NMD: Threat to Canadian Sovereignty? Or a Great Opportunity?

I will admit that my view on this subject has changed from when I first heard about it. Initially, my reaction to the prospect of America's National Missile Defence was to label it as the "son of Star Wars" and to criticise the administration for rocking the boat of international balance of power. I think I know why my view changed though. For this, I can thank North Korea. I'm afraid that I have difficulty viewing this issue with much clarity. In any case, North Korea is a separate issue. To be brief, my view on NMD changed because of the North Koreans apparent attempts at blackmailing the international community, specifically the United States. So in the end, I've come out in mild support of North American Missile Defence.

Firstly, I would like to say that Canada and the United States have a long history of defensive cooperation. This only made sense because our mutual border is the longest undefended border in the world. Despite our differences, Canadians and Americans have so much in common. Unfortunately, this is usually ignored. I have two major arguments to make in support of North American Missile Defence. First is the threat of proliferation. Second is the free-rider issue and national responsiblity.

Why is proliferation a problem? Is containment always an option for dealing with rogue states? These questions are interconnected, and are fundamental regarding nations such as North Korea and pre-war Iraq. Proliferation is a major problem. Obviously I'm not talking about the international small arms trade, a deplorabale trade that may be. People may be able to brush off the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction (WMD), since no leader in their right mind would ever consider using one, right? Are we willing to take that chance? (There's nothing quite like answering a rhetorical question with an equally rhetorical question.) I personally believe that most people are deluded to the actual threat that WMDs pose. The real risk that such weapons impose on the world is that certain unscrupulous nations will use the threat of such weapons to coerce their citizens (consider pre-war Iraq) or other nations (consider North Korea) into doing what they want. Of course there's the concomitant risk that they will get used, but I believe that we can safely assume that both parties (particularly the weaker one: the one without a deterrent) will do everything possible to prevent the use of WMDs (such as concede in the face of demands). This is one reason why the United States wants to build the national missile defence.

Despite international treaties such as NPT, proliferation of atomic and missile technology has continued. It is pretty well accepted that North Korea traded its missile technlogy with Pakistan (prior to the coup of Pervez Musharraf) in exchange for aid in its nuclear program (probably uranium enrichment). North Korea has shown that is it willing to to sell its missile technology to the highest bidder. It is naive to think that international treaties alone can stop proliferation, especially given the half-hearted commitment of many nations to the cause. What about individuals or groups? Personally, I don't pay too much heed to the threat that al-Qaeda could acquire an atomic bomb. It's possible, but I still think it's rather unlikely. Al-Qaeda has shown that it, and groups like it cannot be deterred or contained. Sure, nations can be contained and deterred, but if both sides have the same destructive capabilities, containment swings both ways.

I don't believe that it's unreasonable to assume that proliferation of nuclear and missile technology to nations hostile to Canada (or more likely to the United States) is inevitable. To be prepared for this contingency, it is necessary that Canada take part in the construction of the North American Missile Defence. Presently, I rate Canada's coerceability as rather low, because like most, I don't believe that anyone has any specific reason for hating Canada right now. This could change though. Having a missile defence system leaves the government much freedom to act in such a situation.

More important though is the free-rider problem. If the United States builds the NMD alone, does that mean that the missile protection would end at the 49th parallel?It's reasonable to assume that the protection would be extended somewhat to keep any explosions out completely. In that case though, Canada would be a major free-rider because a large portion of Canada's population would be protected by America's missile defence (and by America's tax dollars). Thus, the only ethical choice should be to take part in its construction. Canada cannot remain a leech on America's good will and its defence projects. Perhaps if Canada played a major role in the development and deployment of a North American Missiel Defence system, then the United States would be less likely to seem to ignore Canada for lengthy periods of time (though at present they seem to be motivated by political differences).

It is important that Canada get in on the action (with regards to NMD) now instead of later. The longer this is postponed, the further along America's plans will be. By then, it may be too late to take more of Canada's interests into account. The longer Canada waits, the less important it will be to the entire project, implying that Canada will have less power to affect the system's deployment and operation. In the end, waiting will have a much more negative impact on Canada's sovereignty because it will give Canada even less control over its own defence.

Obviously this is a complex issue, and I hope to tackle it again soon.