Say NO to Ballistic Missile Defence

Say NO to Ballistic Missile Defence
An Educational Resource for Concerned Canadians Researched & Prepared by Janet M Eaton, PhD,

Outline What is missile defence ? What is the Canadian Government position? Why say NO !! What are some alternatives? Why get involved? and how !

Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

1) Missile Defence – Historical Context
The fifty-year history of America's multi-billion dollar missile defense obsession began after World War II, and intensified after the Soviets developed Sputnik and missiles. Beginning with Eisenhower's 1958 commitment to missile defense against the Soviet Union, through President Reagan's obsession with Star Wars, to President Clinton’s National Missile Defense to George W. Bush's 2002 decision to go it alone with his announcement of the imminent deployment of Ballistic Missile defence - the United States has had an almost religious, political and ideological obsession with Star Wars. _________________________________________ Reference: Star Wars Dreams

Missile Defence – A Chronology
Pearl Harbour - America’s first defining assault 1940s - The dawn of the Nuclear Age brings new fears of the threat of nuclear penetration. US begins testing missiles for use against possible attack by Soviet bombers. Ballistic missile defence low priority Soviet Union gets the bomb and missile defense intensifies and nuclear standoff between superpowers defines rest of century Sputnik launch fuels US fears of missile attack from space; and for first time a missile shield declared a national priority. President Eisenhower announces missile defence undergoing intense R&D with Department of Defence US first attempt to build Missile Defence – The Nike Zeus

Nixon refocuses US missile defence deployment so system would protect US deterrent forces and renamed it “Safeguard” - problematic because its missiles had to carry nuclear warheads first round of Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT) SALT talks lead to Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty limiting Russia and US to 2 missile defence sites with limit of 100 interceptors early 80’s – principle objective of the Army’s Missile Defence Program was to develop interceptors without nuclear warheads Army demonstrated non-nuclear defensive missile which destroyed by physically colliding.

Reagan’s Strategic Defence Initiative alias “Star Wars” 1991 – George Bush Sr. space based “Brilliant Pebbles” interceptors added to plan/ goal scaled back to defend vs 200 or so warheads Clinton’s National Missile Defence ( NMD) System scaled back to protect vs 5 to 20 ‘simple’ warheads from hostile developing country that might acquire capacity in future 2000- Clinton pulls out citing technical problems, test failures, vulnerability to countermeasures. George Bush Jr.announces limited version of missile defence referred to as Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) ______________________________________________ * Ballistic Missile Defence : A Brief History by Donald Baucom, MDA Historia Missile Defence Agency Acq.osd.mil/bmdolink/html/briefhis.html * Star Wars Dreams Film by Leslie Woodhead. Filmakers Library. Phone Twenty Years of "Star Wars:" Big Budgets But Little Progress . Union of Concerned Scientists

1. Missile Defence - By any Other Name !
Missile Defence ( MD ) Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) / Star Wars National Missile Defence ( NMD ) Ballistic Missile Defence ( BMD )

Missile Defence – What is it?
MD Missile Defence – generic term for a uniquely American stance to defending against the threat of nuclear penetration of its airspace by ballistic missiles - a preferred national defence strategy that began in the Post War Nuclear Era. “The real issue is how you fundamentally think America’s national security can be preserved. Can it be preserved through treaties that reduce and prevent the threat or are these treaties an illusion of security or is the only true defence to rely on America's military might, its own technology and in this case a missile defence system that could shoot down whatever anyone else in the world throws at us- that’s always been the debate.” -- Joe Circincione, Carnegie Peace Foundation __________________________________________________________ Joe Circincione as quoted in Star War Dreams See References

Missile Defence - By any Other Name !
Star Wars - The original goal, laid out in Reagan's March 23 speech, is to render nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete" and to protect the US population from a large-scale attack by thousands of Soviet nuclear warheads. Proponents foresaw space-based battlestations, as well as an extensive ground-based system,leading to the "Star Wars" name [1] Senator Edward Kennedy first attached the ‘Star Wars’ label to Reagan’s vision of missile defense in comments made in the Senate the day after his speech. The Star Wars designation was so evocative that it was embraced by some of Reagan’s supporters , and henceforth the program which began as the ‘Strategic Defense Imitative ‘ became known as ‘Star Wars”. [2] __________________________________________________________ 1 Twenty Years of "Star Wars:" Big Budgets But Little Progress . Union of Concerned Scientists 2 Star Wars: Influence of motion picture on Reagan’s SDI History Today, March by Peter Kramer

Star Wars - “Ever since scientists designed missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons through space, the next imperative became an anti-missile system. Ronald Reagan’s version became known as Star Wars.. And many people, myself included, now use the term ‘Star Wars’ for all comprehensive missile defense plans, despite each successive administration's renaming efforts.” -- -- Dr.Helen Caldicott The New Nuclear Danger –George W Bush’s Military –Industrial Complex. New York: The New Press

NMD-National Missile Defence Under former President Clinton, the US government sought a defensive shield for the continental United States – National Missile Defence (NMD). [1] National Missile Defense System– Term now Obsolete - A ground based anti-ballistic missile system designed to protect the US vs limited ballistic missile threats. Four elements –ground –based interceptors ; a ground –based radar ; a battle management command, control, communications, system; a constellation of Space & Missile Tracking System. [2] _________________________________________________________ [1] Canadian Peace Alliance. [2] Missile Defense Agency Glossary k

BMD –Ballistic Missile Defence The latest U.S. scheme to detect, intercept and destroy enemy missiles plans to operate from land, sea, and space platforms. This plan is designed to give the U.S. worldwide reach before the decade is over, making the system much more than ‘national’ defence; instead it is part of the U.S. policy for total domination of space described in the U.S. Space Command’s document Vision [1] BMD refers to all active and passive measures designed to detect, identify, track and defeat attacking ballistic missiles, in both strategic and theater tactical roles, during any portion of their flight trajectory or to nullify or reduce the effectiveness of such attack. [2] BMD has also been referred to as “Son of Star Wars” [3] __________________________________________________________ [1] Voice of Women Nova Scotia BMD Brochure [2] Missile Defense Agency Glossary [3] Reference: BBC News

BMD –Ballistic Missile Defence In December 2002, President Bush announced that the U.S. would deploy a missile defence system by the fall of President Bush dropped the "national" and now speaks of a shield that would protect key US allies in an attempt to secure the support of other members of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). [1] Despite talk about BMD being a means to build a continental shield around northern America, its deployment will not be limited to America. BMD is in fact being designed as global system and its impact may be felt most acutely in East Asia. One of BMD’s best kept secrets is that Japan’s conservative Liberal Democratic Party has supported BMD since [2] __________________________________________________________ [1] Canadian Peace Alliance - [2] Korea : The Next Iraq by Mary-Anne Ashford, John Price, Sung Suh

Missile Defence – How it works !
Reference: BBC News

2) Position of Canadian Government?
1994 Defence White Paper initiated regular consultations on BMD between Canada & US & allies both bilaterally and through NATO. 2000 Canada & US established a BMD Bilateral Information Sharing Working Group that has met twice a year since December 17, 2002 George W Bush announced US would deploy initial BMD system for defence of North America by year 2004. May 29, 2003 Canada announced entry into discussions with US on possible participation in missile defence of North America. January 15, 2004 the Cdn Minister of National Defence & US Secretary of Defense exchanged non-binding Letters of Intent, stating the interest of both nations in negotiating an agreement on cooperation in the ballistic missile defence of North America. __________________________________________________________ Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence. Discussions with the United States on possible Canadian participation in the Ballistic Missile Defence of North America.

What is the Position of the Cdn Govt?
The primary aim of these discussions has been to establish whether or not participation in BMD could enhance Canadian security [1] The Government is committed to ensuring and enhancing the security of Canada and Canadians. Examining possible Canadian participation in the Ballistic Missile Defence of North America is one aspect of meeting this commitment.[1] The Prime Minister has stated categorically that Canada is opposed to the weaponization of space [2] When the discussions have concluded, the Government will assess if Canadian interests have been met and will take a decision on Canadian participation in BMD. Due to the complexities of the issues at stake, these talks are expected to take a number of months.[3] _____________________________________________________________ [1] News Release: Canada-U.S. Exchange Letters On Missile Defence NR– January 15, [2] CBC The National Town Hall Meeting Conference Centre Ottawa [3] Ibid

Any decision by the Government on Canada's role in BMD would be determined only after a comprehensive review of possible implications. …. Canadian involvement would have to be cost-effective, make an unambiguous contribution to Canadian defence requirements and build upon missions already performed by the Canadian Forces, such as surveillance and communications …. would be predicated on the proposed system being compliant with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, or an updated treaty negotiated with Russia, as well as other arms control and disarmament agreements, protocols and arrangements. – Canada Department of Defence, October 2003 _____________________________________________________________ Canada's Policy on Ballistic Missile Defence. Canada Department of National Defence ; issued Oct.5

It is our intent to negotiate in the coming months a Missile Defence Framework Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the United States with the objective of including Canada as a participant in the current US missile defence program and expanding and enhancing information exchange. We believe this should provide a mutually beneficial framework to ensure the closest possible involvement and insight for Canada, both government and industry, in the US missile defence program. Such an MOU could also help pave the way for increased government-to-government and industry-to-industry co-operation on missile defence that we should seek to foster between our countries. -- Minister Pratt to Secretary Rumsfeld, January 15, 2004 __________________________________________________________ Letters Exchanged on Missile Defence - Letter from Minister Pratt to Secretary Rumsfeld,

The technical extent of protection afforded by the US ballistic missile defence system will evolve over time, and our bilateral co-operation in this area should also evolve. We should continue to explore appropriate technical, political and financial arrangements related to the potential defence of Canada and the United States against missile attack, within the framework of our laws. Our staffs should discuss ways in which Canada could contribute to this effort Minister Pratt to Secretary Rumsfeld, January 15, 2004 __________________________________________________________ Letters Exchanged on Missile Defence - Letter from Minister Pratt to Secretary Rumsfeld,

Ernie Regehr, Executive Director and analyst with Project Ploughshares, suggests that two key principles perhaps most incline Ottawa toward support for BMD: i) ‘the responsibility to protect’ i.e if there is a serious claim that it is possible to provide Canadians protection against nuclear attack, responsibility requires we have a look at it. ii) Second is Mackenzie King’s WWII undertaking to Roosevelt that Canada would take measures necessary to give credible assurances to our American neighbours that threats to their security would not emerge from Canadian territory. Others include : industrial benefits access to intelligence and technology seeking favour with the US in order to aid the pursuit of other interests in the bilateral relationship _____________________________________________________________- Ernie Regehr. BMD –Pragmatic Issues which Canada must Address. August

3. Why Say NO to BMD ? Technological & Scientific reasons
Economic reasons Political reasons Environmental reasons

1. Technologically Unproven/Scientifically Uncertain
Why Say NO to BMD ? 1. Technologically Unproven/Scientifically Uncertain “One year ago the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade advised the Government not to make any decision on BMD because ‘the technology has not been proven and details of deployment are not known . Events since then reinforce this advice. During 2003 four US General Accounting Office Investigations confirmed that none of 10 essential technologies has been tested in operational conditions and 8 of 10 have not even reached the product stage of development. The X-band radar designed to track incoming warheads and distinguish them from decoys , the interceptor rockets, the command and control communications links, and the kinetic kill vehicle to name just a few , essential components , all await proven technologies.” -- Ernie Regehr, Director Project Ploughshares __________________________________________________________ - Ernie Regehr, Project Plowshares, letter to Paul Martin, Jan 2, 2004

Technologically Unproven/Scientifically Uncertain
Why Say NO to BMD ? Technologically Unproven/Scientifically Uncertain “The kinds of test they are doing now are referred to in the testing community as ‘strapped down chicken tests’ . where you are setting up an easy to hit target and then blowing its head off and saying see I can do it but it has no relation to real world experience where the chicken is running, is hiding, and puts up decoy chickens and you can’t tell which is the chicken you’re really supposed to be hitting.” - Joe Ciccincione, Carnegie Peace Foundation __________________________________________________________ Joe Ciccincione quoted in Star Wars Dreams film interview

Why Say NO to BMD ? Technologically Unproven/Scientifically Uncertain “I think the problem is not solvable. Science says it can’t be proven – it’s not a matter of improving technology. The fact is they have no way of telling the difference between war head, simplest of decoys an enemy would deploy…. There is no science they can exploit and no technology they can exploit so all they do is make claims. It’s like saying – I’ll jump off this building and maybe I’ll find a way not to hit the concrete too hard. This is not the way you do your planning for your national security.” -- Theodore Postol, MIT Professor __________________________________________________________ Theodore Postol quoted in Star Wars Dreams Film

Why Say NO to BMD ? Technologically Unproven/Scientifically Uncertain For extensive documentation of Ted Postol’s writing: See Halifax Peace Coalition BMD Reader Webpage Wrong with Missile Defense -(Boston Review, Sept 2001 Why National Missile Defense Won’t Work-Sci. American, Aug 1999 Postol vs The Pentagon - Technology Review April 2002 MIT Physicist Knocks Anti-Missile System SF Chronicle, March 3, 200 Assembled News Articles on Cover-Up of Anti-Missile System Flaws from NYT/The Times/Boston Globe from July March 2003 ___________________________________________________________________________

Why Say NO to BMD ? Technologically Unproven/Scientifically Uncertain
The Pentagon has taken some steps toward more realistic testing of the antimissile system that it plans to deploy this year to protect the United States, but many aspects of the system remain to be tested, according to a congressional report. The report, prepared by the General Accounting Office, expressed concern about a lack of test data showing whether the system can work using all its final parts instead of prototypes, and whether it can adequately identify warheads in a field of decoys. Also still to be demonstrated, the report said, are such actions as multiple launches of interceptors, nighttime intercepts and operations under adverse weather conditions Bradley Graham, Washington Post, March 11 ___________________________________________________________ GAO Urges Better Tests of Missile Defense System By Bradley Graham Washington Post , March 11, 2004; Page A08

2 . Economically wasteful
Why Say NO to BMD ? 2 . Economically wasteful For over 50 years America has poured more than $120 billion into the search for a defence against the threat of enemy missiles. Since 1983 alone the US has spent $100 billion on missile defence and still has nothing that works [1] The Congressional Budget Office puts the price tag at another $230 billion over next two decades [2] _______________________________________________________________ [1] Ernie Regehr. Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence. Ploughshares Monitor Summer 2003 [2] Star Wars Dreams [ Ibid ]

Economically wasteful
Why Say NO to BMD ? Economically wasteful Speaking at the April 15th, 2000 – “Keep Space for Peace Conference” on the militarization of space and the rapid movement toward the deployment by the US of a Ballistic Missile Defence system – Bill Hartung of the World Policy Institute said: Billions of dollars of contracts will be given to Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and TRW to construct the system which will provide no greater security to the US and will jeopardize international peace and Russian relations. _________________________________________________________________ Notes on World Bank/IMF protests and BMD conference

Why Say NO to BMD ? Economically wasteful “We’re spending millions of dollars per year on this right now for a little bit of political and ideological symbolism. I don’t know an issues in public policy in this country over the past 50 years surrounded by so much wishful thinking, fiction and down right lying.” - Francis Fitzgerald, Star Wars historian and author __________________________________________________________________ Francis Fitzgerald, Star Wars historian and author quoted in the film ‘Star Wars Dreams”.

a. Fails to protect Canadians and promotes global insecurity
Why Say NO to BMD ? 3. Political Reasons a. Fails to protect Canadians and promotes global insecurity b. Contrary to Canadian Policy Values & International Law c. Will lead to weaponization of space d. Jeopardizes Canada’s sovereignty e. Reflects corporate influence f. There is no imperatives to be at the table

Why Say NO to BMD ? a. Fails to protect Canadians and promotes global insecurity Project Ploughshares report “Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence” questions claims of the government that BMD will protect Canadians, and says that BMD will instead exacerbate proliferation pressures that have put the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in jeopardy and the report challenges the importance being attached to BMD in the Canada- US Bilateral relationship. [1] __________________________________________________________________ [1] Project Ploughshares media release on their authoritative 58 page report “Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence”

Why Say NO to BMD ? a. Fails to protect Canadians and promotes global insecurity Even after the ground based mid-course interceptor system graduates from test-bed to an operational defence system, sometime in an uncertain future it will address only a tiny fraction (never more than 1%) of of nuclear warheads capable of hitting targets in North America with ballistic missiles. It will have no capacity against short range ballistic or cruise missiles that could be fired from ships off the North American coasts. The political prominence given the proposed system ignores the myriad of other ways in which weapons of mass destruction could be delivered to North American targets. ________________________________________________________ [1] Project Ploughshares media release on their authoritative 58 page report “Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence”

Why Say NO to BMD ? a. Fails to protect Canadians and promotes global insecurity BMD or Star Wars will not protect North Americans from terrorism. Terrorists acts such as the attack on the World Trade towers, exposure to biological and chemical weapons, and dirty bombs hidden in container ships show that Cold war defence strategies don’t work. Adherence to US foreign policies threaten Canada.[1] . BMD will be a destabilizing force as countries such as China seek to strengthen their missile and nuclear capability to overwhelm the system. Progress in non-proliferation is achieved by multi-lateral diplomacy and disarmament efforts, not unilateral actions by an over-armed super-power. [2] _____________________________________________ [1] Canadian Peace Alliance Website [2] B.M.D. A destabilizing force while benefiting Canadian defence industry for immediate release Physicians for Global Survival. January 19,

Why Say NO to BMD ? a. Fails to protect Canadians and promotes global insecurity BMD strategic impact is not likely to be as benign as hoped when the ABM Treaty was abrogated. Russia and China are now actively preparing counter measures and strategies. [1] Jan 2, 2004 Russia has successfully tested a hypersonic anti-Star Wars weapon capable of penetrating any prospective missile shield, a senior general said Thursday. The prototype weapon proved it could maneuver so quickly as to make "any missile defense useless," Col.-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the first deputy chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, told a news conference. [2] -- February 19th 2004 ____________________________________________________________________ [1] Ernie Regehr, Project Plowshares, letter to Paul Martin, Jan 2, 2004 [2] Russia: Star Wars useless against new weapon Thu, February 19, 2004

Why Say NO to BMD ? a. Fails to protect Canadians and promotes global insecurity Presidential Decision Directive 62, issued in 1998, says, "America's unrivaled military superiority means that potential enemies (whether nations or terrorist groups) that choose to attack us will be more likely to resort to terror instead of conventional military assault.“ The Bush administration's response, involving a tremendous new wave of militarism, new weapons systems, and a newly aggressive posture in the world could not have done more to exacerbate the threat of terrorist attacks if it had been planned that way. Military means will not work. The beginning of a solution is the end of the twin occupations in the Middle East _____________________________________________________ "War on Terrorism" Makes Us All Less Safe by Rahul Mahajan ( author of "Full Spectrum Dominance: U.S. Power in Iraq and Beyond" ) in ZNET March 12, 2004

Why Say NO to BMD ? a. Fails to protect Canadians and promotes global insecurity The bombings in Madrid attributed to al Qaeda [1] are further indication that supporting the US led –approach to terrorism created vulnerability for citizens of those countries who chose to support the US. Opinion polls for the the Spanish election showed as many as 90 per cent of Spaniards opposed the war against Iraq and Spain's continuing role in military activities there. Angry Spanish voters, traumatized by Thursday's terrorist attacks in Madrid, threw out the governing party of Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar in the national election yesterday, dealing a new blow to the U.S.-led coalition occupying Iraq. [2] ______________________________________________________________ [1] Canadian officials vigilant following Madrid attacks: Martin. CBC News 15 Mar :08:44 [2] ] Spaniards oust ruling party in wake of terrorist attacks Widespread belief of lying by government prompts angry voters to turn to Socialists. Globe & Mail, Mar15 _____________________________________________________

b. Contrary to Canadian Policy Values & International Law
Why Say NO to BMD ? b. Contrary to Canadian Policy Values & International Law "Participation in missile defence would entail a significant change in Canada's policy on the non-proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction, by undermining Canada's long-promoted model of multilateral regulation and cooperation in favor of the counter- proliferation, confrontational model currently adopted by the United States, based on pre-emption, and the threat and use of high-tech,overwhelming military force." -- The Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, in his presentation to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

b. Contrary to Canadian Policy values and international law
Why Say NO to BMD ? b. Contrary to Canadian Policy values and international law Washington’s offer is not an invitation to join in safe retreat under a protective BMD shield but an invitation to support and cheer America as it confronts a complex and dangerous global security environment on the basis of a global security doctrine that violates Canadian values and approaches on multiple levels: 1.Relying on pre-emption & military superiority over a rules based international order 2. Favoring counter-proliferation over nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament 3. Insisting on the weaponization of space 4. Undermining Canada’s capacity for independent role in international peace and security efforts through multilateral disarmament ________________________________________________________________________ [1] Ernie Regehr. Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence. Ploughshares Monitor Summer 2003

b. Contrary to Canadian Policy values & International Law
Why Say NO to BMD ? b. Contrary to Canadian Policy values & International Law In other words deeper military integration with US is contrary to Canada’s: Adherence to the rule of law guides our domestic and international policy choices Co-operation through the UN (Multilateralism) and the use of “peaceful means” to settle international disputes (UN Article 2.3) Reliance of Diplomacy and Not War Promotion of Disarmament and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Opposition to the Weaponization of Space

Why Say NO to BMD ? b. Contrary to Canadian Policy Values & International Law The use of nuclear weapons is explicitly contemplated in the policies of the Bush Administration. These policies have been promulgated in a number of statements, most of them made during the last year. The following documents are of particular importance: Nuclear Posture Review. January, 2002 The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. September, 2002 National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. December 2002 National Policy on Ballistic Missile Defense. May 2003 ___________________________________________________________________________ Sir Joseph Rotblat The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash & the Bush Policies [Halifax July 18, Pugwash Conf]

b. Contrary to Canada’s International Treaty Obligations
Why Say NO to BMD ? b. Contrary to Canada’s International Treaty Obligations Deeper military integration with US could lead to violation of Canada’s international obligations: Outer Space Treaty (WMD) Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects 1972 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space 1975 Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 19 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban 1996 Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation 2002 (Voluntary agreement

Why Say NO to BMD ? b. Contrary to Canadian Values
Deeper military integration with US goes vs Canadian Values 74 % of Canadians support Canada's decision not to send troops to Iraq -up three points from the last poll on the subject, December 2003. 63 % of Canadians believe the United States made a mistake in going to war in Iraq a jump of 16 points since December. 67 % agree that U.S. President George Bush knowingly lied to the world in order to justify his war with Iraq. 61 % agree "true democracy will never come to the region," despite all the U.S. efforts. 69 % agree that because of what has happened, the U.S. "will learn a valuable lesson" that it is better for them to work with countries around the world rather than to act on their own in issues of world crisis. ______________________________________________ CTV/Globe & Mail Ipsos Reid Poll- March 15th

Why Say NO to BMD ? b. Contrary to Canadian Values & Global Attitudes towards US Deeper military integration with US goes vs Global Values A new survey of global attitudes, Pew Research Center finds the world more in tune with José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the new leader of Spain, than with George W. Bush: Across Europe and in key Muslim countries allied with the US, publics continue to hold negative views of the US, its handling of its leadership position in the world, and the war in Iraq. The divide between the US and Europe is only getting wider," says Carroll Doherty, editor of the Pew Research Center. "It's beyond a question of America's image, it's now to the point where people want action based on their opposition to the US." ______________________________________________ The world's view of US. USA Foreign Policy from the March 17, 2004 edition

b. Contrary Canadian Values
Why Say NO to BMD ? b. Contrary Canadian Values Paul Heinbecker, former Canadian Ambassador to the UN director of the Laurier Centre for Global Relations, Governance and Policy at Wilfrid Laurier University writing in the Globe and Mail, March 19th offered five lessons Canada should learn from the Iraq experience among them: First and foremost, that values matter in foreign policy.... Second, going along to get along has never made good public policy, or good politics, either..... And finally, we should not shrink from disagreeing with U.S. administrations when they are wrong any more than we should shrink from agreeing with them when they are right. We should call them as we see them. We did so on Iraq, and we have been vindicated. _______________________________________________________________ Canada got it right on Iraq by Paul Heinbecker, Globe & Mail, March 19, 2004 OHEIN19/TPComment/TopStories ---

c. Will lead to Weaponization of Space
Why Say NO to BMD ? c. Will lead to Weaponization of Space The Canadian government continues to admonish critics for calling missile defence Star Wars and insists that weaponization of space will not be a part of ballistic missile defence for many years if at all. This position was tirelessly adhered to in the all evening Parliamentary debate on BMD held February 18. The Minister of Defence chided members opposing the plan even when presented with well - researched knowledge which evidenced that BMD is only a way station on the road to weaponization of space. The Minister’s response, in defending his government’s position and when challenged on this discrepancy, was to deny it saying: "as far as we know... my guess is... who knows what the future holds". ___________________________________________________ Parliamentary Debate on Ballistic Missile Defense, Feb 18, 2004 CHECK OUT URL IN KOREA ARTICLE

Why Say NO to BMD ? c. Will lead to Weaponization of Space And yet: “The U.S. plan to build a missile defence shield poses a significant risk by paving the way for putting weapons into orbit, warns a Department of National Defence report. Yet last year, Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham reassured Canadians that suggestions the U.S. planned to put weapons into orbit was pure speculation …. But the defence study, obtained by the [Ottawa] Citizen under the Access to Information law, notes: A significant risk associated with BMD from the non-proliferation and disarmament perspective is its reinforcement of trends towards the weaponization of outer space.“ __________________________________________________________________ Missile shield risks militarizing space: DND: Report says U.S. defence plan a step toward putting weapons in orbit by David Pugliese, The Ottawa Citizen 9 Jan 2004 Missile shield risks militarizing space: DND: Report says U.S. defence plana step toward putting weapons in orbit by David Pugiese, The Ottawa Citizen 9 Jan

Why Say NO to BMD ? c. Will lead to Weaponization of Space And - The US Space Command, a joint air force, army, navy and marines operation, that ccoordinates existing military operations in space, states in its Vision for 2020 report that: “The emerging synergy of space superiority with land, sea and air superiority, will lead to Full Spectrum Dominance.” “The medium of space is the fourth medium of warfare.” “ National missile defence will evolve into a mix of ground and space based sensors and weapons” “ Development of ballistic missile defences using space systems and planning for precision strike from space offers a counter to worldwide proliferation of WMD.” __________________________________________________________________ United States Space Command Vision for 2020

__________________________________________________________________
Why Say NO to BMD ? c. Will lead to Weaponization of Space And further budget monies have been allocated for space based weapon research: President George W. Bush is planning to put the first weapons in space despite broad international opposition, budget papers sent to Congress on Monday showed. Bush's spending plans for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1 include an unspecified sum for developing and testing "advanced, lightweight, space-based (missile) interceptor components," the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said. In its budget overview, the agency said it was seeking $47 million to start "technology development" of such weapons and others that could be phased into a multi-layered U.S. missile shield starting in January In the two years thereafter, the Pentagon aims to base a handful of missile interceptors in orbit for testing, the agency said. __________________________________________________________________ Bush Moves Toward 'Star Wars' Missile Defense by Jim Wolf Reuters February 2, 2004

d. Jeopardizes Canada’s Sovereignty
Why Say NO to BMD ? d. Jeopardizes Canada’s Sovereignty The recently formed Canadian Coalition to Oppose Ballistic Missile Defence, a grass-roots campaign network with links across the country, criticizes the American-sponsored system as being technologically unsound, expensive, unnecessary and a betrayal of Canada’s commitment to work towards a ban of weapons in space. The coalition warns that the outcome of this debate may determine whether Canada can maintain a semblance of an independent foreign policy. [1] Joining Washington’s missile defence would undermine Canada’s capacity for an independent role in international peace and security efforts through multilateral disarmament [2] ________________________________________________________________________ [1] Korea : The Next Iraq by Mary-Anne Ashford, John Price, Sung Suh [2] Ernie Regehr. Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence. Ploughshares Monitor Summer 2003

Why Say NO to BMD ? e. Corporate Influence
Pressure from the US ambassador challenging Canada's position on the Iraq War and hinting of possible blowback touched off debate which led to intended pressure on the government from the Alliance, business lobby and right wing media. “ Within weeks the price of atonement for Canadian apostasy in the Iraq War became known – the Canadian cabinet began shifting its position on the very controversial US program of missile defence system (MDS)” Various cabinet ministers offered explanations from terrorism threats to continental security and Paul Martin and John Manley espoused closer ties with the US in what has turned into an act of capitulation on the alter of preserving good continental relations. _________________________________________________ Lloyd Axworthy Navigating a New World :Canada’s Global Future. Toronto : Alfred a Knopf Lloyd Axworthy Navigating a New World :Canada’s Global Future. Toronto : Alfred a Knopf

.. the Canadian Council of Chief Executives have organized an action group of.. corporate CEOs to promote what they call "North American Security & Prosperity" (NASPI)which includes Canada joining missile defence. [1] … Canada's corporate community has been urging Prime Minister Martin to cast off these old "soft power" notions from Canada's past. They argue that our future is tied to the United States, and that if we please the Bush administration we can enjoy the benefits of being the closest neighbour and best friend of the world's only superpower. Pump billions more into the military and join national missile defence, they say, if that's what it takes to win favour in DC. Prime Minister Martin, alarmingly, has taken much of the CEOs' advice to heart. [2] ________________________________________________________________- [1] CBC Commentary –Steven Staples, Polaris Institute [2] Steven Staples Ottawa the Hill Times, Jan 12, 2004

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) formerly the BCNI (Business Council on National Issues) has a plan for the New Prime Minister called ‘deep integration’ that will see Canada further assimilated into the US. Corporate Canada fears being shut out as economic woes beleaguer the new American Empire and 15 years of free trade have failed to produce the economic results promised. Cooperating with the US on foreign policy, defence policy, immigration and perimeter security, continental energy, and Star Wars II – this and much more is Bay Street’s agenda for the next ten years Murray Dobbin, 2003 _______________________________________________________ Murray Dobbin Paul Martin CEO for Canada ? Toronto: James Lorimer & Co. Ltd.

Called the “Big Idea” by the … C.D. Howe Institute, the aim of the “deep integration” agenda is to “harmonize” various critical Canadian policies with those of the United States. ..Canadian corporate interests are lobbying for ideas such as: Ballistic Missile Defence Customs Union North American Security Perimeter North American Identity card Harmonization of regulations and legislation Continental energy and water strategies _________________________________________________ Colony or Country - The Future of Canada-U.S. Relations. Public Forums with Maude Barlow.

e. Corporate Deep Integration Agenda Violates Canadian Values “
Why Say NO to BMD ? e. Corporate Deep Integration Agenda Violates Canadian Values “ While Corporate Canada and their government supporters downplay differences in Canadian and American values surveys such as those cited above and the following show otherwise. Michael Adams, President of Environs Canada challenges the "myth of inevitability“ that has led us to believe our Canadian way of life is doomed to extinction. Drawing upon a decade of never-before released data from both sides of the border, he reveals that Canada and the United States are not coming together, but are diverging in significant ways. From the vehicles we buy to the deference we pay to authority, Canadians prove to be firmly separate in their attitudes and opinions. ____________________________________________________________________ [1] Michael Adams Fire and Ice. :The United States, Canada and the Myth of Converging Values Toronto: Penguin Canada

f.. There is no imperative to be ‘at the table’
Why Say NO to BMD ? f.. There is no imperative to be ‘at the table’ “The conventional wisdom is that Canada is facing an immediate decision and must be at the BMD table with the Americans to have any input into its future implications. In fact there is no such pressure. The BMD system is still experimental and the American are not ready for a Canadian decision. As well, there are number of tables at which Canada is already seated, such as NORAD , where Canada can engage in direct discussion with the US about its concerns.” -- Lloyd Axworthy _____________________________________________________________ Project Ploughshares media release on their authoritative 58 page report “Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence”

f. . There is no imperative to be ‘at the table’
Why Say NO to BMD ? f. . There is no imperative to be ‘at the table’ Ernie Regehr in his Briefing Paper of March 4th- BMD, NORAD, and Canada-US Security Relations notes: “It is not easy for Canadians to believe but very little of the pressure on Canada to join the US BMD is coming from Washington.” He deconstructs the issue and concludes that of the three options available for Canada vis a vis BMD the best one in non-involvement in BMD- which would take Canada out of BMD operations, strategic and theatre BMD and would return Canada to strictly air defence role within NORAD and thereby stay out of ITWAA –the Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment. _____________________________________________________________ Ernie Regehr Briefing Paper of March 4th- BMD, NORAD, and Canada-US Security Relations Project Ploughshares.

4 . Environmentally dangerous [ Accidents ]
Why Say NO to BMD ? 4 . Environmentally dangerous [ Accidents ] We have created hugely complex systems that are vulnerable to electronic failure, computer malfunction, enemy ‘hacking’ and electronic interference. Modern weapons are so powerful any accident could result in huge loss of life and large-scale destruction of the environment… Weapons are being tested without an accurate view of what they might be doing to us and to the natural world. [1] Outer space is already militarized with missile systems dependent on guidance from satellites. The US missile defence program now underway will step up this process. If introduced into space , the danger of contamination through conventional or nuclear explosives will be significant. [2] _______________________________________________________________________ [1] Rosalie Bertell Planet Earth : The Latest Weapon of War. Montreal, New York, London: Black Rose Books [2] Douglas Roche The Human right to Peace. Toronto : Novalis [

Environmentally dangerous – Space Debris
Why Say NO to BMD ? Environmentally dangerous – Space Debris It is estimated that there are 10,000 to 50,000 objects larger than 4 cm currently orbiting Earth with the total number much larger. They travel at a very high velocity and can do considerable damage or even destroy a large satellite. [1] The prospect of fighting in space would have serious consequences. Even testing mid-course interceptions of ballistic missiles within the low-earth orbit range would generate space debris that would continue to orbit for long periods, endangering vital low-earth communications and other satellites, and destruction of satellites in higher orbit would result in permanently orbiting debris. Space traffic monitors already track thousands of pieces of space junk. [2] ___________________________________________________ [1] Rosalie Bertell Planet Earth : The Latest Weapon of War. Montreal, New York, London: Black Rose Books [2] Ernie Regehr. Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence. Ploughshares Monitor Summer 2003

4. Alternatives ? Outline Address injustices and Poverty to attain security Retain our sovereign voice and unique identity Re-think and Strengthen the UN Spend on Peace keeping not military integration US Reject Deep Integration – Renew Vision of Just Society Adopt Political –economic alternatives: Globalization is in decline Stress Peace, Diplomacy, Disarmament and Human Security Adopt a Culture of Peace - not a Culture of War !!

Alternatives ? 1. Address injustices and poverty to attain security
“ We are now facing a turning point. Terrorists anywhere can covertly destroy the prized assets of the powerful and the powerful can invoke a new doctrine of pre-emptive strike to protect themselves. We need to face up to a hard reality: neither military strength, nuclear weapons, nor missile defence will defend us against persons who lash out at humanity because of their consuming hatred .. of the poverty, oppression, power and greed of modern society. They need to understand that their best long range defence lies in addressing the great injustices that are today increasing the divisions between rich and poor, powerful and the vulnerable and the triumphant and the despairing.” - Senator Douglas Roche, The Human Right to Peace ______________________________________________________ Douglas Roche The Human right to Peace. Toronto : Novalis

Alternatives ? 2. Retain our sovereign voice and unique identity
“First of all, we have to maintain our policy space, and gradually expand it so that we can maintain and enhance a distinct kind of society in Canada, different from the US , based on a social model.” Ricardo Grinspun, Economist, University of York _______________________________________________________ Murray Dobbin Paul Martin: CEO for Canada? Toronto: James Lorimer & Co. p.176

It is important to get these considerations out into the open. If we don’t have a democratic debate about this, the insiders will win he day, using their access and money to influence a Canadian decision towards military integration with the US. If we don’t exercise a distinctive voice, ..we will wake up to find our freedom of choice given away and our credibility in the eyes of the world as a disarmament friendly people gone.” –- Lloyd Axworthy ______________________________________________________ Lloyd Axworthy Navigating a New World :Canada’s Global Future. Toronto : Alfred a Knopf

Alternatives ? 3. Re-think and Strengthen the UN
“Over the last 50 years, the various agencies of the United Nations have evolved rather miraculously into more or less effective agents for global change. This is remarkable accomplishment made difficult by the multinational/multilingual nature of its staff and the escalating nature of its mandate. The world’s expectations of it are awesome, and it has endured great financial insecurity. At this crucial time in history, it is important to re-think the structure of the UN , its agencies and their mandates so as to encourage further growth n the direction of sustainability and genuine security. It is also important that human security be redefined as the new vision toward which we strive.” --- Rosalie Bertell. Planet Earth The Latest Weapon of War p _______________________________________________________ Rosalie Bertell Planet Earth : The Latest Weapon of War. Montreal, New York, London: Black Rose Books

Alternatives ? 3. Re-think and Strengthen the UN
“Respect for, and strict adherence to, the terms of international agreements are the basis of a civilized society. Without this, anarchy and terrorism would reign, the very perils President Bush is allegedly committed to eradicate. While he intends to tackle this issue by military means, we must strive to achieve it by peaceful means. While the Bush Administration plans to act unilaterally, we have to ensure that world security is entrusted to the United Nations, the institution set up for this purpose. And we must link our respect for the law with strong moral principles. We want to see a world in which relations between people and between nations are based on compassion, not greed; on generosity, not jealousy; on persuasion, not force; on equity, not oppression.” -- Sir Joseph Rotblat, Nobel Peace Prize 1995, signatory to the Russell-Einstein Manifesto in 1955, Founder Pugwash __________________________________________________________________________ Sir Joseph Rotblat The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash & the Bush Policies [Halifax July 18, Pugwash Conf]

Alternatives ? Now is no time to give up on the UN.
3. Re-think and Strengthen the UN As Canadians, some say the UN is part of our national DNA . Canadians have helped to shape the UN as we know it: Now is no time to give up on the UN. The UN remains the world's best hope for peace. Providing a forum for discussion and problem-solving, the last few years has seen the UN adopt specific commitments to ensure lessons from the last century are put to task. Your voices and values are critical if the UN is to remain relevant and overcome its weaknesses in the next century. - Hon David Kilgour, MP Edmonton _______________________________________________________ UN Values, Canadian Values - Remarks by Hon. David Kilgour, MP for Edmonton

Alternatives ? 4.. Spend on Peace keeping not military integration with US “At various times in our history we have attempted to counter that inevitable rush to destruction, perceiving our best interests to lie within a system where the tools of war were kept in a chest , to be used only when threatened or in recent years to aid those who need protection. This requires military expenditures .. .to keep the peace, not to aid war Lloyd Axworthy ______________________________________________________ Lloyd Axworthy Navigating a New World :Canada’s Global Future. Toronto : Alfred a Knopf

Alternatives ? 4. Spend on Peace keeping not military integration with US Canada’s defense policy must be updated so that the armed forces are given the support they need to play a more specialized role in peacekeeping and conflict resolution. Canada's military spending should be redirected from aggressive military weapons such as BMD and used to support the men and women in the armed forces and to rebuild Canada’s leadership in United Nations peacekeeping. __________________________________________________________ The Canada we Want---A Citizen’s Alternative to Deep Integration. Council of Canadians Background Document for Public Forum Debates - COLONY OR COUNTRY? March

Alternatives ? 5. Reject Deep Integration – Renew Vision of Just Society Global social justice is not on the ‘deep integration’ agenda. Deep integration is an agenda for more power to corporations, esp. large defence and energy corporations needed to enforce a military definition of society. Adopting ‘deep integration’ would mean abandoning what we have left of the vision of a just society. Reject Deep Integration: 1. Demand full public participation in PM ‘s review of Canada-US policy 2. Make deep integration the main issue of the federal election. 3. Exercise your vote in the federal election – overcome voter apathy _______________________________________________________ The Canada we Want---A Citizen’s Alternative to Deep Integration. Council of Canadians Background Document for Public Forum Debates - COLONY OR COUNTRY? 285f5f&step=2&catid=319&iscat=1 Maude Barlow- Colony or Country

Alternatives ? 6. Adopt Political –economic alternatives:
Grand economic theories rarely last more than a few decades". except in case of communism which survived 75 years because of military imposition. Globalization which is one of these grand theories backed up by a particularly ferocious ideology [globalism] akin to religiosity - is collapsing if not already dead according to Saul. Therefore we must seek to fill the vacuum with political economic alternatives ! ________________________________________________________ John Ralston Saul. The End of globalism. Australian Financial Review.

Alternatives ? 6. Adopt Political –economic alternatives:
Improve the regulatory system Strengthen Political Democracy Create a Robust Public Sphere Challenge international Neoliberalism ______________________________________________ Joel Bakan The Corporation. The Pathological Pursuit of Profits and Power. New York: Free Press

Alternatives ? 7. Stress Peace, Diplomacy, Disarmament and Human Security Canada’s diplomacy should stress peace, disarmament and human security, which are inextricably linked to the people’s social, political and economic needs. Canada could play a pivotal role in searching for alternative military models that would help achieve global stability. __________________________________________________ The Canada we Want---A Citizen’s Alternative to Deep Integration. Council of Canadians Background Document for Public Forum Debates - COLONY OR COUNTRY?

Alternatives ? Adopt a Culture of Peace!
Culture of War Images of the enemy Armaments & armies Authoritarian governance Secrecy & propaganda Violence-structural/physical Male domination Education for war Exploitation of the weak & environment Culture of Peace Tolerance/solidarity Disarmament Democratic participation Free flow-info/knowledge Respect for all Human Rights Equality- men & women Education for peace culture Sustainable economic & social development Douglas Roche The Human right to Peace. Toronto : Novalis p. 108

5. Why get involved ! "It is the role of activists inside and outside the state to remind governments of the commitments they have taken on in ratifying conventions" UNESCO Culture of Peace Kit ______________________________________________________ "Building a Culture of Peace Kit from the Canadian Commission for UNESCO prepared for the Year " International Year of a Culture of Peace. "

Why get involved ! We can make a difference. ! Another world is possible” - a world based on a culture of peace, ecological sustainability, economic justice, participatory democracy, and respect for human rights, women’s rights and global and human security is possible. February 15 marked the first anniversary of the unprecedented day when more than 10 million people in over 600 cities world-wide demonstrated against the plans for the US - led invasion of Iraq in the largest protest for peace in world history. And the movement has not gone away. Once one has felt the compelling energies of an interconnected world’ and the passion and power of the people with hearts and strategies joined across this planet there is no turning back. We are reaching a critical mass informed by a global consciousness and consensus against a “Culture of War” while moving slowly but inexorably towards a ‘Culture of Peace!” -- Janet M Eaton

How to get involved ! Educate yourself on the policy context, issues and debate Join an NGO / visit NGO websites [see next slide for list] Listen to, watch and write to Radio and TV news programs and CPAC for House of Commons debates etc. Sign petitions – online or in hand Write your MP and PM cc NGOs, opposition leaders Write letters to the Editor of all the newspapers Organize a meeting in your community about BMD & ‘Deep Integration” using educational resources to create awareness and stimulate discussion. (Use this power point, films such as Star Wars Dreams and background paper on ‘deep integration’) Take part in Peace vigils and anti-war marches- particularly March 20th Global Day of Action !!

How to get involved ! NGO’s to join or seek information from
Canadian Peace Alliance Halifax Peace Coalition – Activism & Events - see BMD Reader Ceasfire.ca – online letter to PM KAIROS Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiative. Campaign for a Just Peace Project Ploughshares –Canada and BMD –Comprehensive online resources Polaris Institute – Corporate Security State Canadian Voice of Women for Peace Nova Scotia – BMD Brochure People Against Weapons in Space (PAWS) Building a Culture of Peace Kit from the Canadian Commission for UNESCO prepared for the Year " International Year of a Culture of Peace. " Council of Canadians – The Kind of Canada we Want - Alternatives to Deep Integration

How to get involved ! Writing letters –Addresses
* Right Hon. Paul Martin Prime Minister of Canada , Fax (613) * Hon. Bill Graham, Minister of Foreign Affairs , Fax (613) * Dept. Foreign Affairs and International Trade * Hon David Pratt, Minister of Defence 1- (613) , Fax (613) * Your MP _____________________________________ House of Commons Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A6 No postage required - and local Peace NGO _______________________________________ Letters to the Media: Globe and Mail - CBC - / / CTV News

Researched and Prepared by
Janet M Eaton, PhD, Researcher, Academic and Global Democracy & Peace Movement activist 133 Main St., Wolfville, N.S. Ph 902) k.sympatico.ca

The End

Alternatives ? 5. Find ways to Control the Corporation
The challenge for now is to find ways to control the corporation – to subject it to democratic constraints and protect citizens from its dangerous tendencies – Improving the legitimacy, effectiveness and accountability of governmental regulation is currently the best, or at least most realistic , strategy for doing this. _______________________________________________ Joel Bakan The Corporation. The Pathological Pursuit of Profits and Power. New York: Free Press

Alternatives ? 9. We can afford the Canada we Want – and must demand it There is simply no debate about our capacity to create the kind of country we want. Canada’s GDP per capita has been steadily increasing for 30 years. If we don’t have free university tuition, universal child care, pharmacare, and vibrant cities, it is because the money has been given away , bit by bit, to a small minority of Canadians over the past twenty years. The last installment of which was the recent 100 billion tax cut – a staggering amount of money which could have changed the face of the country for the better. It isn’t a question of having enough money – it’s a question of who decides how we divide it up between Bay Street and Main Street. _______________________________________________________ Murray Dobbin Paul Martin: CEO for Canada? Toronto: James Lorimer & Co. p.178

Why Say NO to BMD ? Economically wasteful FISCAL 2004 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET RELEASE Missile Defense. $7.7 billion for the Missile Defense Agency HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FY'05 BUDGET REQUEST - -- $9.1 billion for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), up from the current $7.6 billion. _________________________________________________ Highlights of the FY'05 Budget Request - The Council for a Livable World Website

“Corporate Deep Integration Agenda Violates Canadian Values “
Why Say NO to BMD ? “Corporate Deep Integration Agenda Violates Canadian Values “ Ted Schmidt, Editor of the Catholic New Times recently alluded to Paul Martin’s agenda asking if Paul Martin was out of step with Canadian values? – His conclusion – Martin seems to have repudiated the Liberal Red Book of 1993, and moved instead to embrace the Washington Consensus, a program marked by privatization, deregulation, smaller government and unfettered free trade. Canadians wanting an activist government which favours the common good must pay attention to our prime minister's deeds, rather than his language. Progressive Canadians, seeking a just society and an independent place for Canada in the world, must catch and keep Paul Martin's ear. [1] _______________________________________________________ Paul Martin: out-of-step with Canadian values Watch what we do, not what we say. by Ted Schmidt March 2,

Questions around ‘offensive’ intent of BMD
Why Say NO to BMD ? Questions around ‘offensive’ intent of BMD The Canadian Government claims that BMD is a defensive system Sir Joseph Rotblat, speaking about National Missile Defence and a range of other policies, said these policies seem to have two aims: one, a defensive strategy to make the USA invulnerable to an attack from outside; the second, an offensive strategy, to threaten an unfriendly regime with military action, including the use of nuclear weapons, if it attempts to acquire WMDs for itself. ____________________________________________________________ [1] Sir Joseph Rotblat The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash & the Bush Policies [Halifax July 18, Pugwash Conf]

Questions about threat of BMD
Why Say NO to BMD ? Questions about threat of BMD Professor Stephen Clarkson, University of Toronto Political Economist speaking in Ottawa on February 10th 2004 said of the perceived threat of Ballistic Missiles: “I don’t think the Cold War Paradigm is entirely appropriate now because then there was a clear consensus that there was a military threat from the Soviet Union . Now the threat has been constructed by the Pentagon to be military when its actually a terrorist threat and to claim there are rogue states threatening us with intercontinental ballistic missiles is really to exaggerate enormously, and American intelligence is extremely unreliable so I think we need to be very careful of accepting the American’s definition of what the strategic issues are.” ______________________________________________________________ Stephen Clarkson. Panel presentation. Conference on Managing American Canadian Relations, Carleton University, Ottawa . February 10, 2004

Alternatives ? 7. Adopt Political –economic alternatives: Recognize the end of Economic Globalization is nigh and globalism is collapsing There are many signs that Economic Globalization and its so-called “iron fist” militarism are not working – the collapse of trade talks in Seattle, and later in Cancun, global disease, global poverty, massive violations of human rights, failures of democracy, increase in civil wars, growth in refugees from war, big dams, global economic polices; environmental catastrophes, global warming; and the increase of terrorism in response to imperialistic foreign and trade policies. Other signs are the rise of nation-state populism which seeks to address the public good as seen in Brazil and other South American countries.

Why Say NO to BMD ? d. Jeopardizes Canada’s Sovereignty
“Above all the strength of Canada has always been based on our capacity to build bridges with the world and building a wall around North America by joining this plan will reduce our opportunity to build bridges with the world. …. There are no shields strong enough to fight hate – what fights hate is the capacity to walk in the shoes others, the capacity of knowing oneself and seeing oneself reflected in the others diversity which is exactly contrary to the War on hate. …... Canada must have a sovereign voice against this war-like policy put forward by Mr Bush.” -- Sheila Copps, MP. Parliamentary Debate on BMD _____________________________________________________ Sheila Copps. Parliamentary Debate on Ballistic Missile Defence Feb 18th, 2004

Violates Canadian Values & International Law
Why Say NO to BMD ? Violates Canadian Values & International Law The missile defence system debate is a potent symbol of competing world views: one based on traditional Canadian values of peace and multilateralism, the other rooted in a Fortress North America hiding behind an American shield. [1] Canada's foreign policies should never be driven by business interests; they should instead be an expression of Canadians' values by promoting diplomacy and disarmament. [2] ________________________________________________________________________ [1] Missile blowback: Poll-reading Grits put brakes on missile pact with U.S. but for how long? [2] CBC Commentary –Steven Staples, Polaris Institute

“Above all the strength of Canada has always been based on our capacity to build bridges with the world and building a wall around North America by joining this plan will reduce our opportunity to build bridges with the world. …. There are no shields strong enough to fight hate – what fights hate is the capacity to walk in the shoes others, the capacity of knowing oneself and seeing oneself reflected in the others diversity which is exactly contrary to the War on hate. …... Canada must have a sovereign voice against this war-like policy put forward by Mr Bush.” -- Sheila Copps, MP _____________________________________________________ Parliamentary Debate on Ballistic Missile Defence Feb 18th, 2004

Say NO to Ballistic Missile Defence

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Say NO to Ballistic Missile Defence"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Say NO to Ballistic Missile Defence

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Say NO to Ballistic Missile Defence"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback