|
The Deployment of US Troops inside Canada
by Michel Chossudovsky
On February 14th, Canada and the US signed an agreement which allows for the deployment of US troops inside Canada. There was no official announcement nor was there a formal decision at the governmental level. In fact the agreement was barely mentioned by the Canadian media.
The agreement, which raises far-reaching issues of national sovereignty, was not between the two governments. It was signed by military commanding officers.
Global Research, March 13, 2008
U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) released a statement confirming
that the agreement had been signed between US NORTHCOM and Canada
Command, namely between the military commands of each country. Canada
Command was established in February 2006.
- "U.S. Air Force Gen.
Gene Renuart, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command and
U.S. Northern Command, and Canadian Air Force Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais,
commander of Canada Command, have signed a Civil Assistance Plan that
allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the
other nation during a civil emergency.
- “This document is a
unique, bilateral military plan to align our respective national
military plans to respond quickly to the other nation's requests for
military support of civil authorities,” Renuart said. “Unity of effort
during bilateral support for civil support operations such as floods,
forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and effects of a terrorist
attack, in order to save lives, prevent human suffering and mitigate
damage to property, is of the highest importance, and we need to be
able to have forces that are flexible and adaptive to support rapid
decision-making in a collaborative environment.”
- “The signing of
this plan is an important symbol of the already strong working
relationship between Canada Command and U.S. Northern Command,” Dumais
said. “Our commands were created by our respective governments to
respond to the defense and security challenges of the twenty-first
century, and we both realize that these and other challenges are best
met through cooperation between friends.”
- "The plan recognizes
the role of each nation's lead federal agency for emergency
preparedness, which in the United States is the Department of Homeland
Security and in Canada is Public Safety Canada. The plan facilitates
the military-to-military support of civil authorities once government
authorities have agreed on an appropriate response.
- "U.S.
Northern Command was established on Oct. 1, 2002, to anticipate and
conduct homeland defense and civil support operations within the
assigned area of responsibility to defend, protect, and secure the
United States and its interests.
- "Similarly, Canada Command was
established on Feb. 1, 2006, to focus on domestic operations and to
offer a single point of contact for all domestic and continental
defense and security partners.
- "The two domestic commands
established strong bilateral ties well before the signing of the Civil
Assistance Plan. The two commanders and their staffs meet regularly,
collaborate on contingency planning and participate in related annual
exercises."
- NORTHCOM website
The Decision to Allow the Deployment of US Troops inside Canada was taken in April 2002
While
a formal agreement was reached in February 2008, the decision to allow
the deployment of US troops in Canada was announced in April 2002 by
(former) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Territorial
control over Canada is part of Washington's geopolitical and military
agenda as formulated in April 2002 by Donald Rumsfeld. "Binational
integration" of military command structures was also contemplated
alongside a major revamping in the areas of immigration, law
enforcement and intelligence.
The matter has been known for
more than five years. It has been deliberately obfuscated. There has
been no public debate. It has not received news coverage nor has it
been the object of discussion in the Canadian House of Commons or the
US Congress.
In an article published in 2004 entitled Is the
Annexation of Canada Part of Bush's Military Agenda?, I provided a
detailed analysis of the process of integration of military command
structures. I also examined the broader issue of sovereignty. The
Toronto Star accepted to publish an abridged version of my November
2004 text as an oped. The article explained that Ottawa had been:
- "quietly
negotiating [since April 2002] a far-reaching military cooperation
agreement, which allows the US Military to cross the border and deploy
troops anywhere in Canada, in our provinces, as well station American
warships in Canadian territorial waters. This redesign of Canada's
defense system is being discussed behind closed doors, not in Canada,
but at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado, at the headquarters of
US Northern Command (NORTHCOM)."
Despite repeated assurances by
the Toronto Star OpEd Editor, the article never appeared in print.
Below is a summary of my more detailed November 2004 text as well as
links to the original articles:
The creation of NORTHCOM
announced in April 2002, constitutes a blatant violation of both
Canadian and Mexican territorial sovereignty. Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld announced unilaterally that US Northern Command would have
jurisdiction over the entire North American region. Canada and Mexico
were presented with a fait accompli.
US Northern Command's jurisdiction
as outlined by the US DoD includes, in addition to the continental US,
all of Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous
waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the
Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.
- "NorthCom's
stated mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental]
aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the]
nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."
(Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR))
Rumsfeld
is said to have 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)
Following
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's refusal to join NORTHCOM, a high-level
so-called "consultative" Binational Planning Group (BPG), operating out
of the Peterson Air Force base, was set up in late 2002, with a mandate
to "prepare contingency plans to respond to [land and sea] threats and
attacks, and other major emergencies in Canada or the United States".
The
BPG's mandate goes far beyond the jurisdiction of a consultative
military body making "recommendations" to government. In practice, it
is neither accountable to the US Congress nor to the Canadian House of
Commons.
The BPG has a staff of fifty US and Canadian "military
planners", who have been working diligently for the last two years in
laying the groundwork for the integration of Canada-US military command
structures. The BPG works in close coordination with the Canada-U.S.
Military Cooperation Committee at the Pentagon, a so-called " panel
responsible for detailed joint military planning".
Broadly
speaking, its activities consist of two main building blocks: the
Combined Defense Plan (CDP) and The Civil Assistance Plan (CAP).
The Militarisation of Civilian Institutions
As
part of its Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), the BPG is involved in
supporting the ongoing militarisation of civilian law enforcement and
judicial functions in both the US and Canada. The BPG has established
"military contingency plans" which would be activated "on both sides of
the Canada-US border" in the case of a terror attack or "threat". Under
the BPG's Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), these so-called "threat
scenarios" would involve:
- "coordinated response to national
requests for military assistance [from civil authorities] in the event
of a threat, attack, or civil emergency in the US or Canada."
In
December 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks, the Canadian government
reached an agreement with the Head of Homeland Security Tom Ridge,
entitled the "Canada-US Smart Border Declaration." Shrouded in secrecy,
this agreement essentially hands over to the Homeland Security
Department, confidential information on Canadian citizens and
residents. It also provides US authorities with access to the tax
records of Canadians.
What these developments suggest is that
the process of "binational integration" is not only occurring in the
military command structures but also in the areas of immigration,
police and intelligence. The question is what will be left over within
Canada's jurisdiction as a sovereign nation, once this ongoing process
of binational integration, including the sharing and/or merger of data
banks, is completed?
Canada and NORTHCOM
Canada is slated to become a member of NORTHCOM at the end of the BPG's two years mandate.
No
doubt, the issue will be presented in Parliament as being "in the
national interest". It "will create jobs for Canadians" and "will make
Canada more secure".
Meanwhile, the important debate on Canada's
participation in the US Ballistic Missile Shield, when viewed out of
the broader context, may serve to divert public attention away from
the more fundamental issue of North American military integration which
implies Canada's acceptance not only of the Ballistic Missile Shield,
but of the entire US war agenda, including significant hikes in defense
spending which will be allocated to a North American defense program
controlled by the Pentagon.
And 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 a Nation.
The
World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern
history. The US has launched a military adventure which threatens the
future of humanity. It has formulated the contours of an imperial
project of World domination. Canada is contiguous to "the center of the
empire". Territorial control over Canada is part of the US geopolitical
and military agenda.
The Liberals as well as the opposition
Conservative party have endorsed embraced the US war agenda. By
endorsing a Canada-US "integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland
security, police and intelligence, Canada not only becomes 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.
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, including the use of nuclear warheads as
a means of self defense, which was ratified by the US Senate in
December 2003. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The US Nuclear Option and the
" War on Terrorism" May
2004)
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.
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, 2008
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=8323
© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007
 |
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
