|
Canada says no to missile shield: Take that Neocons
|
View this Thread in Original format
| swilly |
PM to say no to U.S. missile shield
PM to say no to U.S. missile shield
Many Liberal MPs strongly oppose plan
Polls show two-thirds of public against participation
CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Paul Martin will deliver a firm `no' to Canadian participation in the U.S. missile-defence plan and break a lengthy silence that fomented confusion on both sides of the border.
The announcement, first reported by Radio-Canada, will come in the House of Commons and end a streak of obfuscation where Martin refused to state Canada's position.
The end of that silence - scheduled for Thursday - will also come as an about-face for a prime minister who had repeatedly stated his support for missile defence when he was a Liberal leadership candidate barely a year ago.
Martin had promised a new era of Canada-U.S. relations after bitter divisions over the war in Iraq. But American officials had warned it would be an inauspicious start to any new era if Canada refused to join a missile plan.
Opposition to the plan inside and outside the Liberal party made it impossible for Martin to move forward, said government officials.
The U.S. was informed of the Canada's plans at a NATO summit in Brussels, attended by Martin and President George W. Bush, and the news was also conveyed today through diplomats in Ottawa and Washington.
"(The Americans) were told we will not participate," a federal official, who asked to remain anonymous, told The Canadian Press.
"It is a firm `no.' I am not sure it is an indefinite `no.' "
The prime minister had repeatedly voiced support for missile defence when he was a Liberal leadership candidate, but began backing away during the federal election campaign last June.
Desperate to court left-leaning votes in English Canada from the NDP and in Quebec from the Bloc Quebecois, Martin suddenly said he would not condone the project if it meant the weaponization of space.
The political realities - especially the frailty of the Liberal party in Quebec - have not changed and Martin will complete his retreat on the issue this week.
When even the staunchly pro-U.S. and military-friendly Conservatives began waffling over missile defence a few months ago, the Liberal government was left isolated.
Fear of seeing his Liberals take a beating in an election over missile defence forced Martin to hit the pause button months ago. Current political events have now hastened his full-scale retreat.
With his minority Liberals braced for a potentially fatal confidence vote over the budget, and for a bruising battle over missile defence at a policy convention next month, Martin spent recent days preparing his reversal.
"The will to participate is no longer there," another government official said several days ago.
"I think the internal conflict - the dissension within the party - is now almost insurmountable. This is because of domestic considerations."
Liberal brass was prepared to "get destroyed over this" by the rank and file at the Liberals' biennial convention in Ottawa early next month, said the source.
Public opinion polls have suggested two-thirds of Canadians opposed missile defence. That opposition grew in the vacuum of any public support from the federal government.
Within Martin's cabinet, only Defence Minister Bill Graham and Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan lobbied in favour of the project. Leading opponents included Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew and Infrastructure Minister John Godfrey.
One official said the Martin government appeared on the verge of saying `Yes' last year.
"We were in," the official said, pointing to a letter last January from former defence minister David Pratt to U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
"This step will help to move forward discussions on possible Canadian participation in the missile defence of North America," Pratt said at the time.
Martin, for his part, favoured missile defence when he was seeking the Liberal leadership in 2003.
"I believe very strongly in Canada controlling its own future," he told The Canadian Press in an interview that April, when asked about the Bush project.
"Part of that is going to be stepping up to the mark in terms of defending our own homeland."
One Liberal who has advised Martin to go ahead with the plan said last week he couldn't understand why Canada would abstain.
The United States was building a defensive - not an offensive - military system, said Liberal Senator Colin Kenny.
Its interceptors were being stored in Alaska, California, and perhaps overseas - but not in Canada.
The program will cost billions of dollars and the U.S. hasn't requested any money, and the Americans were offering Canada a decision-making role in the system's deployment.
"They're not asking us for money, they're not asking us for land, but they're offering us a seat at the table," Kenny said in an interview.
"Since the Americans have been courteous enough, friendly enough, generous enough to offer this at no cost, I say, `My goodness, why wouldn't we?' "
What the Americans hoped for, in the words of one U.S. official, was "outright political support" from Canada as they urged other countries to join the plan.
Bush made a bold pitch for Canadian participation during his visit here late last year.
He already secured Canada's agreement to amend the cross-border NORAD program last summer and make it the monitoring agency for missile defence.
Even that limited Canadian participation had the country's new ambassador to the U.S. musing today that Canada's support was locked in.
The comments from Frank McKenna triggered an uproar and prompted an opposition pile-on during today's question period in the House of Commons.
"We're part of it now and the question is what more do we need?" McKenna said of Canada's role in missile defence.
The ensuing confusion may have finally driven Martin to clarify his stand.
It now gives way to other questions: What will NORAD's role be in a program that Canada formally repudiates?
And how much fence-mending will McKenna - and Martin - have to do with Washington?
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...tacodalogin=yes |
|
|
| malek |
| finally, no ing around with that issue anymore... |
|
|
| girllovingtvibe |
| agreed - what a waste of time! |
|
|
| crazedcanuck |
I was against the plan, since it seemed like a huge waste of money, and a useless enterprise.
But if the only thing we lost was a little rented space, and gained an improved relationship with the US, then the benefits certainly outweigh the costs. (all financially taken by the US)
Yet another Liberal grandstanding blunder. Do you really think all the trade issues between Canada and the US have anything to do with mad Cow or softwood lumber? It has to do with the US returning the finger gesture the Liberals have been pointing south all these years. |
|
|
| Crazy Serb |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
finally, no ing around with that issue anymore... |
and no giving in to bullying anymore :D |
|
|
| amb_ |
| quote: | Originally posted by crazedcanuck
It has to do with the US returning the finger gesture the Liberals have been pointing south all these years. |
Canada-US relations have always been tenuous at best, regardless of the party in power. |
|
|
| cap |
yay to Canada not conforming to big ing brother.
on the other hand, I hope there are no serious ramifications :eek: |
|
|
| DigiNut |
What a bunch of morons in the LPC. Waste of WHAT resources? We wouldn't have had to do a damn thing, just give them the thumbs up and get free protection.
But, oh, I forgot, nobody will ever try to do anything to Canada because we're a peace-loving people. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| crazedcanuck |
As much as we all may despise the current regime, how can you all ignore the economical ramifications of this refusal?
Your "yay the US" remarks might make you all feel warm, fuzzy, and important, but it's the wrong position. Please give me one valid reason/benefit of this refusal, other than OMGHI5.
This plan, as useless as it is, was going to follow the line/role of NORAD, and cost us no money. You can say with certainty that we would end up on the positive end of this financially, and more than likely that the trade issues they have been screwing us on would be sorted in our favour. |
|
|
| swilly |
| quote: | Originally posted by crazedcanuck
As much as we all may despise the current regime, how can you all ignore the economical ramifications of this refusal?
Your "yay the US" remarks might make you all feel warm, fuzzy, and important, but it's the wrong position. Please give me one valid reason/benefit of this refusal, other than OMGHI5.
This plan, as useless as it is, was going to follow the line/role of NORAD, and cost us no money. You can say with certainty that we would end up on the positive end of this financially, and more than likely that the trade issues they have been screwing us on would be sorted in our favour. |
where do you figures of costing us no money come from amigo? We would of had to contribute billions to the project if we were online. Think NORAD is free... think again!
Also the economic ramifications of this are nothing. Hell in the height of the Anti french movement during the Iraq war trade between the US and france actually increased. So.... one can guarantee this will have little consequence.
Thanks for coming out though |
|
|
|
|
