----- Original Message ----- From: "Muriel M. Davidson" <[email protected]> To: "Muriel M. Davidson" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 4:59 PM Subject: Re: Defence Policy: Hill Times Article > > Many thanks for the Defence article, Bill!! > It is well-written and one I missed in the Hill Times. > > Many thanks for sending it -- I have forwarded it on > to others. > Muriel M. Davidson > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bill Blaikie > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 1:48 PM > Subject: Defence Policy: Hill Times Article > > > Defence Policy > Blaikie, MP NDP Defence Critic > > > > Ten years ago, the government of Canada released its most recent White Paper > on defence, a white paper that in no way, if it ever did, accurately > reflects the state of the world and the proper role of Canada within it. At > the very least, the peace dividend that many expected with the end of the > Cold War proved illusory, and we live in a world considerably more dangerous > than that of 1994. > In the 1990's it was all too conventional to envision a world in which > Canadian peacekeepers would raise the Canadian flag throughout the world as > part of UN peacekeeping missions, enforcing the peace after it had been > negotiated. The Canadian Navy would retain a role as a key component of NATO > 's presence in the Atlantic Ocean, as well as providing support for peace > keeping operations. The Canadian Air Force would remain an important part of > NORAD and a support to UN sanctioned missions throughout the world. > The nuclear threat was still being dealt with through the preventive but > dangerous paradigm of mutually assured destruction, albeit several steps > further away from the nuclear abyss than had been the case during the Cold > War. > The first Gulf War at the beginning of the 90s, and the out of area NATO > intervention in Kosovo near the end of the decade were certainly harbingers > of a changing world order and the need for a new look at Canadian defence > and foreign policy, as were, less obviously at the time, the genocide in > Rwanda and the demonstrated need for combat capable peacemakers in places > like the Medak Pocket in the Balkans. > The 21st Century promises plenty to worry about. Terrorism, failed states, > pre-emptive war doctrines, the upcoming weaponization of space (NMD), > polarization between rich and poor, environmental degradation, and the > possibility that nuclear weapons could find their way into the hands of > non-state actors, are factors that have to be addressed. And all in the > geo-political context of a United States which is both uncontested > superpower and Canada's anxious neighbour. > This is no small challenge for Canada in its relationship to the world and > the US as we try to be our multi-lateral UN friendly selves in a bilateral > relationship with the unilaterally inclined, and in a UN badly in need of > reform and renewed moral and political legitimacy. Ad hoc responses, even > good ones like the decision to stay out of Iraq, are not enough. > During the election, the Liberal party made numerous promises about a new > White Paper. Though this was supposed to be a full and complete review of > Canada's defence priorities, it seems now that the International Policy > Review will have been a much more internal exercise with a minimum of public > consultation and very little new thinking. The NDP urges the creation of a > new White Paper, or perhaps even a Green Paper in which various options are > set out without recommendation. But if the IPR is all there is to be, then > we will insist on adequate time for public feedback. > On the table immediately is the decision about the US request for Canadian > participation in NMD. The Liberals appear to have made up their minds about > this, in opposition to Canadian public opinion on the substance of the issue > itself, and in contempt of their minority status in Parliament, given the > unanimous position of all of the opposition parties that any decision on > this issue should be taken by Parliament. The Liberal reluctance to involve > Parliament in a meaningful and decisive way shows an unhealthy attachment to > a particularly Canadian habit, uncharacteristic of most other Western > democracies, of confining decisions on major issues like NMD, or treaties, > or troop deployment to the executive power of cabinet. > Unfortunately, and tragically, the debate in the near future about defence > policy will no doubt have to be focused to some degree on what happened to > the HMCS Chicoutimi, and all the questions, new and old, that need to be > asked about the submarine purchase, and the overall Liberal record on > defence spending and procurement. It's a record marked by delay, by > politics, by unwise cutbacks, and by a general Liberal indifference to all > things military. > The failure to replace the Sea King helicopters in a timely way stands out > as the worst example of Liberal policy, but there are others. Jobs have been > privatized or contracted out on bases, while the DND bureaucracy shows no > sign of shrinking. All parties have been in agreement for years on the need > for a larger reserve army, but the Liberals have taken their sweet time in > expanding the Militia. Meanwhile rifle ranges in armouries have had to shut > down for lack of appropriate modernization, and even shortages of ammunition > for target practice. > One thing is clear. Whatever role one envisions for the Canadian Forces, > either as interoperable arm of the US military or as meaningful resource to > the UN that doesn't have to depend on others to get where they are needed, > or somewhere in between, it will be expensive if our military personnel are > going to be able to do the job properly. The sooner we have a real debate, > decide what we want them to do, and fund them to do it, the better. > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list visit this link > To update your preferences visit this link >