|
Montebello SPP Summit and Canada's Sovereignty in Jeopardy:
The Militarization of North America
by Michel Chossudovsky
Canadian jurisdiction over its Northern territories was redefined, following an April 2002 military agreement between Ottawa and Washington. This agreement allows for the deployment of US troops anywhere in Canada, as well as the stationing of US warships in Canada's territorial waters.
Following the creation of US Northern Command in April 2002, Washington announced unilaterally that NORTHCOM's territorial jurisdiction (land, sea, air) extended from the Caribbean basin to the Canadian arctic territories.
"The new command was given responsibility for the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline. NorthCom's mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nations civil authorities in times of national need."
(Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR))
NORTHCOM's stated mandate was to "provide a necessary focus for
[continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support
for [the] nations [US] civil authorities in times of national need."
Former
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld boasted that "the NORTHCOM with
all of North America as its geographic command 'is part of the
greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its
inception in 1947.'" (Ibid)
Canada and US Northern Command
In
December 2002, following the refusal of (former) Prime Minister Jean
Chrétien to join US Northern Command (NORTHCOM), an interim bi-national
military authority entitled the Binational Planning Group (BPG) was
established.
Canadian membership in NORTHCOM would have
implied the integration of Canada's military command structures with
those of the US. That option had been temporarily deferred by the
Chrétien government, through the creation of the Binational Planning
Group (BPG).
The BPG's formal mandate in 2002 was to extend the
jurisdiction of the US-Canada North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD) to cover sea, land and "civil forces",
"to improve
current CanadaUnited States arrangements to defend against primarily
maritime threats to the continent and respond to land-based attacks,
should they occur."
Although never acknowledged in official
documents, the BPG was in fact established to prepare for the merger of
NORAD and NORTHCOM, thereby creating de facto conditions for Canada to
join US Northern Command.
The "Group" described as an
"independent" military authority was integrated from the outset in
December 2002 into the command structures of NORAD and NORTHCOM, both
operating out the same headquarters at the Paterson Air Force base in
Colorado. In practice, the "Group" functioned under the jurisdiction of
US Northern Command, which is controlled by the US Department of
Defense.
In December 2004, in the context of President Bush's
visit to Ottawa, it was agreed that the mandate of the BPG would be
extended to May 2006. It was understood that this extension was
intended to set the stage for Canada's membership in NORTHCOM.
In
March 2006, two months before the end of its mandate, the BPG published
a task force document on North American security issues:
"'A
continental approach' to defense and security could facilitate
binational maritime domain awareness and a combined response to
potential threats, 'which transcends Canadian and U.S. borders,
domains, defense and security departments and agencies,'" (quoted in
Homeland Defense watch, 20 July 2006)
The BPG task force report
called for the establishment of a "maritime mission" for NORAD
including a maritime warning system. The report acted as a blueprint
for the renegotiation of NORAD, which was implemented immediately
following the release of the report.
On April 28, 2006, an agreement negotiated behind closed doors was signed between the US and Canada.
The
renewed NORAD agreement was signed in Ottawa by the US ambassador and
the Canadian Minister of Defense Gordon O'Connor, without prior debate
in the Canadian Parliament. The House of Commons was allowed to
rubberstamp a fait accompli, an agreement which had already been signed
by the two governments.
"'A continental approach to defense
and security could facilitate binational maritime domain awareness and
a combined response to potential threats, "which transcends Canadian
and U.S. borders, domains, defense and security departments and
agencies,' the report says." (Homeland Defense Watch, May 8, 2006)
While
NORAD still exists in name, its organizational structure coincides with
that of NORTHCOM. Following the April 28, 2006 agreement, in practical
terms, NORAD has been merged into USNORTHCOM.
NORTHCOM
Commander Gen. Gene Renuart, USAF happens to be Commander of NORAD,
Maj. Gen. Paul J. Sullivan who is NORTHCOM Chief of Staff, is Chief of
Staff of NORAD.
With a exception of a token Canadian General,
who occupies the position of Deputy Commander of NORAD, the leadership
of NORAD coincides with that of NORTHCOM. (See photo gallery below).
These
two military authorities are identical in structure, they occupy the
same facilities at the Paterson Air Force base in Colorado.
There
was no official announcement of the renewed NORAD agreement, which
hands over control of Canada's territorial waters to the US, nor was
there media coverage of this far-reaching decision.
The Deployment of US Troops on Canadian Soil
At the outset of US Northern Command in April 2002, Canada accepted the right of the US to deploy US troops on Canadian soil.
"U.S.
troops could be deployed to Canada and Canadian troops could cross the
border into the United States if the continent was attacked by
terrorists who do not respect borders, according to an agreement
announced by U.S. and Canadian officials." (Edmunton Sun, 11 September
2002)
With the creation of the BPG in December 2002, a
binational "Civil Assistance Plan" was established. The latter
described the precise "conditions for deploying U.S. troops in Canada,
or vice versa, in the aftermath of a terrorist attack or natural
disaster." (quoted in Inside the Army, 5 September 2005).
Canadian Sovereignty
In
August 2006, the US State Department confirmed that a new NORAD
Agreement had entered into force, while emphasizing that "the maritime
domain awareness component was of 'indefinite duration,' albeit subject
to periodic review." (US Federal News, 1 August 2006). In March 2007,
the US Senate Armed Services Committee confirmed that the NORAD
Agreement had been formally renewed, to include a maritime warning
system. In Canada, in contrast, there has been a deafening silence.
In
Canada, the renewed NORAD agreement went virtually unnoticed. There was
no official pronouncement by the Canadian government of Stephen Harper.
There was no analysis or commentary of its significance and
implications for Canadian territorial sovereignty. The agreement was
barely reported by the Canadian media.
Operating under a
"North American" emblem (i.e. a North American Command), the US
military would have jurisdiction over Canadian territory from coast to
coast; extending from the St Laurence Valley to the Queen Elizabeth
archipelago in the Canadian Arctic. The agreement would allow for the
establishment of "North American" military bases on Canadian territory.
From an economic standpoint, it would also integrate the Canadian
North, with its vast resources in energy and raw materials, with
Alaska.
Ottawa's Military Facility in Resolute Bay
Ottawa's
July 2007 decision to establish a military facility in Resolute Bay in
the Northwest Passage was not intended to reassert "Canadian
sovereignty." In fact quite the opposite. It was established in
consultation with Washington. A deep-water port at Nanisivik, on the
northern tip of Baffin Island is also envisaged.
The US
administration is firmly behind the Canadian government's decision. The
latter does not "reassert Canadian sovereignty". Quite the opposite. It
is a means to eventually establish US territorial control over Canada's
entire Arctic region including its waterways. This territory would
eventually fall under the jurisdiction of US Northern Command
(NORTHCOM).
The Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement (SPP)
The
Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement (SPP) signed between the
US, Canada and Mexico contemplates the formation of a North American
Union (NAU), a territorial dominion, extending from the Caribbean to
the Canadian arctic territories.
The SPP is
closely related to the Binational Planning Group initiative. An
Independent Task Force sponsored by The Council on Foreign Relations
calls for the transformation of the North American Aerospace Defense
Command (NORAD) into a "multiservice Defense Command". The CFR document
entitled "North American Community" drafted on behalf of the SPP
endorses the BPG March 2006 recommendations:
"As recommended in
a report of the Canadian-U.S. Joint Planning Group [BPG], NORAD should
evolve into a multi-service Defense Command that would expand the
principle of Canadian-U.S. joint command to land and naval as well as
air forces engaged in defending the approaches to North America. In
addition, Canada and the United States should reinforce other bilateral
defense institutions, including the Permanent Joint Board on Defense
and Joint Planning Group, and invite Mexico to send observers."
(North
American Community, Task Force documented sponsored by the Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR) together with the Canadian Council of Chief
Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales)
The
accession of Canada to this Multiservice Defense Command, as
recommended by the CFR, has already been established, signed and
sealed, approved by the Canadian Parliament in May 2006, in the context
of the renewal of the NORAD agreement.
In all likelihood, the
formal merging of "the renewed NORAD" and US NORTHCOM will be on the
agenda at the August Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement
(SPP) Summit meeting of President Bush, Prime Minister Harper and
President Calderon at Montebello, Quebec. This decision would lead to
the formation of a US-Canada NORTHCOM, with a new name, but with
substantially the same NORTHCOM rhetorical mandate of "defending the
Northern American Homeland" against terrorist attacks. The military of
both the US and Canada would also be called to play an increasing role
in civilian law enforcement activities.
The real objective underlying the SPP is to militarize civilian institutions and repeal democratic government.
"Integration" or the "Annexation" of Canada?
Canada
is contiguous to "the center of the empire". Territorial control over
Canada is part of the US geopolitical and military agenda. It is worth
recalling in this regard, that throughout history, the "conquering
nation" has expanded on its immediate borders, acquiring control over
contiguous territories.
Military integration is intimately
related to the ongoing process of integration in the spheres of trade,
finance and investment. Needless to say, a large part of the Canadian
economy is already in the hands of US corporate interests. In turn, the
interests of big business in Canada tend to coincide with those of the
US.
Canada is already a de facto economic protectorate of the
USA. NAFTA has not only opened up new avenues for US corporate
expansion, it has laid the groundwork under the existing North American
umbrella for the post 9/11 integration of military command structures,
public security, intelligence and law enforcement.
No doubt,
Canada's entry into US Northern Command will be presented to public
opinion as part of Canada-US "cooperation", as something which is "in
the national interest", which "will create jobs for Canadians", and
"will make Canada more secure".
Ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada will cease to function as a Nation:
- Its
borders will be controlled by US officials and confidential information
on Canadians will be shared with Homeland Security.
- US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as a result of a binational arrangement.
- Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on behalf of their Canadian counterparts and vice versa.
But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as nation.
By
endorsing a Canada-US "integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland
security, police and intelligence, Canada not only remains a full fledged
member of George W. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing", it will directly
participate, through integrated military command structures, in the US
war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East, including the massacre
of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of POWs, the
establishment of concentration camps, etc.
Canada would no
longer have an independent foreign policy. Under an integrated North
American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be
formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington's pre-emptive
military doctrine, its bogus "war on terrorism which is used as a
pretext for waging war in the Middle East. .
The Canadian
judicial system would be affected. Moreover, binational integration in
the areas of Homeland security, immigration, policing of the US-Canada
border, not to mention the anti-terrorist legislation, would imply pari
passu acceptance of the US sponsored police State, its racist policies,
its "ethnic profiling" directed against Muslims, the arbitrary arrest
of anti-war activists.
[Your new] NORTHCOM LEADERS

Gen. Gene Renuart, USAF
Commander
Biography (Français)(Español)
[also Commander of NORAD]
Lt. Gen. William G. Webster Jr., USA
Deputy Commander
Biography (Español)
Maj. Gen. Paul J. Sullivan, USAF
Chief of Staff
Biography (Español)
[also Chief of Staff of NORAD]

Command Sgt. Maj. Daniel R. Wood, USA
Command Senior Enlisted Leader
Biography (Español)
[also NORAD Command Senior Enlisted Leader]
Source: NORTHCOM and NORAD websites.
Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the
author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research
on Globalization.
To become a Member of Global Research
The
CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles
on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not
modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For
publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms
including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca
contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in
an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and
social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for
research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted
material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission
from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2007
The url address of this article is here
Privacy Policy
© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007
|