Dr. Rob Huebert of the University of Calgary brought his Strategic Studies
class to a recent Project Ploughshares meeting. He spoke about the proposed
land-based Ballistic Missile Defense scheme that Clinton recently granted
$6.6 billion in new money. According to Huebert, the BMD contravenes
articles of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, one of the key 'stabilizing'
forces of the Cold War. Dr. Huebert asked if Canadians were willing to
undermine one of the principal international laws in effect today, in favour
of protection by American military might.
On the other hand, he also asked
if we were strong enough to withstand U.S. political and economic wrath if
Canada refuses to participate in the BMD. Current BMD plans face technical
difficulties; success may be 10 or 15 years away, as is the main anticipated
ICBM threat (from North Korea and perhaps China). BMD plans are creating
much anger in China and Russia, being a major obstacle to the Duma's
ratification of START II nuclear weapons reductions.
It would appear to me that Canadians should publicly debate the pros and
cons (this dilemma is similar to the current dilemma of Canadian
participation in NATO, and bombing of Kosovo). The majority of Canadians
are uneducated about the issues, and I suppose leave it to the government
leaders. This scenario is probably similar to that in the U.S., other NATO
Allies, and the rest of the world. We peacebuilders should all probably
encourage such public debate (if we are to support BMD we should be sure
that we know why; or vice versa).
