|
|
|
|
Canada, U.S. near troop deal
DANIEL LEBLANC
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Ottawa — Washington and Ottawa are close to a deal allowing U.S. soldiers to cross the border and operate on Canadian soil in the event of a terrorist attack. The proposal, revealed by Defence Minister John McCallum yesterday, would likewise let Canadian troops take part in antiterror operations south of the border.The plan, which is in the final stages of negotiation, would for the first time allow U.S. and Canadians ground troops to serve under the other forces' command in North America -- but only under strict guidelines on a case-by-case basis.There has been widespread speculation over the possible integration of some Canadian troops under U.S. command to protect the North American perimeter. But this plan, Mr. McCallum said, contains essential elements to protect Canada's sovereignty."What we are proposing is a planning group that would set up protocols whereby we could have, conceivably, U.S. troops moving across the border or Canadian troops moving across their border, but only on a case-by-case basis with the approval of each government," he said."In no way does this reduce Canadian sovereignty, because this is a planning group that will have no control over troops."Mr. McCallum said any deal is likely to build on current collaboration between the Canadian and U.S. air forces, and will include land and sea troops.Since Sept. 11, the issue has prompted a heated debate over sovereignty.The Americans responded to the terrorist attacks by creating Northcom, a body overseeing the U.S. military response to security threats against North America. At one point, the U.S. ambassador to Ottawa encouraged Canadians to join Northcom to gain "a louder voice in the defence of North America."
However, Mr. McCallum said yesterday that joining Northcom would be impossible because the structure involves only the deployment of American troops.
"Our bottom line is that we are a sovereign nation, and we are going to stay a sovereign nation. We don't want to integrate, we don't want our soldiers to be under [permanent] command of the Americans."Mr. McCallum said the Canadian government instead favours the creation of a planning group that would co-ordinate efforts to prevent terrorism in North America, and react in the event of a strike.The planning group will look at scenarios such as a bacterial attack or the use of a ship to bring explosives into places like Montreal and Vancouver, and determine the appropriate Canadian and American responses.Mr. McCallum said it is the Canadian government's responsibility to save lives, and that he had no problems persuading the federal cabinet to agree to the negotiations. He said that once a final agreement is reached, it will be returned to cabinet for approval.
"I don't know what the odds of such a [terrorist] attack are, but I know it's greater than zero. So if we do have [the planning group] and something happens, we will save lives. If we didn't do it and something happened, can you imagine the anger of Canadian citizens?"An agreement might take the form of an amendment to NORAD (the North American Aerospace Defence Command), involving 50 to 100 people working at the air force base in Colorado."It would be lodged in NORAD, but it would not be the same as the aerospace agreement, in the sense that it would not have troops under its command," Mr. McCallum said yesterday.He has adopted a more nationalistic stand than his predecessor, Art Eggleton, in his relationship with the Americans.He has clearly opposed Canadian involvement in possible U.S. attacks against Iraq. However, he said that should not have an impact on future co-operation with U.S. forces."If we disagree with the U.S. over, for example, softwood lumber or Iraq, just to take two examples, that does not mean that either side does not want to plan together. . . . The fact that we disagree on point X doesn't deter us from agreeing on point Y when it's for the good of both," Mr. McCallum said.The federal government is in the middle of consultations with industry groups to update its defence policy. Mr. McCallum admitted that he would need more money to achieve his goals as Defence Minister."I, too, think we need more resources, but I have no guarantee that I will get more resources. I will make a case to cabinet for more resources quite soon, and we'll see what happens in the budget."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Headline Index
Print Edition
