Mel Hurtig's Presentation To The House On BMD

Michael Byers, formerly of Duke University and now Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia, in his October 16th Globe and Mail review of Rushing to Armageddon said: This could be the most important book published in Canada this year. The evidence assembled is so overwhelming that even those Canadians who previously supported missile defence should now find the government's case wanting. All Canadians should read this timely book and demand a full and reasoned response. Canada's current Ambassador to Russia, Christopher Westdal says that the book is a "reasoned, rare persuasive combination. I hope it will be widely read." And, there are scores of similar comments. I mention all this only because I believe it is very important that you find the time in your busy schedules to read the book before you write your final report. The book contains an abundance of information that you will likely not have encountered elsewhere, and certainly not from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Defence Minister or senior officials in their offices and departments. Another reason to study the book is the long list of valuable potential witnesses you will find who I hope you will consider inviting to assist in your important deliberations. You will find most of their biographies and credentials at the front of the book. I will mention only a few: Dr. Bruce G. Blair, president of the non-partisan and prestigious Center for Defense Information in Washington, D.C., who I know has already been suggested to you. The brilliant MIT physicist Dr. Lisbeth Gronlund, who I believe to be indispensable to your deliberations. Christopher Westdal, formerly a Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament, who I alluded to earlier. U.S. Air Force General Lance Lord, Commander of the U.S. Air Force Space Command Philip E. Coyle 111, who was the Pentagon's chief weapons evaluator during the Clinton administration. Dr. John Steinbruner, director of the Center for International Security Studies at the University of Maryland. (The quote from Dr. Steinbruner which you will find on page 80 of my book is essential to the understanding of what the so-called missile "defence" debate is really all about). scientist Dr. Theodore Postol. Retired U.S. General Eugene Habiger, former Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command. And lastly, The Russian Ambassador to Canada, Georgiy Mamedov. And, of course, there are many outstanding Canadian experts you will likely have already invited, or that I hope you will invite, including John Polanyi and Michael Byers. Before I proceed further, I think it's important to emphasize that much of what you will encounter in Rushing to Armageddon originates from such prestigious organizations as The Union of Concerned Scientists The Center for Defense Information The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists The Council for a Livable World The Carnegie Endowment The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation The Center for International Policy The Congressional Research Service The Federation of American Scientists all headquartered in Washington, D.C., and The U.S. Air Force Space Command The U.S. Missile Defense Agency and, The International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna among other sources. Here, more or less in the order that they appear in the book, are the main points in my presentation today. I would be pleased to elaborate further and answer questions as your time permits. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence and the previous Minister of Defence have all been misleading Canadians on the crucial question of the weaponization of space. You will find extensive documentation of this throughout my book, but in particular in the chapter beginning on page 94. Next, contrary to much evidence presented to the Commons and Senate Defence Committees earlier this year, and contrary to numerous comments by the current and past ministers of defence, the American missile and other military plans are now leading to a dangerous, escalating new arms race, nuclear proliferation, the shredding of vitally important and long-standing arms control agreements, and the terrible possibility of an apocalyptic nuclear war. You will find details throughout the book, but in particular in the chapter beginning on page 40. From Moscow on October 28th, Christopher Westdal writes We're now in a race with catastrophe--threats to our very survival--the truth is alarming. The so-called missile "defence" system does not work, cannot work, and will not work, no matter how many more hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on it, even to the far-distant point many years from now when all parts of the system are technically radically improved. See the chapter beginning in page 124. There are many much more important things that Canada should be doing instead of participating in the dangerous and nonsensical American Star Wars plans. The chapter beginning on page 178 describes by far the best and most effective ways to defend Canadians and make the world a safer and a better place. The defence minister's recent comment that "we should really be accommodating to the Americans and work with them as closely as we possibly can." and that "we should be associated with the American's when they choose to do something" are probably the most illogical comments from any Canadian defence or foreign affairs minister in my memory. Such comments fly in the face of at least thirty-five years of thoughtful and widely-respected Canadian foreign and defence policy, and a host of long-standing and invaluable international agreements. Suggestions that the Americans are proceeding with their system anyway, so we might just as well go along, border on the ridiculous. When the Americans proceeded with their deadly quagmire in Vietnam, Canadians refused to go along, just as decades later we refused to join the Americans in their destructive, costly, dishonest new quagmire in Iraq. The most recent public opinion poll on the subject shows that an overwhelming 84% of Canadians support the government's decision re Iraq. While I am critical of both Liberals and Conservatives in my book, my criticism of Conservatives was mainly based on comments made in the House of Commons by former Conservative defence critic Jay Hill, and by foreign affairs critic Stockwell Day, both of whom voiced their unreserved and enthusiastic support for Canadian participation in the American BMD plans. (see pages 198 and 199 in my book). However, since then I have been heartened by astute and thoughtful comments by Conservative leader Stephen Harper in his reply to the Speech From the Throne (October 6, 2004): We need to know clearly the objective of this initiative ,whether it is technically feasible, exactly what role Canada would play, as well as the potential costs and benefits and the nature and length of any Canadian commitments. And, more recently, Mr. Harper's November 24th letter, which I will be happy to read to you later if you wish. Moreover, comments by Gordon O?Connor and Stockwell Day to the effect that Conservatives would not give the Liberals "a blank cheque" without seeing the actual terms of the agreement are also most encouraging. This said, I found the response by some Conservatives to the question of the weaponization of space, when the subject was raised in the House last week, surprising and disappointing. I have long maintained that there should not be a vote in the House of Commons on Canada?s participation in the American missile defence system until this important committee has completed its deliberations and that this will be quite impossible until a to-be-considered Memorandum of Understanding has been published and properly circulated and examined. I find it completely impossible to reconcile Bill Graham's mid-October comments that "You can't say you're in favour of a contract or not until you've seen the contract. We haven't seen the contract yet." With his more recent ludicrous suggestion from last month that "My own view is the vote would correctly take place after, in fact, an agreement has been signed." I would hope that the Liberal members of this committee would tell the prime minister in no uncertain terms that such a suggestion is quite unacceptable, and I assume that the majority of Members of Parliament would be outraged if an agreement with the U.S. is signed before this committee has reported, and before a vote on the proposed agreement has taken place in the House of Commons. I would ask the Liberal members of this committee to remember the prime minister's promise that "Canadians are entitled to be consulted." and that no final decision would be made before a thorough, informed national debate takes place. It seems to me that such a debate is at best highly problematic given the paucity of reliable information from Ottawa that to date has been available to the general public. Quickly, a few more points. In following your discussions, and comments by the prime minister and minister of defence, I have come across some highly misleading, in fact truly bizarre claims. First is the remarkable suggestion that signing on to the U.S. scheme would enhance Canadian sovereignty. That intelligent people could make such a fraudulent claim is quite beyond my comprehension. Precisely the reverse is true. Canada's ability to continue to play a respected, independent role in matters relating to numerous important international agreements and forums concerned with disarmament, nuclear proliferation, the weaponization of space, nuclear testing, fissile materials, etc. would be seriously compromised and more probably negated. From a nation long-respected as a leader in the campaign for a safer, more peaceful world, we would be regarded internationally as nothing better than an American colony that has abandoned its foreign and defence policy independence. To suggest that it would be an act of sovereignty to sign away our souls, to abandon our principles and our history, to ignore the wishes of the majority of our population, to sacrifice our independence, all in the supposed cause of sovereignty, is nonsensical in the extreme. Next is the equally remarkable suggestion that we should sign on to the American scheme to make Canadians more secure, or as George W. Bush put it in Halifax "to protect the next generation of Canadians." Again, precisely the opposite is true. The minute we become part of the U.S. BMD system, every city and every major military installation, every port and major airport in Canada automatically becomes a likely target in a nuclear war, and the possibility of Canada becoming a target for terrorists would also be substantially increased. Next, let's quickly look at the oft-repeated government phrase, straight out of the briefing books of George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, that warns about "the growing proliferation of missiles" which must be countered. This is akin to a serial rapist warning about the terrible dangers of an abundance of loose women. All the reliable experts on proliferation warn that the American BMD plans are already directly resulting in substantial new Chinese and Russian missile and warhead buildups designed to overwhelm the U.S. system and to protect their own deterrent capabilities. As for the U.S. administration's focus on North Korea, the Koreans have not tested a long-range missile for over six years, and the idea that they would launch a suicidal small number of missiles in an attack on the U.S. is risible (see pages 82 and 83 in Armageddon). In sum ,rather than countering nuclear missile proliferation, American plans are encouraging it, and Canada should have no part in these dangerous plans. Next, let's quickly examine claims by the prime minister and the minister of defence and some other prominent Liberals, re the sovereignty involved in the use by others of Canadian air space. Perhaps later you might allow me to read the truly hilarious exchange on this subject between Paul Martin and Peter Mansbridge which you will find in my book on pages 116 and 117. On the question of the sovereignty of the space above Canada, Ernie Regehr says it best. It is highly misleading to confuse air-defence and missile defence in space. Mid-course ballistic missile interceptions, if they could be made to work reliably, would never take place within Canada?s territory or air space. Mid-course missile interception, by definition, takes place in outer space above multiple states. The BMD operating assumption is that there would be three sequential intercept attempts--the first would probably have to be above Russia. Follow-on efforts could happen anywhere along the path over Finland, Sweden, Norway, Greenland and Canada. Canada's sovereignty would be no more in play than that of any other country along the route of the attacking missile. Sovereignty does not extend into space. We should be hugely concerned about what happens in space, but that is a matter of collective, multilateral action, not a matter of national sovereignty. Furthermore, there is no discretion, even to Washington, as to where a missile is to be intercepted. The BMD system and the path of the attacking missile alone determine where the interception can be attempted. There is no possibility that Canada could decide, in or out of BMD, that the missile should be intercepted over somebody else's backyard. It's not a matter of influence; it?s a matter of physics. The only discretion available is whether to try an intercept. And, by the way, only about three minutes will be available from the first sign of a possible enemy ICBM launch (or is it really a space exploration launch or a space station or satellite launch?) and the American launching of defensive interceptors and kill vehicles, not to mention retaliatory nuclear missiles. There will be a zero opportunity for international political consultation. I find it most surprising that the prime minister does not understand this. A further point about space and sovereignty. While I fully understand that many if not most of the academic security witnesses you will have heard from are partially or even fully funded by the Department of Defence. I find it remarkable to note their limited attention to the issue of Canadian sovereignty as it pertains to nuclear debris that will likely spread across Canada in the event the U.S. BMD system is ever successful in intercepting missiles destined for American cities. Before the committee issues its report, it seems to me that you have the important responsibility to examine this question, and I would be pleased to offer you a list of objective expert witnesses to assist you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer you and the committee to documents obtained as a result of an Access to Information request earlier this year. There are described in the chapter beginning on page 15 in my book. Note, for example, page 18: None of the options Washington is currently pursuing for BMD would require Canadian participation. It seems to me that this committee would find invaluable all of the briefing documents prepared for John McCallum, David Pratt and Bill Graham, by the Director of Policy Development at National Defence Headquarters, Corey Michael Dvorkin (995-2797), as approved by the ADM policy, Kenneth J. Calder. I understand that you do have the right to order these documents, although I urge you not to accept those which are censored. I want to make one additional point before coming to my conclusion, this dealing with the exaggerated threat of Canadian vulnerability if we don?t sign on to the American scheme. We have heard this repeatedly from the defence minister, both recently and when he was minister of foreign affairs. I can see that I have run out of time for my opening remarks, but perhaps you might wish to discuss this later if your time permits. Mr. Chairman, in contrast to unfounded claims by professor Harvey earlier this year, as you are undoubtedly aware three recent national public opinion polls on the subject show that most Canadians are opposed to participation in the U.S. BMD plans, and in the most recent poll four times as many are strongly opposed as those who are strongly in support. I have zero doubt that the percentage opposed and strongly opposed will grow substantially, as it has in the past few weeks, as more information becomes available to the public. I look forward to your questions, but in conclusion I wish to repeat and underline a most important point. The prime minister of Canada and the defence minister are both misleading Canadians re the weaponization of space. Given their repeated misleading comments on the subject, given the extensive, authoritative, public documentation that contradicts the government's claims, given the likelihood that the briefing documents for the prime minister and the minister of defence likely refer to the American plans to weaponize space, the ongoing attempts by our elected leaders to mislead the Canadian public on such a vitally important issue can only be regarded as reprehensible, grossly irresponsible and utterly shameful. Finally, I would remind members of this committee of Mr. Graham's words earlier this year that Canada would pull out of any NMD negotiations with the U.S. if it were shown that the Pentagon wanted to deploy weapons in space. I hope you will remember these words when you read my chapter "A Nuclear Arsenal in Space: Approving What We Have Always Opposed." Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the work of this committee is extraordinarily important, that the decision that you and the government will make will be a defining moment for our country, one of the most important decisions in our 137-year history. With this in mind, I hope you will not feel compelled to rush your deliberations, to limit the many expert witnesses available to you, to reach any conclusion before a thorough national debate about both the proposed memorandum of agreement and the international policy review takes place. In closing, following are three important quotes that are in my book ,quotes that I particularly wish to draw to your attention. From the Hon. John Godfrey, before he became a cabinet minister. If Canada signs on we would be explicitly repudiating 50 years of painstaking work in arms control and an abiding belief that war should always be the last option. How on the grounds of sovereignty, self-interest or international morality could we possibly go along? From the Hon. Douglas Roche: Do not be taken in by fraudulent claims that this is about the defence of North America. It is about the Bush administration turning its back on the international legal system and the attempt by the U.S. to dominate world events. From the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, re Ronald Reagan's "Strategic Defence Initiative" The Reagan administration ardently sought our support and counted on our participation. After a special cabinet and caucus meeting, I called President Reagan at Camp David and told him that my government had decided that participation was not in Canada?s interest. It would be excellent and of great interest if a member of parliament would rise in the House, read these three quotes, and ask the prime minister to respond to them.