Thule housed a single, U.S. radar facility similar to more than 50 NORAD radar facilities across Canada’s north. The MOU was amended to allow the U.S. to upgrade its one Greenland-based, early-warning radar system for “missile defense” uses.4 Perhaps Pettigrew knows that a Canadian company maintains and operates the Greenland- and UK-based “missile defense” radar stations. (See “U.S. Air Force Space Command’s SSPARS,” Press for Conversion!, issue 56, June 2005. pp. 24-25.) http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/56/Articles/56_22-25.pdf. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell signed the amended U.S.-Danish MOU on August 6, 2004, the anniversary of America’s unilateral obliteration of hundreds of thousands of civilians at Hiroshima, Japan. Here’s another little coincidence, August 6, 2004, was just one day after Canada asked the U.S. to add “missile defense” warning and targeting functions to NORAD. That was just two weeks into rookie Pettigrew’s stint as Foreign Affairs Minister.5 Powell was the very first U.S. Secretary of State to visit Greenland. He was there on August 6, 2004, for a treaty-signing ceremony. And, Powell conducted at least one media interview. Such was the importance to the U.S. of changing the 1950s-era, military agreement to add “missile defense” functions to one single radar facility in Greenland. As a result of their openness regarding this one U.S. radar base in Greenland, the Danish government became a member of the “Coalition of the Willing” to admit being part of U.S. “missile defense” weapons system. The same cannot be said of the Canadian government. In contrast to events of August 6, 2004, Powell did not stop over in Ottawa on August 5 to publicly update the 1950s NORAD treaty. Neither did he conduct any media interviews to thank Canada for adding “missile defense” functions to more than 50 NORAD radar facilities on Canadian soil. The Liberal government knew well enough that public opinion was (and still is) against participation in “missile defense” weapons scheme. Powell also knew this and, of course, he was all-to-happy to remain hush-hush about Canada’s latest commitment to participate in “missile defense.” A week later, Pettigrew and Powell held a media conference in Washington. Their media event however was a flop. It hardly received any attention whatsoever. At this failed media event, Powell and Pettigrew did not proudly discuss the historic change to the NORAD treaty. Nor did they make an issue of the fact that Canada had initiated the handing over of 50 radar stations on Canadian soil for use as part of the U.S. “missile defense” weapons targeting program. Their media conference dealt instead with that perennial boogie man, Iran, which Bush had earlier designated as a member of the so called “axis-of-evil.” Powell and Pettigrew spoke gravely of the nuclear threat posed by Iran because it might someday acquire a nuclear weapon. Presumably Iran would then cleverly choose to deliver its nuclear weapon to the USA, not in a suitcase or by some stealthy means like a fishing vessel, but by some very expensive, intercontinental missile which the NORAD radar system might detect and which U.S. “missile defense” missiles would obliterate, unless there were some cheap decoy missiles to overwhelm the U.S. missile system. The Pettigrew and Powell news conference was held on Friday the 13th of August 2004. That was just one week after Canada and the U.S. quietly formalised NORAD’s new “missile defense” role. Although very few attended their media conference in Washington, Powell had better luck 90 minutes later. That’s when he appeared again with a black cat. Yes, that’s right. Instead of posing with Canada’s Pierre Pettigrew, Powell did a photo op with a prize-winning black cat that was oddly named, “Colin Powell.” The photo op of namesakes happened “amid furious camera clicks and blinding flashes from a horde of photographers in the State Department’s Treaty Room.”5 (Emphasis added.) Months later, Pettigrew was savvy enough not to even mention NORAD during his CBC interview focusing on Canada’s much-heralded “no” to “missile defense.” For his part, the interviewer didn’t reference NORAD either. Perhaps it was in this same spirit of avoidance that, last August 5, Pettigrew and the Liberal government wisely decided to sidestep the bright spotlight that a high-level visit to Ottawa from Colin Powell would have shone on Canada’s effort to formalise its commitment to “missile defense” through NORAD. With Canada willing to hand over all the data from more than four dozen radar stations, Powell wasn’t about to complain about this lack of media publicity. Knowing that the Canadian government was trying very hard to downplay its collaboration on “missile defense,” Powell was obviously willing to play along. The Canadian government’s “secret” was safe with him. On February 23, 2005, Canada announced its much-ballyhooed “no” to “missile defense.” The government however did not re-change the NORAD treaty to remove “missile defense” functions from that agreement. Nor did the Canadian government take a single concete step to withdraw itself from any of the other major ways in which it is deeply intertwined in the “missile defense” weapons development program. Canada remains complicit in the creation, design, research, development, testing, deployment, maintenance and operation of numerous, essential "missile defense" systems. In fact, Canada appears to be contributing more to the U.S. “missile defense” weapons program than any other country. However, Canada’s deep complicity in the U.S. “missile defense” weapons development program remains a complete and utter secret to most Canadians. Canadians have been assured by the media, by defense analysts and even by many well-meaning activists in the peace movement that the Liberal government's “no” to joining “missile defense” had some real meaning. It did not. It's only function was to cover up their involvement in "missile defense," shore up support for the minority government and quell dissent among the Liberal Party activists and their rank-and-file membership. The perpetuation of this myth of Canadian non-involvement is now the single largest obstacle to slowing down, let alone halting, Canada’s deep integration in the U.S. weapons development program that is euphemistically known as a “missile defense shield.” References 1. U.S. DoD/UK MoD BMD MOU http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Press/2003sept9.pdf 2. Missile Defense, U.S. Embassy website, Copenhagen, Denmark. http://www.usembassy.dk/Policy/IssuesInFocus/MissileDefense/DundasMemorandum.htm 3. U.S., Denmark and Greenland: Thule Upgrade agreement, August 6, 2004. http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0408/doc02.htm 4. “Pierre Pettigrew,” Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Pettigrew 5. “Powell meets namesake cat,” The [Malaysia] Star Online, August 15, 2004. http://202.186.86.35/services/printerfriendly.asp?file=/2004/8/15/world/8670442.asp Pettigrew says Canada Open for ‘Missile Defence’ Business On February 26, 2005, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew (PP) was interviewed by Anthony Germain (AG) on CBC Radio One’s, “The House:” AG: What are we saying no to? PP: Well, to the evolution or operationalisation of that system... They wanted a memorandum of understanding. That is what they required of Great Britain [and] Denmark. AG: Does that mean…the Canadian government will prohibit or ban Canadian companies from participating in building the system? PP: No, we’re not prohibiting the development of it. We respect the American choice. The U.S. has made their risk evaluation, it is the way they want to address their security and we are not going to question that.... AG: So if a company such as Montreal’s ...CAE, which has a contract with Boeing to evaluate opportunities in missile defence [and] if we’re going to be consistent with Canadian values, how do we let Canadian companies build a system which we do not favour? PP: No, I do not believe we should control Canadian business.... I would be very pleased if Canadian business can contribute to the defense system of the United States....that’s very good. AG: You don’t think that’s a contradiction?... You want to oppose it, but you want Canadian companies to have a part? PP: It is not part of the values we want to express through our defence, but we’re not going to stop business from contributing to the system. I don’t see any contradiction between saying, as a government, that we don’t believe that Canada, as a country, should be part of the system…. This is not a totalitarian state.... In Canada you express certain values and you let the private sector express itself. There is a free market and we are not going to tell the market and private companies what they should or should not be doing. AG: You don’t think there’s a bit of hypocrisy there? PP: I certainly don’t think that there is any hypocrisy in allowing Canadian companies to bid on contracts around the world. AG: For systems that we don’t agree with? PP: Well, for systems we have decided not to participate in. We’re not saying we don’t agree with the U.S.… We, as a country, have decided not to participate. But we’re not being judgmental. We’re not being judgmental. AG: Well we’re also…against the use of anti-personnel [land] mines. Would you have a problem with a Canadian company making those products?… PP: [Missile defense] is a system that the Americans have decided to invest massive amounts of money in. We’re not being judgmental here. We are saying that as far as Canada’s foreign policy...[and] defence security is concerned, we have other priorities.... If the Americans have made another choice, we’re not being judgmental here. We respect their choices. Source: “The House,” CBC Radio, Feb. 26, 2005. Transcribed by Brooks Kind. www.cbc.ca/thehouse/media/05-02-26-thehouse. ram. ----------------------------------------------------- How You Can Help: Debunking the myth of Canada's non-involvement in "missile defense" Before Canadians have any chance of slowing down, let alone halting, their government's multi-faceted commitment to "missile defense," they need to first be made aware that their country is, in fact, very deeply is involved in this controversial, American weapons program. Unfortunately, Canadians have largely come to believe that thanks to the Liberal government, Canada decided not to "join" the Missile defense scheme in February 2005. In reality, there are a wide variety of ways in which Canada is very actively participating in the creation, design, research, development, testing, deployment, maintenance and operation of numerous, essential "missile defense" systems. The latest issue of the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade's magazine Press for Conversion! (June 2005, issue #56) is a 50-page report containing a wealth of data describing Canada's concrete participation in the "missile defense" weapons development program.. Please use this resource to expose the fact that the Liberal government's widely-trumpeted "no" to joining "missile defense" was actually a meaningless, symbolic gesture that was cleverly designed to cover up the fact that Canada was already deeply involved in the U.S. weapons development program. Because Canadians have been successfully deceived into believing that Canada "said no" to getting involved in "missile defense," the work of opposing Canada's ongoing participation has been made even more difficult. Please do whatever you can to debunk the myth of Canada's supposed non-involvement in "missile defense." Spread the Word: Click here for a list of ideas on how you can HELP. You'll also find here a POSTER and LEAFLET for distribution. http://coat.ncf.ca/flyer_poster.pdf Subscribe, Renew, Order Copies and/or Donate: Please click here to order a hard copy of this report, or to subscribe, renew or donate: http://coat.ncf.ca/support_us/support_us.htm Contact: For more information, to arrange a media interview or a speaking engagement, please contact: Richard Sanders, coordinator, COAT and editor, Press for Conversion! Email: overcoat@rogers.com Telephone: 613-231-3076 Website: http://coat.ncf.ca [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on August 7, 2005]

Note: http://coat.ncf.ca/miss... http://coat.ncf.ca/miss... http://coat.ncf.ca/miss... http://coat.ncf.ca/miss... http://coat.ncf.ca/miss... http://coat.ncf.ca/our_... http://www.basicint.org... http://www.usembassy.dk... http://www.acronym.org.... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://202.186.86.35/se... www.cbc.ca/thehouse/med... http://coat.ncf.ca/flye... http://coat.ncf.ca/supp... http://coat.ncf.ca