SUPPORT US

In The Media

Ballistic missile defence is good enough for Europe, but not for us?

by Frank Harvey

National Post
February 28, 2014

The Senate National Defence Committee is holding another round of hearings on Canadian participation in ballistic missile defence (BMD). It’s about time – Canada’s current position on BMD is, in a word, perplexing.

In November 2010, 28 NATO members met in Lisbon to sign NATO’s updated Strategic Concept, a document outlining the principles and commitments for collective defence. Included in the new Concept is a crystal clear obligation by all NATO members to: “Develop the capability to defend our populations and territories against ballistic missile attack as a core element of our collective defence, which contributes to the indivisible security of the Alliance. We will actively seek co-operation on missile defence with Russia and other Euro-Atlantic partners.” As U.S. President Barack Obama summarized after the meetings, “we’ve agreed to develop missile defence capability that is strong enough to cover all NATO European territory and populations, as well as the United States.”

As a NATO member, Canada now officially endorses the logic, strategic utility and security imperatives underpinning ballistic missile defence. In essence, the government has surreptitiously embraced the merits of BMD as part of Canada’s treaty obligations, so one would expect the debate in Ottawa to be over.

It isn’t.

The most perplexing aspect of Canada’s official endorsement of BMD is the ongoing refusal by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to engage in bilateral talks with Washington to discuss BMD architecture to protect Canadian territory and citizens. The only reasonable explanation for the government’s silence on continental BMD is an uncharacteristically strong preference for freeloading on American and European security measures and related expenditures. What other explanation is there?

Presumably, Canada’s signature on NATO’s Strategic Concept confirms Ottawa’s rejection of the views expressed by BMD critics. Consider the very sound reasons why these considerably outdated arguments should be dismissed. Critics were absolutely convinced, for example, that U.S. BMD would compel Russia to launch a new arms race. Instead, we’ve witnessed some of the most sweeping bilateral disarmament agreements in history. The most recent U.S.-Russia agreement was motivated by the expiry of START II Treaty in December 2010. The new deal cut the number of deployed strategic warheads from 2,200 to 1,550 – 74% lower than the 1991 START Treaty and 30% lower than the 2002 Moscow Treaty.

Critics also predicted massive increases in China’s nuclear program and defence expenditures, yet no such proliferation has occurred, for two reasons: China remains comfortably committed to a strategy of minimum deterrence, and its leaders understand that U.S. BMD is not designed to undermine the credibility of their deterrent threat. What we are witnessing instead is unprecedented co-operation between the U.S. and China, including tacit acceptance by Beijing of accelerated U.S. BMD deployments to Guam and South Korea in 2013, to address an increasingly antagonistic and nuclearized North Korea.

And critics continue to dismiss BMD technology as worthless, despite compelling evidence from testing records showing measurable progress over time. According to recent updates by the Congressionally monitored U.S. Missile Defence Agency (MDA), the sea-based Aegis BMD platform has accomplished 24 intercepts in 30 at-sea attempts since 2002. The Ground-Based (Midcourse) program produced 8 successes out of 15 attempts, and 3 of 5 successful intercepts using “operationally configured interceptors” since 1999. With respect to the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (to intercept missiles during the final stage of flight), the MDA reports 10 out of 10 interceptions since 2006.

Not a bad record for worthless technology.

The Canadian government should engage in high-level consultations with Washington on BMD architecture, precisely because they have already embraced the policy. Any reasonably balanced assessment of these facts would confirm that BMD critics have lost the debate, so why would the Canadian government support BMD through NATO to protect Europeans and Americans, yet continue to shy away from bilateral negotiations with the U.S. to protect Canadians? Hopefully the Senate National Defence Committee will provide answers to these puzzling questions.

Frank Harvey is a fellow of the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute and Professor of Political Science with Dalhousie University


Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTERS
 
UPCOMING EVENTS


No events are scheduled at this time.


SEARCH
EXPERTS IN THE MEDIA

Global Times: BRICS summit displays the potential of a new future

by Editorial Staff (feat. Swaran Singh), WSFA 12, June 24, 2022

Oil's Dive Won't Bring Any Immediate Relief on Inflation

by Alex Longley, Elizabeth low, and Barbara Powell (feat. Amrita Sen), BNNBloomberg, June 24, 2022

China To Tout Its Governance Model At BRICS Summit

by Liam Gibson (feat. Stephen Nagy), The Asean Post, June 23, 2022

Soutien aux victimes d’inconduites sexuelles dans l’armée

by Rude Dejardins (feat. Charlotte Duval-Lantoine), ICI Radio Canada, June 23, 2022

Defence: $4.9 billion for radars against Russian bombs

by Editorial Staff (feat. Rob Huebert), Archynews, June 23, 2022

The Hans Island “Peace” Agreement between Canada, Denmark, and Greenland

by Elin Hofverberg (feat. Natalie Loukavecha), Library of Congress, June 22, 2022

What the future holds for western Canadian oil producers

by Gabriel Friedman (feat. Kevin Birn), Beaumont News, June 22, 2022

At BRICS summit, China sets stage to tout its governance model

by Liam Gibson (feat. Stephen Nagy), Aljazeera, June 22, 2022

Crude oil price: there are no changes to the fundamentals

by Faith Maina (feat. Amrita Sen), Invezz, June 22, 2022

Few details as Liberals promise billions to upgrade North American defences

by Lee Berthiaume (feat. Andrea Charron), National Newswatch, June 20, 2022

Defence Minister Anita Anand to make announcement on continental defence

by Steven Chase (feat. Rob Huebert), The Globe and Mail, June 19, 2022

Table pancanadienne des politiques

by Alain Gravel (feat. Jean-Christophe Boucher), ICI Radio Canada, June 18, 2022

Russia Ukraine conflict

by Gloria Macarenko (feat. Colin Robertson), CBC Radio One, June 17, 2022

New privacy Bill to introduce rules for personal data, AI use

by Shaye Ganam (feat. Tom Keenan), 680 CHED, June 17, 2022


LATEST TWEETS

HEAD OFFICE
Canadian Global Affairs Institute
Suite 1800, 150–9th Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3H9

 

OTTAWA OFFICE
Canadian Global Affairs Institute
8 York Street, 2nd Floor
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 5S6

 

Phone: (613) 288-2529
Email: [email protected]
Web: cgai.ca

 

Making sense of our complex world.
Déchiffrer la complexité de notre monde.

 

© 2002-2022 Canadian Global Affairs Institute
Charitable Registration No. 87982 7913 RR0001

 


Sign in with Facebook | Sign in with Twitter | Sign in with Email