A rchive Date
[ 12-06-2002 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Canada ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/stanway.html
One step away from being Americans
By PAUL STANWAY -- Edmonton Sun
June 12, 2002
In the post-Sept. 11 world, Canada is revealed as essentially defenceless. If our defence was a pair of pants, they would be around our knees, threatening to fall to the ground.
That's the conclusion of a new study by the nation's premier think-tank, the C.D. Howe Institute. "Whether Canadians realize it or not, Canada is now all but undefended," writes Dr. Jack Granatstein, the respected historian and defence advocate.
The study assesses the political cost of decades of underfunding of the military, while questioning whether Canadians get any real security from the $12 billion a year Ottawa currently spends on "defence." Granatstein points out that Canada's defence vacuum is increasingly filled by Washington, as the Americans rethink their own defence policies.
Much of this is not new. It's been true, more or less, for the past four decades. It was true in the years between the world wars and before that back into the 19th century, when it was London that made the decisions on Canadian defence. Apart from the sacrifice and triumphs of the two world wars, when Canada pulled its weight and more, we have never had a meaningful defence policy or a credible defence.
To cover this deficiency, in recent decades Ottawa has made a virtue out of its shortcomings and moulded public opinion into the belief that Canada has chosen an essentially pacifist stance in world affairs. We are the only nation to have voluntarily relinquished nuclear capability. Our sovereignty is guaranteed. We have soldiers to keep the peace - elsewhere.
Unfortunately, there are several problems with this comforting delusion. For starters, we have not chosen a pacifist or neutral stance. Canada fought in most of the major conflicts of the 20th century and made allies and foes as a result. We are a founding member of NATO and we opposed the Soviet Union and its allies during the Cold War. We stationed troops in Europe (albeit in ever-diminishing numbers), and the Soviets had (have?) missiles targeted at our major cities. If the you-know-what had hit the fan, we would have been a participant and not a bystander.
If we'd opted for neutrality after the Second World War we would have needed a real defence policy and a defence force. Countries such as Sweden and Switzerland are prepared (at least in theory) to defend their neutrality and have small but capable forces to do that. They might not be much use against, say, the Red Army, but the Swiss and the Swedes didn't take sides in the confrontation between totalitarianism and democracy. We did.
We also chose to let the Americans provide our strategic defence. We could have opted to keep a token Canadian nuclear deterrent, as did the British and French, but we share a continent with the Americans and Washington was uncomfortable with the idea of an independent Canadian nuclear arsenal. Why not avoid the cost and the political aggravation and let the Americans provide Canada's nuclear defence? We can have token joint control of NORAD, and as long as we let the Americans make the decisions it won't cost us a thing. Deal!
So who, exactly, guarantees our sovereignty? Over the past half-century Canada has fallen farther and farther into Washington's orbit, to the point where the rest of the world recognizes what we refuse to acknowledge: We are, for all intents and purposes, one step away from being Americans. That step being a token sovereignty, in support of which we seem reluctant to mount even a token defence.
The Americans are our friends and neighbours. They mean us no harm, but Washington thinks in terms of continental defence not Canadian sovereignty. If we don't demonstrate the ability to be an ally, to shoulder our own defence, we become - what? A client? A satellite?
Everyone from the auditor general to the Senate and Commons defence committees is arguing for an increase in defence spending and a better-defined defence policy. Not because they want to fight somebody, but because they recognize what the government does not: A country which is not willing to shoulder its own defence is a country in danger of losing its independence.
There's no lack of good advice on the subject. The question is whether anyone in the Chretien government is listening?
Letters to the editor should be sent to letters@edm.sunpub.com
 World Fact Book (CIA)]]
|