The year 2010 was marked by a series of decisions by the Canadian government concerning rearmament. Predictably, as the defense plan “Canada First” was formally launched in 2008, involving the country in an unprecedented weapons acquisition and modernization program, such as the purchase of tanks, F-35 fighters, naval construction and F-18 fighter upgrades, pledged at the start of September. It was in July that most of these projects were unveiled, during the summer vacations when such news is far from the concerns of Canadians. Thus, tens of billions are committed to war or preparation for war, without it being possible to hold a parliamentary or public debate on the subject. At most, there have been some protests about the magnitude of the pledged sums and the concerns expressed here and on the regional economic fallout (Castonguay, A., 2010). A familiar scenario.
These projects can no longer be justified by Canada’s participation in the war of occupation of Afghanistan. The soldiers of the Canadian army are going to be repatriated in 2011. It’s undeniable that the arena of corporate domination and NATO control over al the strategic resources of the world now includes, and above all, the increasingly accessible Arctic subsoil.
A Defense Policy Based on Force
In order to conform to this logic, Canada recently reaffirmed its commitment to Arctic territory which ensures it more effective control. In its foreign policy statement on the Arctic, made public last August, the Canadian government gives priority to reinforcing its military presence in this region of the world, but this time taking care to cloak it under a set of good intentions regarding economic and social development, as well as governance.
full article http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22146
Stumble It!
Feb. 8, 2011
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/2359 ... -resources
Prof. Dufour,
The news of Canada?s continued activity and progress towards developing a military capability in the Arctic region is concerning because of their implications for maintaining diplomacy in the north.
Canada and the major Arctic nations?Denmark, Norway, United States and Russia?have signalled their willingness to cooperate on matters pertaining to the North through public statements (ie. the Ilulissat Declaration) and through their participation in the Arctic Council. So why is it necessary for Canada to build up its military capabilities?
Your article acknowledges that the Canadian government has emphasized its ?good intentions regarding economic and social development, as well as governance? in the Arctic. It also mentions Canada?s interest in ?maintaining Canadian sovereignty over part of the continental shelf.?
Is militarization is necessary to preserve this interest?
If militarization is the option of choice, will Canada be able to preserve its interests?
Rob Huebert presented a report on Arctic Security to the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute in March (http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/The%20Newly%20 ... onment.pdf) detailing the policy and military developments of the other Arctic states. His report seems to suggest that should a dispute arise in the North, Canada probably wouldn?t win.