Better late than never, time to commit to missile defence

OTTAWA—Trivia Question: What is the connection between Ogdensburg, New York and continental missile defence? Answer: At Ogdensburg in August 1940, Canadian prime minister Mackenzie King and U.S. president Franklin Roosevelt met to sign the Ogdensburg Agreement which laid the foundation for the future continental defence of Canada and the United States. The agreement established a framework for Canada-U.S. defence cooperation during the Second World War and created the Permanent Joint Board on Defence which continues to this day. The origins of the agreement can be traced to Queen's University in Kingston where Roosevelt received an honorary doctorate in 1938. Roosevelt made the following commitment: “I give to you assurance that the people of the United States will not stand idly by if domination of Canadian soil is threatened by any other Empire.” Mackenzie King replied that: “We too have obligations as a good and friendly neighbour … enemy forces should not be able to pursue their way either by land, sea or air to the United States across Canadian territory.” Flash forward 64 years, as minister of national defence in the first Paul Martin government, I signed a letter addressed to U.S. secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld in January 2004 with the objective of potentially including Canada as a participant in the U.S. missile defence program. At the time, the threat of a missile attack on Canada was low. The system was largely focused on future threats. However, it was clear that missile technology was spreading to places like North Korea, Iran, and China and that the capabilities in range and accuracy were steadily improving. I subsequently lost the June 2004 election, and the Martin government went from a majority to a minority. Ballistic missile defence (BMD), as it was then known, soon hit the rocks with the NDP holding the balance of power and many Liberals jittery about the government being seen to be too close to U.S. president George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld— neither of whom were popular in this country. The ostensible policy reasons for rejecting BMD in Canada, most of which came from the NDP, have not stood the test of time. They said it would not work (it does—it has been tested and proven), that it would be “frighteningly expensive” (it isn’t compared to other defence acquisitions) and that it would destabilize the international situation and weaponize space (it hasn’t). In 2005, the Liberal government told the Americans: “Thanks, but no thanks." In so doing, we ignored the historic pledge Mackenzie King made on mutual defence, decades of defence cooperation through the DEW line, NORAD, and NATO and hundreds of separate Canada-U.S. defence cooperation agreements. The Harper government dodged the issue for years and took no action. Flash forward 17 years: Defence Minister Anita Anand has said that the government is prepared to revisit our participation in missile defence in the context of NORAD renewal and continental defence. I fervently hopes she succeeds where Bill Graham and I failed. What does signing on to missile defence mean for Canada today? First and foremost, we have an opportunity to regain an important aspect of lost sovereignty. The Canadian Forces are currently not in the loop on decisions that could be taken by the Americans to defend the continent. Our lack of participation eventually forced the U.S. to declare it will not defend large parts of Canada beyond a thin 100- to 200-kilometre strip along the border. The missile threats that the Americans were concerned about in 2004 have turned out to be very real. The missiles landing in Ukraine are a case in point. Now, however, it is not only ballistic missiles we need to be concerned about. We can add air and submarine launched cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles, and hypersonic glide vehicles. Our opting out of missile defence also created problems for the Americans because of a seam in the command structure. The Integrated Warning and Attack Assessment function under NORAD is separate from the operational employment of interceptor missiles—which is not ideal from a response standpoint. We should be full partners in every aspect of our own defence. The incongruity of Canada’s position is laid bare when we look at our NATO allies who share our concerns regarding missile proliferation and the weaponization of space, but who have all signed on to BMD. Paradoxically, Canada has agreed to BMD in the context of deployed NATO forces but not in defence of Canada. It is time to end this policy dysfunction and renew the cooperative spirit fostered at Ogdensburg 82 years ago—better late than never. Full disclosure: Through his firm, David Pratt & Associates, Mr. Pratt, who was a defence minister under prime minister Paul Martin, is a consultant for Raytheon Canada and other defence sector clients. However, as the public record indicates, he has held the same views on missile defence for well over 20 years. The Hill Times