Home > Linda McQuaig says standing up to U.S. will gain us respect abroad

Linda McQuaig says standing up to U.S. will gain us respect abroad

by Open-Publishing - Monday 28 February 2005
4 comments

Wars and conflicts USA Canada-Québec

It’s now clear how the Bush administration sees things: Canadian sovereignty exists only at its pleasure. If we do what Washington wants, we retain our sovereignty. If we don’t, all bets are off.

This is what U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci clarified last week in his angered response to Paul Martin’s announcement that Canada won’t join the U.S. missile defence scheme. Cellucci noted that Washington would simply deploy its anti-missile system over Canadian airspace anyway, and expressed puzzlement over Canada’s decision to "in effect, give up its sovereignty."

No doubt the Soviets felt similar puzzlement as they rolled into Czechoslovakia in 1968. What’s with these crazy Czechs? Don’t they get it? All they have to do is co-operate with Moscow and they can retain their "sovereignty."

Canadian advocates of missile defence have long argued that joining the scheme is the best way to protect our sovereignty - the logic apparently being that Washington is going to intrude into our airspace anyway, so it’s better if we look like that’s what we wanted all along. It’s only rape if you resist.

Fortunately the Martin government, under enormous pressure from the public, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, ignored this convoluted logic. After months of dithering on the issue, Ottawa showed surprising spunk last week in standing up to the American empire - a spunkiness that will only improve our standing in a world increasingly alarmed by U.S. unilateralism.

Accommodating Washington would have made sense if Washington were addressing real security needs. But this isn’t about defending America; intercontinental missiles are the least likely means of attack that a "rogue" nation would resort to.

This is about Washington reviving and gaining the upper hand in the arms race, presumably to position itself well for what it sees as its eventual superpower showdown with China.

Washington sees gaining control of space as key to maintaining global military dominance, and missile defence is part of the strategy.

The U.S. plans to eventually have missile defence systems based in space (as well as on land, air and sea). This is part of America achieving "space superiority," a goal unabashedly described in the 2004 U.S. Air Force document Counterspace Operations, which argues the U.S. must have "space control" and be able to "deny an adversary freedom of action in space."

The prospect of the arms race moving into space may thrill Washington strategic planners, but it’s long been dreaded by most of the world. In 1967, ninety-seven nations signed the Outer Space Treaty banning weapons from space.

Since then, there’s been pressure for a tougher ban. In fact, Canada has played a key role pushing for that tougher line at disarmament talks in Geneva. Virtually all nations now support a proposed new ban.

But the U.S. does not. Instead it wants to take control of space to achieve lasting military dominance. And it wanted Canada - and our good name as a strong arms control proponent - to be linked to the missile defence scheme, softening its aggressive image.

So Canada’s gutsy refusal to go along was the right move - and one that, incidentally, will win us higher standing in the world.

Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator.

SIGN OUR U.N. PETITION TO BAN WEAPONS AND WARFARE IN SPACE

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/832338563

Campaign for Cooperation in Space

http://www.peaceinspace.org

Forum posts

  • respect from who? or is it whom? Is not Mr. Cellucci allowed free speach in your paradise?

    • Oh yes, Cellucci loves free speech, most neo-con fascist pigs do, they just forget the official story sometimes...oops:

      Cellucci Slips Up: Flight 93 "Shot Down"


      Canada.com
      Boucher noted Canada and the U.S. amended an agreement last August to allow Norad to track any incoming rogue missiles.

      Washington had hoped Canada would would go further and participate in building the continental defence shield, an elaborate system that some worry could lead to weapons in space and an international arms race.

      Cellucci compared the situation to one that occurred during the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. He noted that it was a Canadian general at Norad who scrambled military jets under orders from Bush to shoot down a hijacked commercial aircraft headed for Washington.

      Had that plane been flying over Canada, it would have fallen to the prime minister to make the decision to shoot it down, Cellucci said.

      That’s why Americans were "perplexed" as to why Canadians would want to leave it up to the Americans to decide what action to take in the event a missile was aimed at Canada.

      The rest of the story:

      Flight 93 timeline:

      10:06 a.m. Flight 93 crashes just north of the Somerset County Airport, about 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, 124 miles or 15 minutes from Washington DC. [10:00, MSNBC, 9/22/01, 10:03, NORAD, 9/18/01, 10:06, Guardian, 10/17/01, 10:06, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/01, 10:06, MSNBC, 9/3/02, 10:06, Mirror, 9/13/02, 10:06, USA Today, 8/13/02, 10:07, AP, 8/19/02, 10:10, CNN, 9/12/01, 10:10, Washington Post, 9/12/01, 10:10, New York Times, 9/12/01, 10:10, Boston Globe, 11/23/01, 10:06:05, US Army authorized seismic study] Little information about the crash has been made public.

      flight93crater.jpg
      The Flight 93 crater. Notice the destruction of the airplane is nearly total. [Reuters]

      (Before and After 10:06 a.m.) "At least half a dozen named individuals ... have reported seeing a second plane flying low and in erratic patterns, not much above treetop level, over the crash site within minutes of the United flight crashing. They describe the plane as a small, white jet with rear engines and no discernible markings." [Independent, 8/13/02]
      1) Lee Purbaugh: "I didn’t get a good look but it was white and it circled the area about twice and then it flew off over the horizon." [Mirror, 9/13/02]
      2) Susan Mcelwain: Less than a minute before the Flight 93 crash rocked the countryside, she sees a small white jet with rear engines and no discernible markings swoop low over her minivan near an intersection and disappear over a hilltop, nearly clipping the tops of trees lining the ridge. [Bergen Record, 9/14/01] She later adds, "There’s no way I imagined this plane - it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look. It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side. I haven’t found one like it on the internet. It definitely wasn’t one of those executive jets. The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around.... But I saw it and it was there before the crash and it was 40 feet above my head. They did not want my story - nobody here did." [Mirror, 9/13/02]
      3 and 4) Dennis Decker and Rick Chaney, Decker speaking: "As soon as we looked up [after hearing the Flight 93 crash], we saw a midsized jet flying low and fast. It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out." Decker and Chaney described the plane as a Learjet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white with no identifying markings. "It was a jet plane, and it had to be flying real close when that 757 went down. If I was the FBI, I’d find out who was driving that plane." [Bergen Record, 9/14/01]
      5) Jim Brandt sees a small plane with no markings stay about one or two minutes over the crash site before leaving. [Pittsburgh Channel, 9/12/01]
      6) Tom Spinelli: "I saw the white plane. It was flying around all over the place like it was looking for something. I saw it before and after the crash." [Mirror, 9/13/02]
      The FBI later says this was a Fairchild Falcon 20 business jet, directed after the crash to fly from 37,000 feet to 5,000 feet and obtain the coordinates for the crash site to help rescuers. [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/16/01, Pittsburgh Channel, 9/15/01] Was the unmarked jet some kind of reconnaissance plane?       The FBI also says there was a C-130 military cargo aircraft flying at 24,000 feet about 17 miles away, but that plane wasn’t armed and had no role in the crash. [Pittsburgh Channel, 9/15/01, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/16/01] Note that this is the same C-130 that flies very close to Flight 77 right as that planes crashes into the Pentagon (see 9:38 a.m.).

      (After 10:06 a.m.) Just after Flight 93 crashes, "Up above, a fighter jet streak[s] by." [ABC, 9/15/02]

      (After 10:06 a.m.) At some point after Flight 93 crashes, NORAD diverts "unarmed Michigan Air National Guard fighter jets that happened to be flying a training mission in northern Michigan since the time of the first attack." [AP, 8/30/02] Why weren’t they diverted an hour or more earlier?

      (10:08 a.m.) Bush is told of the crash of Flight 93 a few minutes later. Because of Cheney’s earlier order, he asks, "Did we shoot it down or did it crash?" Several hours later, he is assured it crashed. [Washington Post, 1/27/02]

  • Here again: the U.S. do whatever the want to the rest of the world. It is time to choose between
    freedom and democracy or Lex Americana.

    • Would Canada be interested in annexing New York State? And how about Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine? We’re border states, "blue" states and secession is beginning to look like a viable option.