Standing Up To U.S. Will Gain Us Respect Abroad

Posted on Wednesday, March 02 at 16:48 by N Say
Canadian advocates of missile defence have long argued that joining the scheme is the best way to protect our sovereignty — the logic apparently being that Washington is going to intrude into our airspace anyway, so it's better if we look like that's what we wanted all along. It's only rape if you resist. Fortunately the Martin government, under enormous pressure from the public, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, ignored this convoluted logic. After months of dithering on the issue, Ottawa showed surprising spunk last week in standing up to the American empire — a spunkiness that will only improve our standing in a world increasingly alarmed by U.S. unilateralism. Accommodating Washington would have made sense if Washington were addressing real security needs. But this isn't about defending America; intercontinental missiles are the least likely means of attack that a "rogue" nation would resort to. This is about Washington reviving and gaining the upper hand in the arms race, presumably to position itself well for what it sees as its eventual superpower showdown with China. Washington sees gaining control of space as key to maintaining global military dominance, and missile defence is part of the strategy. The U.S. plans to eventually have missile defence systems based in space (as well as on land, air and sea). This is part of America achieving "space superiority," a goal unabashedly described in the 2004 U.S. Air Force document Counterspace Operations, which argues the U.S. must have "space control" and be able to "deny an adversary freedom of action in space." The prospect of the arms race moving into space may thrill Washington strategic planners, but it's long been dreaded by most of the world. In 1967, ninety-seven nations signed the Outer Space Treaty banning weapons from space. Since then, there's been pressure for a tougher ban. In fact, Canada has played a key role pushing for that tougher line at disarmament talks in Geneva. Virtually all nations now support a proposed new ban. But the U.S. does not. Instead it wants to take control of space to achieve lasting military dominance. And it wanted Canada — and our good name as a strong arms control proponent — to be linked to the missile defence scheme, softening its aggressive image. So Canada's gutsy refusal to go along was the right move — and one that, incidentally, will win us higher standing in the world. Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator. http://207.44.245.159/article8180.htm

Contributed By



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Thu Mar 03, 2005 1:17 am
    Yes it does. Read the Toronto Star editorials. Australians wish their government had done the same.

  2. Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:08 am
    I for one am elated that we opted out of BMD. Thankfully, if a missle is incoming over NA, the Yanks can take it out without having to consult the Canadian politicals. Who knows how long it would take them to make a decision on destroying an incoming missle? How many opinion polls would they need to conduct to determine if this was the "right" thing to do or not? Would Linda or Mel need to be brought along as advisors? Now that we are out of the way, the US can concentrate on getting things done the right way. This way we know it will be destroyed (if they ever get the process working that is). I feel safer already.

    And we get "higher standing" in the eyes of who exactly? I saw one article in an Australian site (more of a discussion piece regarding their own involvement), and they count for something... but did anyone else take any notice? Any at all? Can anyone find a relevant link to someone other than a US or Canadian site that indicates that we have some sort of "higher standing"? This isn't even news on the BBC, which usually makes some noise our way. Kobe Bryant settling his sex assualt charge made the news. Now how is he bigger news exactly? Heck, I'd even look for some kudos from Castro or Chavez at this point. Unless someone can come up with something meaningful showing this "increased respect", this arguement is baseless. All I see is condemnation from our largest ally, (and why exactly did our cattle get delayed again today?), and a very loud silence from the rest of the world.

  3. Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:20 am
    This may well have made the BBC.

    Regarding who respects us, that really doesn't matter. Canada's collective desire was respected in this case. That's a good thing. People around the world are looking for people to stand up to the U.S.

    As for why our cattle was delayed--protectionism, plain and simple. This will last until our government retaliates.

    ---
    The midget, Bush, and that Rumsfield deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom loving people everywhere.

    - Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, The Iraqi Informat

  4. Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:36 am
    Ahhh, but the post is that "Standing up to the US will gain us respect". So it mattered to NSay and Linda.

    You usually have good arguements Perturbed (no sarcasm), so don't change the point of their article because the facts don't fit.

  5. Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:43 am
    There is NO loud silence from the rest of the world - the rest of the world is clearly against everything Bush - just as the majority of Canadians are. You whining while change none of that.

    Flimsy excuses for nuclear proliferation don't fly here.

    And hey - wake up - they CANNOT take any missiles out - they never have. It doesn't work - but that little point doesn't seem to matter now does it?

    The ONLY people complaining are the same people that would have Canadians dying in the illegal war in Iraq. The ONLY people complaining are the same ones who disregard the proud Canadian history of leading the world AGAINST proliferation. The ONLY people complaining are the same people who would have the Canadian government ignore the majority in favour of the minority. The only people complaining are the same ones who will still not admit they were conned over WMD in Iraq. Some company you keep there.

    Wake up all ready - you lost for a good reason. We are a democratic nation, and as long as our democratic institutions are strong the government has both a legal and moral obligation to serve the people of THIS nation and no other.

    Please sell your snake oil elsewhere.

    Pathetic doesn't even start to cover the appeasement of the military government in the US as exemplified by the minority in Canada.

  6. Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:49 am
    Then show me the respect baby! Gimme an outside international link espousing some increase in respect for Canada's decision to stand against the US. Anyone? C'mon anon, you can do it.

    And for the record, this wasn't a complain, it was a request for information. Quit changing the subject.

  7. Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:52 am
    Scott,

    It's no secret that the public opinion around the world, reveals a dislike for the Bush administration and the BMD plan. It's also no secret that there are Americans who oppose it.

    """" And we get "higher standing" in the eyes of who exactly? """"

    That's easy. Higher standing in the eyes of millions of people you refuse to acknowledge.

    """" Thankfully, if a missle is incoming over NA, the Yanks can take it out without having to consult the Canadian politicals. """"

    O.K Scott you think they would have consulted Canada when a missle is on its way for the U.S ? Is that naive thinking or what.

    Putting things into perpsective for you. If the U.S has a choice to protect its citizen, even if it meant blowing up a missle that throws debris over Canada killing Canadians, do you really think they will think twice about the lifes of Canadian citizens? Maybe your living beneath that missle path? They remind us in their speeches. Its their job to protect -->American<-- citizens. Not Canadians. Is Canada, or Canadians mentioned anywhere in the U.S constitution?

    If Canada was really part of their idea of defense of North America, the U.S would have had a better plan that truly protected Canadians. Blowing up missles, or having a missle war with enemies over Canada, is not a good idea of protecting North America.

    Canada needs to come up with it's own plan for a defense system. A defense system that first starts with making friends, not enemies over seas. That's where the U.S went wrong, they made enemies.

    Kevin

  8. Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:53 am
    Also to show just how wrong you REALLY are:<br />
    <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4289925.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4289925.stm</a><br />
    <br />
    And for the rest of the nonsense about having to prove to you in your minority position that the world is with Canada, why not prove to those of us in the MAJORITY of the opposite?<br />
    <br />
    It took me two seconds to find the BBC article - so get to it!

  9. Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:53 am
    Hi Michael Scott, I appreciate that...I simply think that being different and having balls is the only to get respect at all in Canada's case...they don't call us America Junior in Europe for nothing. :)

    ---
    The midget, Bush, and that Rumsfield deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom loving people everywhere.

    - Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, The Iraqi Informat

  10. Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:54 am
    It is a complaint - you don't agree with the majority, so therefor you try to find fault in the govenments decision - that certainly qualifies as a complaint.

  11. Thu Mar 03, 2005 3:01 am
    Too bad those "millions of people" I "refuse to acknowledge" can't use a computer to log any approval or we'd be innundated with accolades by now.

    BTW if BMD was run like Norad, where the 2IC is Canadian, we would have had input as to when the intercept would occur. Probably would happen over Canada regardless, but there would have been some consultation and perhaps even a debate. As it stands, Norad tracking will still be used to find these missles (as we have not opted out of that). The decision on when or where a shootdown attempt will occur will be completely left to the US. Again, that is not a bad thing, that is just the way it is today.

    But, we don't have to worry about a shoot down over Canada as the system doesn't work anyway and nobody will be shooting so this attempted (but doomed to failure) shootdown attempt will never happen in the first place. So, in the meantime, I'll be on the lookout for all that "gained respect".

  12. Thu Mar 03, 2005 3:04 am
    You're absolutely right. There is a BBC article. They acknowledge that we made a decision. Us kicking out Zundel was bigger news, but hey... I was wrong.

  13. Thu Mar 03, 2005 3:11 am
    No, I am disagreeing with the majority so that hopefully it leads to debate. A complaint is:

    1 : expression of grief, pain, or dissatisfaction
    2 a : something that is the cause or subject of protest or outcry b : a bodily ailment or disease
    3 : a formal allegation against a party

    OK, I might apply for #1, as I do have a degree of dissatisfaction that I wish to air. However, getting back to the point of the article, it was that this will gain us respect. And even the BBC article that I missed didn't show us any love - just a list of the facts.

  14. Thu Mar 03, 2005 3:16 am
    I think that the majority of Canadians thought it(turning down BMD) was the the right thing to do and that is what is important. However, our friend may find solace for their thwarted objectives with destabilizing actions (Quebec) or long term sovereignty trade-offs or both. It is logical that they will analyze their influence deficit and move to correct it. There are interesting days ahead. I suggest we embrace Quebec with all our hearts and keep an eye on NED.



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news