On Thursday Defence Minister Bill Graham made an announcement that brought Canada closer to making a pact with George W. Bush to join his missile defence scheme, but...
Well, before I explain let me fill you in on a few things.
Bad News -- yielding to U.S. missile defence:
When Martin's government agreed to amend the Canada-U.S. NORAD agreement it essentially gave cart blanche to let the Pentagon use information from NORAD for the U.S. missile defence program.
This is a significant step toward providing full Canadian political endorsement of the U.S. missile defence system.
As well, Canadian military personnel at NORAD will now be directly contributing to the missile warning and tracking functions of the U.S. missile defence system.
And there isn't even a guarantee from the U.S. that this information will not be used for space-based weapons which could be deployed in the future -- that would contravene Canada's longstanding policy of opposing putting weapons in space.
But... there is good news:
Graham did not give Canada's political endorsement of missile defence. It appears he left some wiggle room for Martin's government to say no to missile defence. This is the good news.
First, the political decision has been delayed until late in the fall, likely after the U.S. election. That election could change everything, because the Democrats attach low importance to missile defence and may starve it by cutting funds.
Second, advocates for missile defence and their allies in the media are upset with the long delay in a government decision. They know that public opinion is against them so they want to push ahead as quickly as possible.
Last, but most important, the federal government has for the first time made a commitment to consult Parliament on missile defence.
Given that we have a minority government and many members of the government's own party are opposed to missile defence, political endorsement is far from being assured.
The campaign:
As the expression goes, we lost the battle but we're winning the war. That's why we need your help. We need to keep fighting missile defence.
And we need to raise $20,000 to mount a full-scale campaign over the coming months to stop Canada from joining the U.S. missile defence system.
I believe this goal is within our reach -- but only if we are able to launch a full-scale campaign with your help.
Here's what needs to be done:
1. Inform Canadians about the security dangers of joining missile defence, and encourage them to tell the government what they think through ceasefire.ca and other means.
2. Promote a vigorous parliamentary debate in the Fall. Including, working with the NDP and the Bloc Québécois who are firmly opposed to missile defence, and lobby the many Liberals who agree with them. There are even Conservatives who understand what true security is that are likely to come on side.
3. Educate journalists about the dangers of missile defence. Some journalists just report what the government and military lobby tell them. We need to provide them an objective and true security analysis.
Note:
Just, in the last couple of weeks I have made dozens of media appearances arguing against Canada joining missile defence, including Global TV, CBC Radio, the National Post, the Toronto Star, the Ottawa Citizen, and other newspapers from Halifax to Vancouver.
4. Support the work of local citizen groups by providing research and campaign tools. Our newest leaflet "Canada and Missile Defence: Ten Straight Questions and Ten Honest Answers" has been downloaded more than 400 times from our website and widely distributed by local peace workers.
But we need your support to keep doing this work.
Our opponents are well-funded and well-organized:
The Department of National Defence invests more than $2 million every year in academic research across the country -- this helps keep a steady flow of hawkish pro-missile defence opinion in the media.
And the spin doesn't stop there.
The corporate defence industry lobby pours massive funding into so-called "think tanks" that fund the research, wine and dine the media, and help out in the back rooms of Parliament.
With your help, we will be taking the following actions over the next few days:
* Help organize a high-profile visit to Ottawa by retired U.S. Lt. General Robert Gard who is opposed to Bush's missile defence system.
Lt. General Robert Gard organized a letter to President Bush signed by 49 retired U.S. generals and admirals urging Bush to postpone the missile defence system. Lt. General Gard believes missile defence is technically faulty and an unjustified expense.
* Meet with members of Parliament from all of the political parties, including: Liberal MPs Carolyn Parrish, Bonnie Brown and Lynne Myers; New Democrats Alexa McDonough and Bill Blaikie, and Conservatives Stockwell Day and Gordon O'Connor.
I hope you'll support www.ceasefire.ca and the Polaris Institute as we work to inform voters about these issues.
Sincerely yours,
Steven Staples
P.S. I know this is an historic struggle but I believe with your support and thousands of other Canadians we can stop missile defence.
Please tell your friends and colleagues
how they can help. And make your donation
of $100 or what you want to give for the
peace and social justice work of ceasefire.ca, today.
Note: www.ceasefire.ca
use data gathered by Ca...
www.ceasefire.ca
Stumble It!
What the Martin Liberals are trying to push through the back door here would be a bad idea even if it did work. The fact that it doesn't work and is unlikely to work any time soon makes the idea even more ridiculous.
That isn't the real goal of the Bush regime, who have said that the ultimate goal of this plan is to have weapons in space and are very much connected to corporations who will receive large contracts if this goes through.
Canada's part is seemingly small. We'll give some land, maybe a few bucks, or maybe not. Maybe it's free...just like that lunch that doesn't exist.
"Seemingly small" is different than small though. Our complicity in this entails using up a few things that aren't easily quantified. Our reputation, goodwill, multilateralism, dedication to disarmament, adherence to international treaties, our definition of ourselves are all very much at risk. No dollar values available for those things, sorry.
We all need to oppose this. It would be a bad idea if it worked...it's already started a new arms race and it is, at the very least, a waste of money. At most it's a dangerous idea that undermines the security of the planet.
That's how I would like to see Vive function. There's only so much my one voice can say and for the most part I'm sick of saying the same things over and over. The endless emails I send out are likely showing up as SPAM. I NEED to act. I can't just complain. Vive can we ACT on this issue?
1) the threat was credible and immediate.
2) the system worked
3) if it was cost effective
4) if there was not other more effective and more effective means not readily available
5) if it wasn't a blatant break from detente and the Start I and II treaties and a catalyst for a nuclear arms race
As of yet they system has been proven useless vs a MERV (Multi Entry Return Vehicle) Warhead with decoys, its a huge expense with our current technology requiring a commitment of a peace through force imperative, can be easily undermined by 2 terrorist with a row boat and a warhead in NY harbour, has no popular support and once again gives the lions share of contracts to an industry that makes money from war and not peace. It will not effect their bottom line if the system works or not yet it will break our economy.
As for being conservative and traditional, I was describing the Chinese people, who are usually consrvative, and very reluctant communists at the best of times....and simply look at how many family gathering a Chinese family in Canada has (much as with many Jewish families) to see how traditional they still are in some ways.