|
|
|
"We need a Romanow Commission for defence and foreign policy" by David L. King Neither the change in U.S. administration in January, 2001, nor the terrorist attacks of September 11 are likely to change the fundamental fact of the Canada-U.S. defence relationship, which is that Canada free-rides on the U.S. military, a circumstance which frees up considerable economic resources for other uses in Canadian society and which, at bottom, the U.S. does not really mind, since it provides political cover and a free hand for U.S. initiatives. Even so, Canada could benefit from a combined review of her defence and foreign policies. For at least three decades defence policy has had little relation to foreign policy. A combined review might provide a better fit between the two. It might also increase public awareness of the importance of defence resources in carrying out foreign policy. The best vehicle for such a review would be a Romanow-style one-person commission. "Le Canada et le périmètre de sécurité nord-américain : Sécurité, souveraineté ou prospérité ?" by Stéphane Roussel Since September 11th, the Canadian government has stubbornly refused to concede the necessity of forming a common security perimeter for North America. On the other hand, it has concluded agreements with the U. S. that have precisely that effect. We should stop the double talk. Conceding that a security perimeter is under construction would enable us to debate exactly what form it should take. Should it be recognized formally in a treaty or built on an ad hoc basis, agreement by agreement, as it has been so far? Should it be unilateral, with each country adopting the necessary procedures on its own? Should it be bilateral? Should it be trilateral and include Mexico? Or, in the Canadian tradition, should it be multilateral, involving a wide range of countries in the fight against terrorism? Despite official misgivings, a formal bilateral agreement would provide the greatest protection for Canadian sovereignty while still achieving the enhanced security that is such a perimeter’s goal. "The Canada-U.S. defence relationship: Nostalgia ain't what it used to be" by Hugh Segal The events of September 11 call into question the most comfortable assumptions of much recent Canadian foreign policy, namely, that we can express our independence from American policy, reduce our contributions to Western defence and at the same time live happily under the shade of the U.S. military umbrella. The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington have put a premium on homeland defence for all of North America. “Interoperability” of Canadian and U.S. defence resources has served recent Canadian governments mainly as a debating point against criticism about force reductions. It will now be a vital part of new commitments we simply cannot—and should not—avoid. "Strategic ambitions and fiscal realities: Give the Navy priority" by Andrew Richter Interoperability, particularly with the United States, is an important part of Canadian military strategy. But as the U.S. races ahead technologically, interoperability becomes increasingly expensive. Caught between fixed or even declining budgets, on the one hand, and aging or already obsolete equipment on the other, the Canadian Forces have some tough choices to make. An analysis of the three services—army, air force and navy—suggests that investments in the navy offer the best hope of maintaining interoperability. Favouring any one service over the other two is all but certain to cause inter-service resentments, but if Canada is to have any chance of playing the role in world affairs that her foreign ministers and prime ministers seem to want, that risk will have to be taken. "Time for a decision on North American Missile Defence" by James Fergusson Canada’s official policy on North American Missile Defence (NAMD) is “wait and see.” By reinvogorating NORAD, the events of September 11 may seem to have made it easier to continue to pursue such a strategy: Canada will be a valued North American partner even if it stands aside from NAMD. In fact, September 11 has persuaded Washington that missile defence is more necessary than ever, and with Russia’s muted response to the abrogation of the ABM Treaty, the political climate is favourable. If Canada continues to hold back, Washington may decide to go it alone. That would seriously damage the bilateral relationship. "NATO's latest challenges" by Alexander Moens North America and Europe are currently dealing with several sources of tension within NATO. Concerning troubles in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, the incoming Bush administration has largely continued the policy of co-operation with and engagement in Europe. On the question of the emerging European Security and Defence Policy, it has been skeptical but generally supportive, although there is so far no clear understanding of how NATO and ESDP will be co-ordinated. For its part, Canada has negotiated a separate understanding on European initiatives on peacekeeping and related matters. On NATO enlargement, better relations with Russia seem to have reduced the geopolitical stakes. And, finally, on the war against terrorism, the United States has largely decided to go it alone, but even so has continued to seek various degrees and kinds of support and cooperation from NATO, Europe and Russia. "Redefining continental defence: The hemispheric multilateral dimension" by George A. MacLean Canada’s long-standing inattention to events south of the Rio Grande is giving way to tentative efforts to become more involved in hemispheric affairs. The multilateralism that is involved is second nature to Canada, and offers us an opportunity to both differentiate ourselves from the Americans and influence U.S. policies in the area. The main motivation for a growing role in the region is increasing trade. But regional security is also a concern, and over the last few years Canada has been developing closer security ties with many of the countries in the region. "Let's get a continental defence market treaty" by Alistair D. Edgar While Europe’s governments co-operate more on defence matters, Europe’s defence industry is gearing up for competition. If the European defence market were ever to truly open up, that would create opportunities and challenges for Canadian defence companies and policy-makers. But for the time being, relations with the United States remain the overriding concern. Even before September 11, American regulators were concerned about Canadian security procedures and had begun to make life more difficult for Canadian defence contractors. With the recent warming of Anglo-American relations and the consequent possibility that the United Kingdom might also get privileged access to the U.S. defence market, it might be time for Canada to think about securing North American defence production arrangements in a stronger legal framework than is provided by the executive memoranda that have governed them for the last four decades. "The U.S. in space: Cooperation and coercion" by Stephen B. Johnson For 50 years, space has been crucial to the projection of American power. During the Cold War, intercontinental ballistic missiles deterred Soviet aggression, while satellite reconnaissance allowed policy-makers to monitor Soviet activities. Today a wide range of precision weapons are guided by satellite systems. But power isn’t just about military hardware. The manned space program has served as a showcase for American technological prowess, while other exploration programs have provided avenues for international cooperation. Satellite telecommunications have shown the advantages of capitalism and have helped spread American culture and ideas. National missile defense may eventually provide greater security against rogue nations. In short, a comprehensive space strategy can be as helpful in winning the war against Islamist terrorism as it was in winning the Cold War. "Space is becoming crucial: We need to pick up the pace" by Stephen L. James The United States is proceeding with a “revolution in military affairs” (RMA) in which space plays a crucial role, both in providing intelligence about theatres of operation the world around and in making possible the use of precisely targeted, high-tech weaponry. The Canadian Forces have dabbled in various space programs for half a century, but, despite some recent progress, remain very far behind in this space-based RMA. If we do not pick up the development pace, we will find that our weapons systems have no “interoperability” with U.S. systems, that we are increasingly unable to co-ordinate with our allies, and that we therefore lose influence over the decisions they make, whether tactical or strategic. |
