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
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.
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
You usually have good arguements Perturbed (no sarcasm), so don't change the point of their article because the facts don't fit.
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.
And for the record, this wasn't a complain, it was a request for information. Quit changing the subject.
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
<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!
---
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
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".
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.