linked to Star Wars

Xa had been asked to participate in
D-sponsored planning exercise
N as Strategic Defence Architecture
78r SDA 2000. Canadian forces had
‘y taken part in the first phase —
eh without any acknowledgement to
“nent — and military planners have
cen asked to participate in Phase II.
h ag Phase II, in which continued
N participation has been requested
NCNORAD (NORAD commander-
Sf Gen. Herres) will refine the air-
* Planning of Phase I and develop
Xegrate analogous planning for future
And ballistic missile defences,” stated
ground document prepared by Col.
V meen a strategic policy analyst at
1 Defence headquarters in Ottawa.
4 carings before a U.S. House of
tatives subcommittee in February,
Donald Latham, the Deputy Assist-
3 of Defence for Command,
Sl and Communications, explained
5000: “We are taking defence against
\tional air breathing (jet and propel-
n) threats, bombers and cruise mis-
ace defence, ballistic missile defence
tting it together in one package called
\ic Defence.”
Canadians, the comments made by
© Lindsay, the chief of Operational
and Analysis Establishment at the
‘ment of Defence when he was
~®ing before a Senate committee, are
‘tore ominous:
buld ballistic missile defence be
Ted, it would be operationally desira-
"Blace it under the operational control
_SRAD. In general, it seems likely that
\t-phase intercept sytem would be
M space and a terminal phase inter-
stem in the United States. For mid-
| interception, it is possible that it
| be desirable, perhaps even essential,
te certain sensors, readout stations or
=rs in Canada.”
_» deployment of ballistic’ missile
¥s is not only in violation of the 1972
Creaty but also at variance with Can-
Xated Policy “to remain committed to
rand spirit of the Anti-Ballistic Mis-
aty of 1972..
ne US. Army has already awarded
)4jor contracts to military contractors
yn a new anti-ballistic missile weapon
ce developed, is very likely to be
d in Canada.
ject, codenamed “Braduskill,”
revealed in a story by Peter
the Toronto Star July 19,
\.ccording to Goodspeed, four con-
ere let for the top-secret project, the
Ve of which is to develop a missile
would be capable of intercepting any
g missile, flying alongside it and
ng explosive warheads at it to des-

Wars research schedules call for
—based rockets like Braduskill to be
Wed for flight testing some time in

dspeed also cited an article earlier in
_ Defence Week, entitled “Star Wars
A Canada?” which referred to the
ry-shrouded” Braduskill weapon
unidentified U.S. govern-
as stating: “To be effective,
ould have to be based far to the
bably in Canada.”
Pike, the associate director for
‘or the Federation of American
‘ts who monitors Star Wars projects
Organization, emphasized that point.
Scuild be the perfect staging
>r this type of weapons system,” he
ne July 19 Star article. “The missile
to be based as close to the
nionas| possible to intercept incom-
es and that limits your base sites

t he substantial and growing evi-
king NORAD and the Star Wars
both NORAD and Defence
nent officials continue to deny the
and to insist that Canada could
rawn into Star Wars through

which are contradictory, have far more to
do with public relations than reality.

Last May, the director of defence rela-
tions at External Affairs in Ottawa, David
Karsgaard, argued that there was no cer-
tainty that there would be a merger of the
NORAD and Space Commands in the U.S.
Even if they did merge, he argued, it would
mean no more than “moving furniture
around” in the Cheyenne Mountain com-
plex which is NORAD headquarters.

Even as he was making the statement,
reporters were announcing the imminent
merger and the assignment to the new
NORAD/Space Command all of the air
defence objectives of the new U.S. strategic
policy of nuclear war fighting.

Similarly, NORAD commander-in-chief
Gen. Robert Herres told the standing
committee Dec. 11 that the Strategic
Defence Architecture 2000 military plan-
ning study was not a NORAD study —
despite the fact that he has been identified as
its author and despite the fact that Cana-
dian Defence Department documents ear-
lier referred to which stated clearly that
SDA 2000 was under NORAD authority.

Gen. Herres did acknowledge that there
is “an obvious convergence” between the
work of SDA 2000 and the Star Wars pro-
gram. But he continued to insist “there is no
way that I know of that SDA 2000 can drive
or drag Canada into the SDI program.”

Given the overwhelming evidence to the
contrary — much of which NORAD offi-
cials refuse to acknowlege — that latter
statement is extremely suspect.

What makes it even less credible is the
vehement opposition of both Herres and
Tory Defence Minister Erik Neilson to re-
inserting a NORAD agreement claused
deleted in 1981 which made it clear that
Canada was under no obligation to partici-
pate in an active ballistic missile defence
system.

The clause was dropped at the urging of
former deputy Defence Minister C.R.
Nixon, an advocate of Star Wars, who
called the clause “‘a piece of garbage.”

Although Star Wars had not been
announced in 1981, the Reagan administra-
tion had already launched its Strategic Mod-
ernization Program, of which ballistic missile
defence has since become an integral part.

B.C. Conservative MP Allan McKinnon,
defence minister in the Clark government,

- said in an interview in the Globe and Mail

Feb. 2, 1985 that he thought government
officials knew at the time that anti-missile
programs were on the agenda. “I think the
defence establishment wanted us (MPs) to
have no reservations about getting us
involved in outer space technology,” he
said.

Central to the misleading and often
utterly false statements made by defence
department officials and military spokes-
men is the subservient relationship that the
U.S. has imposed on Canada in military
matters and the extreme secrecy of the
defence establishment.

In the quarter century of NORAD’s
existence, agreement after agreement com-
mitting Canada to participation in U.S. mil-
itary procedures has been signed without
reference to Parliament and often without
reference to the government of the day — a
fact that was dramatically highlighted by
U.S. defence analyst William Arkin in tes-
timony before the standing committee on
External Affairs and National Defence in
November.

Arkin revealed that the list of NORAD-
related agreements given to the comittee by
the Defence Department had been censored
to remove eight agreements. Of the eight,
four related to the placement of nuclear
weapons on Canadian soil in times of crisis.

Months earlier, Arkin had revealed that
there were standing agreements in effect
committing Canada to the placement of
nuclear depth charges on Canadian soil
under U.S. control. Cabinet ministers at
first denied the claim but were later forced
to acknowledge that it was true, indicating
that they were either unaware of the
esau —or they were deliberately

misleading the public.

In an interview with CBC broadcaster
Peter Gzowski Dec. 3, Arkin also pointed
out that his research had revealed the exist-
ence of a secret NORAD document which
supplements the unclassified portions of the
1981 NORAD agreement.

“J don’t know what the secret NORAD
supplement says,” he stated, “but certainly
the standing committee of parliament
should be inquiring as to its content.

“Furthermore,” he added, “I have been
able to uncover a number of NORAD
memorandums of understanding with other
commands: NORAD memorandums of
understanding with NATO; with (U.S.)
Federal Emergency Management Agencies;
with the U.S. Atlantic Command and U.S.
Pacific Command; and NORAD memo-
randums of understanding with the Stra-
tegic Air Command of the United States,
the offensive forces that tie NORAD into
every aspect of American defence policy.”

He also emphasized: “If there is a claim
by some naive member of the Canadian
government or some naive defence analyst
in Canada that NORAD is not totally inte-
grated into virtually every aspect of Ameri-
can strategic policy, all they need to do is
look at all of these existing agreements in
memorandums of understanding for mut-
ual support between these areas of com-
mands to realize that NORAD is a ‘capping
organization’ as the Pentagon calls it.

“It is a core orgnaization which serves
not only the function of air defence but
serves the function of supporting strategic
offensive forces and supporting military
operations in other parts of the world as
well,” he emphasized.

Significantly, after Arkin’s disclosures
before the committee, the U.S. Air Force
issued an internal memo stating that it had
stopping releasing unclassified documents
about NORAD requested under the U.S.
Freedom of Information Act.

The secrecy only underscores the danger
to Canada that Arkin’s comments point to.
With every passing year of NORAD’s exist-
ence, Canada — and particularly Canada’s
military — has become more and more
enmeshed in U.S. strategic aims. She has
become a subservient participant in virtu-
ally all of the objectives of Pentagon
planners, often without any reference to the
Canadian government, and certainly with-
out reference to Parliament or the public.
As the U.S. continues hellbent on develop-
ing its Star Wars program, continued Can-
adian participation would inevitably draw
Canada into that program — whatever the
claims of Defence Minister Neilson or
department officials.

Nor is a “peaceful, surveillance-only
role” in NORAD a real possibility. As
Ploughshares researcher Peter Chapman
noted in his working paper on Canada and
NORAD, quoting a Senate study: “It may
become difficult for Canada to restrict its
participation in'North American aerospace
defence to purely passive systems. Paul
Claesson, in his study of the militarization
of Greenland, put it this way: ‘U.S. counter-
force strategy. ..transforms essentially def-
ensive functions such as those performed by
BMEWS (ballistic missile early warning sys-
tem) radars to vital elements of an offensive
first-strike capability, a development that is
taking place at this moment.’ ”

Chapman concluded: “Canadian partic-
ipation in NORAD is incompatible with the
government’s stated aim of supporting a
system of mutual and stable deterrence of
nuclear war.”

In the context of a relentless U.S. pursuit
of a Star Wars strategy, renewal of the
NORAD agreement would draw Canada
into that strategy. And as more Canadians
make the connection, opposition to Star
Wars is becoming opposition to continued
participation in NORAD.

That is the demand that the Conservative
government should now be hearing loud
and clear — the demand that the NORAD
agreement not be renewed and that Canada
take the first steps towards an independent
defence policy.

No renewal
‘of NORAD

ada's agihdrawal Gorm NORATS. “eee

_ position on that remains unchanged,” said

_ local VOW representative Clare Perry, who

_ added that the U.S. Star Wars develop-

ments “make our demand even stronger.”
“The same demand, from the

: virtually
- initial establishment of NORAD, has also

_ been voiced by the Canadian Peace Con-
gress and its affiliated organization in this
_ province the B.C. Peace Coun empha

- Ross.

Last month, the Communist Party, ;
aso since eee
_ pact when it was first announced and has
urged Canada’s withdrawal since that time, _
launched a country-wide

campaign
“No to NORAD! No to Star Wars!”

In thousands of teat distibuied |

nents ps wiycotm es
{hei MPs to ret eneval ofthe NORAD