THE CAMPAIGN FOR THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF AMERICAN BASES

Missile defence: It was wrong then and it's wrong now

Canada: Globe & Mail
By PAUL HELLYER

UPDATED AT 11:58 AM EDT Thursday, May. 15, 2003

It is almost 40 years since U.S. secretary of defence Robert
McNamara asked me if Canada would be interested in helping develop
an anti-ballistic missile defence for North America. I was able to
say, "Thanks, but no thanks," which was the position of the Pearson
government and one that I fully endorsed.

There were good reasons for not disturbing the balance of power and
escalating the arms race. The reasons for not joining NMD are even
more compelling today when there is no military threat to North
America, and U.S. unilateralism is creating a new source of
instability.

The Minister of National Defence, John McCallum, and some of his
colleagues have been giving us the usual spin that one would expect
from the military. Unless we are sitting at the table, our voice
will not be heard; there will be industrial benefits; Canadian lives
might be saved; and if we don't make up our minds soon, the
Americans will proceed without us.

Only the most naive of Canadians would suggest that being at the
table with the Commander-in-Chief Northern Command would give us one
iota of influence. This is one of the most spurious of arguments.
CincNorCom listens to his boss at the Pentagon and to no one else.

It is possible that Canada might derive some minor industrial
benefits, but the extent would probably be determined by our cash
contribution to NMD. We could obtain equal benefit by spending the
same amount of money on equipment that the Canadian Forces
desperately need for their assigned tasks.

The notion that NMD will save Canadian lives is unquestionably the
most far-fetched of all the arguments. We have no enemies with a
long-range missile capability. In fact, the stated reasons for NMD --
protection from "rogue states" -- is a cover story for its real
function, which is far more sinister.

Finally, the warning from our military that if we don't sign on soon
the U.S. will proceed on its own is quite correct. That is exactly
what it will do because the Bush administration is committed to it.
Our participation would undoubtedly be welcome, especially if it
meant easier access to our territory, if required, and some
contribution toward the cost. But it doesn't really matter.

We went through the same ritual with the Bomarc missiles in the
Diefenbaker era. Years later, we learned that it was our air force
that wanted to play with the big boys' toys and keep their cushy
jobs at Colorado Springs.

This time, the stakes are higher and the consequences far more
serious. For the first time in my memory, the U.S. administration is
dominated by a small group from the Pentagon. Vice-President Dick
Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, deputy defence secretary
Paul Wolfowitz and a handful of their close associates were all
involved in a 1992 Pentagon document, Defence Planning Guidance, on
post-Cold War strategy.

One of its key sections read: "Our first objective is to prevent the
re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former
Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that
posed formerly by the Soviet Union."

When a copy was leaked to the press, its belligerent tone caused
such a furor that it had to be withdrawn and rewritten. The language
of the revised version, signed by Mr. Cheney when he was secretary
of defence, was more diplomatic, but the intent remain unchanged.
The U.S. would build up its forces to the point where it could
attack any country on Earth without fear of significant retaliation.

The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty had to be abrogated. The U.S. had
to develop a multilayered anti-missile system on a global basis to
protect not only the continental United States but also military
operations anywhere.

The 2000 copy of the document makes very clear that NMD is just one
step in the direction of a system that will involve "interceptors"
and weapons of mass destruction in space. It will be designed to
pulverize any military or civilian installation on Earth and have
the capacity to zap any person in their garden.

The picture is so abhorrent that it is beyond any sense of shock and
awe. And even though the plan is no secret, it is almost certain
that none of the Canadian cabinet ministers who intend to make us an
accessory have read it. If they had, surely they wouldn't recommend
anything so totally incompatible with Canadian values.

Instead, Canada should accept the long-standing invitation of
Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio to launch a conference to seek
approval of an international treaty to ban weapons in space. That
would be a positive Canadian contribution toward a more peaceful
world.

Paul Hellyer was minister of national defence from 1963 to 1967.