Transcript Say NO to Ballistic Missile Defence An Educational Resource for Concerned Canadians Researched & Prepared by Janet M Eaton, PhD, [email protected].

Say NO to Ballistic Missile Defence
An Educational Resource
for Concerned Canadians
Researched & Prepared
by Janet M Eaton, PhD,
[email protected]
Say NO to Ballistic Missile Defence
Outline
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What is missile defence ?
What is the Canadian Government position?
Why say NO !!
What are some alternatives?
Why get involved? and how !
Say NO to Ballistic Missile Defence
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
http://www.wagingpeace.org/.
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
http://www.filmakers.com/indivs/StarWarsDreams.htm
Missile Defence – A Chronology
1943 - 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
1949 - Soviet Union gets the bomb and missile defense intensifies
and nuclear standoff between superpowers defines rest of century
1957 - Sputnik launch fuels US fears of missile attack from space;
and for first time a missile shield declared a national priority.
1958 - President Eisenhower announces missile defence undergoing
intense R&D with Department of Defence
1960 - US first attempt to build Missile Defence – The Nike Zeus
Missile Defence – A Chronology
1968 - 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
1969 - first round of Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT)
1971 - SALT talks lead to Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty
limiting Russia and US to 2 missile defence sites with limit
of 100 interceptors
1976 - early 80’s – principle objective of the Army’s Missile
Defence Program was to develop interceptors without nuclear
warheads
1984 - Army demonstrated non-nuclear defensive missile which
destroyed by physically colliding.
Missile Defence – A Chronology
1983 - 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
1993- 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.
2002 - 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 http://www. Acq.osd.mil/bmdolink/html/briefhis.html
* Star Wars Dreams Film by Leslie Woodhead. Filmakers Library. Phone 212-808-4980
e-mail: [email protected]
Twenty Years of "Star Wars:" Big Budgets But Little Progress . Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=1140
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 usthat’s always been the debate.” -- Joe Circincione, Carnegie Peace
Foundation
__________________________________________________________
Joe Circincione as quoted in Star War Dreams. 2003. 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
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=1140
2 Star Wars: Influence of motion picture on Reagan’s SDI History Today, March 1999 by Peter Kramer
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls.ml1373/3_49/54175536/p2/article
Missile Defence - By any Other Name !
• 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. 2002. The New Nuclear Danger –George W
Bush’s Military –Industrial Complex. New York: The New Press
Missile Defence - By any Other Name !
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. http://www.acp-cpa.ca/NMDFAQ.htm
[2] Missile Defense Agency Glossary http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/pdf/glossary.pdf
Missile Defence - By any Other Name !
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 2020. [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 http:www.nsvow.chebucto.org
[2] Missile Defense Agency Glossary http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/pdf/glossary.pdf
[3] Reference: BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/696028.stm
Missile Defence - By any Other Name !
BMD –Ballistic Missile Defence
• In December 2002, President Bush announced that the U.S. would
deploy a missile defence system by the fall of 2004. 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 1999. [2]
__________________________________________________________
[1] Canadian Peace Alliance - http://www.acp-cpa.ca/NMDFAQ.htm
[2] Korea : The Next Iraq by Mary-Anne Ashford, John Price, Sung Suh
http://www.flora.org/mai/forum/47044
Missile Defence – How it works !
•
!
Reference: BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/696028.stm
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.
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/department/focus/bmd-en.asp
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–04.001 - January 15,
2004 http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1289
[2] CBC The National Town Hall Meeting Conference Centre Ottawa
[3] Ibid http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/department/focus/bmd-en.asp
What is the Position of the Cdn Govt?
• 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
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgiin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.3070478.1076275195&prod=830&modele=jdc_1
What is the Position of the Cdn Govt?
• 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 cooperation 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, 01-15-2004
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Focus/Canada-us/letter_e.asp
What is the Position of the Cdn Govt?
• 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, 01-15-2004
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Focus/Canada-us/letter_e.asp
What is the Position of the Cdn Govt?
• 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 26-27 2003
3. Why Say NO to BMD ?
•
•
•
•
Technological & Scientific reasons
Economic reasons
Political reasons
Environmental reasons
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
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
http://hfxpeace.chebucto.org/bmdreader.htmlWhat’s 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 2000- March 2003
___________________________________________________________________________
http://hfxpeace.chebucto.org/bmdreader.html
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
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47993-2004Mar10.html
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
http://www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/ABOLISH%20NUCS/BMD%20Page/BMD.update.htm
[2] Star Wars Dreams [ Ibid ]
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
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/apnotes.htm
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”.
Why Say NO to BMD ?
3. Political Reasons
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Fails to protect Canadians and promotes global insecurity
Contrary to Canadian Policy Values & International Law
Will lead to weaponization of space
Jeopardizes Canada’s sovereignty
Reflects corporate influence
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”
http://www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/ABOLISH%20NUCS/BMLiupressrelease.pdf
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”
http://www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/ABOLISH%20NUCS/BMLiupressrelease.pdf
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 http://www.acp-cpa.ca/CPAmainEnglish.htm
[2] B.M.D. A destabilizing force while benefiting Canadian defence industry for immediate release
Physicians for Global Survival. January 19, 2004 http://www.pgs.ca/
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
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/02/19/353516-ap.html
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
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=5142
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 2004 8:08:44
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/03/14/canada/martin_security040314
[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
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040315/SPAINV15/TPInternational/TopStorie
s
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 http://www.nowis.org/
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
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] http://www.flora.org/mai/forum/43948
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 1967 (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
http://csmonitor.com/2004/0317/p04s01-usfp.html
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
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040319/C
OHEIN19/TPComment/TopStories
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
http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/corp_security_state/Opinions_interviews/january_9_2004.htm
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
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usspac/visbook.pdf
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 2012. 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
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2004/0202missdefense.htm
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
http://www.flora.org/mai/forum/47044
[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 . 2003. Navigating a New World :Canada’s Global Future.
Toronto : Alfred a Knopf
Why Say NO to BMD ?
e. Corporate Influence
.. 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
http://www.cbc.ca/insite/COMMENTARY/2003/5/30.html
[2] Steven Staples Ottawa the Hill Times, Jan 12, 2004
•http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/corp_security_state/publications_articles/january_8_2004.
html
Why Say NO to BMD ?
e. Corporate Influence
• 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. 2003. Paul Martin CEO for Canada ? Toronto: James Lorimer & Co. Ltd.
Why Say NO to BMD ?
e. Corporate Influence
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.
http://www.canadians.org/browse_categories.htm?COC_token=23@@6789632f146363c75a4e07275a1
15b2d&step=2&catid=319&iscat=1
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. 2004. Fire and Ice. :The United States, Canada and the Myth of Converging Values
Toronto: Penguin Canada
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”
http://www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/ABOLISH%20NUCS/BMLiupressrelease.pdf
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.
http://www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/BRIEFINGS/brf044.pdf
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. 2001. Planet Earth : The Latest Weapon of War. Montreal, New York, London: Black
Rose Books
[2] Douglas Roche . 2003. The Human right to Peace. Toronto : Novalis
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 lowearth 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. 2001. 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
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
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 . 2003. 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. 2003. Paul Martin: CEO for Canada? Toronto: James Lorimer & Co. p.176
Alternatives ?
2. Retain our sovereign voice and unique identity
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 . 2003. 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. 219-220
_______________________________________________________
Rosalie Bertell. 2001. 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] http://www.flora.org/mai/forum/43948
Alternatives ?
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
http://www.david-kilgour.com/mp/model%20un%20u%20of%20a.htm
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 . 2003. 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 2004. http://www.candians.org
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?
http://www.canadians.org/browse_categories.htm?COC_token=23@@43a0b424383da9d066a798893a
285f5f&step=2&catid=319&iscat=1
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.
http://afr.com/articles/2004/02/19/1077072774981.html
Alternatives ?
6. Adopt Political –economic alternatives:
•
Improve the regulatory system
•
Strengthen Political Democracy
•
Create a Robust Public Sphere
•
Challenge international Neoliberalism
______________________________________________
Joel Bakan. 2004. 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?
http://www.canadians.org
Alternatives ? Adopt a Culture of Peace!
Culture of War
•
•
•
•
•
Images of the enemy
Armaments & armies
Authoritarian governance
Secrecy & propaganda
Violencestructural/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 . 2003. 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 2000 - " International Year of a Culture of Peace. "
http://www.unesco.ca/english/CultureofPeace/e-kit.htm
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 !
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
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
http://www.acp-cpa.ca/
Halifax Peace Coalition – Activism & Events - see BMD Reader
http://hfxpeace.chebucto.org/bmdreader.html
Ceasfire.ca – online letter to PM
http://www.ceasefire.ca/
KAIROS Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiative. Campaign for a Just Peace
http://www.kairoscanada.org/e/action/campaign.asp
Project Ploughshares –Canada and BMD –Comprehensive online resources
http://www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/ABOLISH%20NUCS/BMD%20Page/BM.update.htm
Polaris Institute – Corporate Security State
http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/corp_security_state/corp_security_state_index.htm
Canadian Voice of Women for Peace Nova Scotia – BMD Brochure
http:www.nsvow.chebucto.org
People Against Weapons in Space (PAWS)
http://www.nowis.org/action
Building a Culture of Peace Kit from the Canadian Commission for UNESCO prepared for the Year 2000 - " International
Year of a Culture of Peace. " http://www.unesco.ca/english/CultureofPeace/e-kit.htm
Council of Canadians – The Kind of Canada we Want http://www.canadians.org
Alternatives to Deep Integration
How to get involved !
Writing letters –Addresses
* Right Hon. Paul Martin Prime Minister of Canada
1-613-992-4211, Fax (613) 941-6900 [email protected]
* Hon. Bill Graham, Minister of Foreign Affairs
1-613-992-5234, Fax (613) 996-9607 [email protected]
* Dept. Foreign Affairs and International Trade 1-800-267-8376
* Hon David Pratt, Minister of Defence [email protected]
1- (613) 992-2772 , Fax (613) 992-1209
* Your MP http://canada.gc.ca/directories/direct_e.html
_____________________________________
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A6
No postage required - and local Peace NGO
_______________________________________
Letters to the Media:
Globe and Mail - [email protected]
CBC - [email protected] / [email protected] / [email protected]
CTV News [email protected]
How to get involved !
Writing letters –Addresses
* Right Hon. Paul Martin Prime Minister of Canada
1-613-992-4211, Fax (613) 941-6900 [email protected]
* Hon. Bill Graham, Minister of Foreign Affairs
1-613-992-5234, Fax (613) 996-9607 [email protected]
* Dept. Foreign Affairs and International Trade 1-800-267-8376
* Hon David Pratt, Minister of Defence [email protected]
1- (613) 992-2772 , Fax (613) 992-1209
* Your MP http://canada.gc.ca/directories/direct_e.html
_____________________________________
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A6
No postage required - and local Peace NGO
_______________________________________
Letters to the Media:
Globe and Mail - [email protected]
CBC - [email protected] / [email protected] / [email protected]
CTV News [email protected]
Researched and Prepared by
Janet M Eaton, PhD,
Researcher, Academic and Global Democracy & Peace
Movement activist
133 Main St., Wolfville, N.S.
Ph 902) 542- 1631
k.sympatico.ca
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/jmeaton/war/jeaton.htm
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. 2004. 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. 2003. 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.
_________________________________________________
FISCAL 2004 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET RELEASE
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/b02032003_bt044-03.html
Highlights of the FY'05 Budget Request - The Council for a Livable World Website
http://64.177.207.201/pages/8_490.html
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, 2004 http://www.rabble.ca/everyones_a_critic.shtml?x=30649
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] http://www.flora.org/mai/forum/43948
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 socalled “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 18 th, 2004
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?
http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/corp_security_state/publications_articles/january_22_2004.html
[2] CBC Commentary –Steven Staples, Polaris Institute
http://www.cbc.ca/insite/COMMENTARY/2003/5/30.html
Alternatives ?
2. Retain our sovereign voice and unique identity
“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 18 th, 2004