No one saw it flashing on radar screens: Ottawa suddenly signaled its willingness to re -evaluate its participation in the U.S. ballistic missile defense program.
After years of calming down on this issue, the signal was heard on Tuesday. That day, the Minister of National Defense, Anita Anand, spoke at the Canadian Institute of Global Affairs. His speech focused on the ongoing review of Canada’s defense policy.
Later, in response to a question from the audience, the subject was released. This exchange might have seemed innocuous if the question had not been posed by former Liberal minister John Manley.
Although the United States has requested the Canadian government’s cooperation in this program since the early 2000s, all successive governments, both liberal and conservative, have refused to do so. These include Jean Chrétien, who includes heavyweight John Manley.
Given the new environment in which we live, hasn’t the time come to reconsider Canada’s position? asked John Manley.
Minister Anand’s answer is ready: We are certainly looking at this issue fully and thoroughly, as well as what steps need to be taken to defend the continent as a whole. […]. But I want to assure you, and everyone here, that we are not missing any leads in this major continental defense adjustment.
Reviewing is one thing, going forward is another. In the past, public opinion has never been particularly hot on the idea of Canada’s participation in the anti-missil shield. That’s why the Trudeau government has given itself the opportunity to sniff the direction of the wind in a context that has completely changed. The trial balloon was released.
War in Ukraine, geopolitical context, confirmed the existence of hypersonic missiles: things have changed significantly since the refusal of the minority government of Paul Martin, in 2005, to join the American program. A decision that has been widely considered, then and now, to be purely political and offensive to Washington and the Bush administration.
Hypersonic missiles developed specifically by Russia can travel more than five times the speed of sound and are designed to penetrate the North American continental defense.
Canada’s reluctance to join the missile shield has exposed contradiction and put the country in a difficult position. NATO has adopted ballistic missile defense as official policy, a decision that now makes sense. However, if Ottawa theoretically supports this position, it rejects it on its own continent.
Formally, Canada cannot simply assume that its entire territory will by default be protected by the American system in the event of an attack. Due to Ottawa’s non -involvement, decisions about whether or not to intercept a missile and where and when interceptions should take place will not be within the binational structure of NORAD but only in the United States.
However, in the face of such a threat, can we separate Canadian security from the United States?
Beyond the political signal from Ottawa, what will be Canada’s real contribution? Does participation in the U.S. ballistic missile defense program rely solely on technical assistance? Is it limited to research and development to improve the system? Can it reach the availability of sensors and interceptors on Canadian territory?
Not to mention that this change of course could conflict with some other Canadian defense and foreign policy.
At a time when Washington and Ottawa are engaged in modernizing NORAD, it makes sense to reconsider Canada’s participation in the U.S. missile shield.
These days, the Liberal government seems to want to put its foot in the accelerator to deliver a new defense policy. The war in Ukraine is accelerating things.
The Trudeau government knew it had attractive windows. His signal sent out on Tuesday was probably wise from a political standpoint. But decisions on such a question require careful and fair assessment of the possible advantages and disadvantages of such a commitment. Trial balloon or not.
Source: Radio-Canada
