yasin_khan
New Member
Canada will amend its agreement with the U.S. governing the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) to allow that organization to provide missile warning information to the U.S. ballistic missile defense system.
Defense analysts are calling the move the first major step for Canada to eventually take a role in the missile shield.
But Defence Minister Bill Graham, who made the announcement Aug. 5 during a press conference televised from Ottawa, said that despite the amendment to the NORAD agreement, Canada has not made any final decision on whether to take part in the U.S. missile system. “This decision does not affect or in any way determine the ultimate decision as to whether Canada will participate in missile defense,” Graham said.
The amendment authorizes NORAD, based in Colorado Springs, Colo., to make its missile warning function available to the U.S. commands conducting ballistic missile defense.
Graham said Canada decided on the amendment because U.S. officials had indicated they were ready to build a new missile defense warning system if they could not have access to NORAD facilities. He said there was concern among Canadian officials that a new system would have “eventually rendered NORAD obsolete …
“What this does is preserve NORAD and give us the option to participate or not to participate [in missile defense],” Graham said. “If we didn’t do this today, we would have foreclosed our options.”
Graham gave no date by which Canada will decide whether it will participate in the ballistic missile defense system.
But analyst Steve Staples said the Canadian government is taking an incremental approach to including Canada in the missile shield. Graham is “caught in a contradiction,” said Staples, a defense analyst with the Ottawa-based Polaris Institute. “If Canada is providing missile warning information [through] NORAD, then that’s a missile defense function.”
David Rudd, executive director of the Toronto-based Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, said Graham’s announcement signals that Canada now has “one foot firmly on the missile defense playing field.”
Rudd said the missile warning function NORAD provides would be necessary for any missile defense system, but that Graham was attempting to downplay the announcement.
Canadian and U.S. government officials have been discussing Canada’s potential involvement in the missile shield for more than a year now.
On Jan. 15, the Canadian Defence Department announced that then-Defence Minister David Pratt had sent a letter to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld requesting that Canada be given approval to view technical data on the missile defense system so it could make a decision on whether to play a role. Pratt also recommended that that cooperation on missile defense should be through NORAD.
“It is our intent to negotiate in the coming months a Missile Defence Framework Memorandum of Understanding with the United States with the objective of including Canada as a participant in the current U.S. missile defense program and expanding and enhancing information exchange,” Pratt wrote in his letter.
Rumsfeld responded that Canada and the U.S. should expand their cooperation in the area of missile defense and agreed to hold discussions on the issue.
Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin has voiced his support for the U.S. system, but he has faced opposition from within his own ruling Liberal Party government on Canadian involvement in the shield. On Feb. 24 in the House of Commons, 29 members of Parliament from Martin’s party voted with opposition members to break off missile defense negotiations with the U.S. government.
The motion was defeated 155 to 71, but it showed divisions inside the government about Canadian participation, according to military analysts.
Speaking before the Senate Committee on Defence on Feb. 23, Jim Wright, assistant deputy minister for global security policy at the Department of Foreign Affairs, said that the United States has not asked to use Canadian territory for the system. But he noted that a contribution to the shield could involve the use of Canadian personnel at NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3119584&C=airwar
Defense analysts are calling the move the first major step for Canada to eventually take a role in the missile shield.
But Defence Minister Bill Graham, who made the announcement Aug. 5 during a press conference televised from Ottawa, said that despite the amendment to the NORAD agreement, Canada has not made any final decision on whether to take part in the U.S. missile system. “This decision does not affect or in any way determine the ultimate decision as to whether Canada will participate in missile defense,” Graham said.
The amendment authorizes NORAD, based in Colorado Springs, Colo., to make its missile warning function available to the U.S. commands conducting ballistic missile defense.
Graham said Canada decided on the amendment because U.S. officials had indicated they were ready to build a new missile defense warning system if they could not have access to NORAD facilities. He said there was concern among Canadian officials that a new system would have “eventually rendered NORAD obsolete …
“What this does is preserve NORAD and give us the option to participate or not to participate [in missile defense],” Graham said. “If we didn’t do this today, we would have foreclosed our options.”
Graham gave no date by which Canada will decide whether it will participate in the ballistic missile defense system.
But analyst Steve Staples said the Canadian government is taking an incremental approach to including Canada in the missile shield. Graham is “caught in a contradiction,” said Staples, a defense analyst with the Ottawa-based Polaris Institute. “If Canada is providing missile warning information [through] NORAD, then that’s a missile defense function.”
David Rudd, executive director of the Toronto-based Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, said Graham’s announcement signals that Canada now has “one foot firmly on the missile defense playing field.”
Rudd said the missile warning function NORAD provides would be necessary for any missile defense system, but that Graham was attempting to downplay the announcement.
Canadian and U.S. government officials have been discussing Canada’s potential involvement in the missile shield for more than a year now.
On Jan. 15, the Canadian Defence Department announced that then-Defence Minister David Pratt had sent a letter to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld requesting that Canada be given approval to view technical data on the missile defense system so it could make a decision on whether to play a role. Pratt also recommended that that cooperation on missile defense should be through NORAD.
“It is our intent to negotiate in the coming months a Missile Defence Framework Memorandum of Understanding with the United States with the objective of including Canada as a participant in the current U.S. missile defense program and expanding and enhancing information exchange,” Pratt wrote in his letter.
Rumsfeld responded that Canada and the U.S. should expand their cooperation in the area of missile defense and agreed to hold discussions on the issue.
Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin has voiced his support for the U.S. system, but he has faced opposition from within his own ruling Liberal Party government on Canadian involvement in the shield. On Feb. 24 in the House of Commons, 29 members of Parliament from Martin’s party voted with opposition members to break off missile defense negotiations with the U.S. government.
The motion was defeated 155 to 71, but it showed divisions inside the government about Canadian participation, according to military analysts.
Speaking before the Senate Committee on Defence on Feb. 23, Jim Wright, assistant deputy minister for global security policy at the Department of Foreign Affairs, said that the United States has not asked to use Canadian territory for the system. But he noted that a contribution to the shield could involve the use of Canadian personnel at NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3119584&C=airwar
