Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:26:56.401Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changing Strategies, Technologies and Organization: The Continuing Debate on NORAD and the Strategic Defense Initiative

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Joel J. Sokolsky
Joel J. Sokolsky
Affiliation:
Royal Military College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The renewal of the Canada-US North American Aerospace Defence (NORAD) agreement in March 1986 will not end the debate on the relationship between NORAD and trends in American strategy, including the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). This article reviews and explains the various strains of that debate. It points out why some in Canada argue that participation in NORAD will inevitably lead to Canadian involvement in the ballistic missile defence objective of the SDI. It also notes, however, why the military and other observers are concerned that strategic and technological trends in the US may make it difficult for Canada to remain active in North American aerospace defence, and indeed, even to provide for its own air sovereignty.

Résumé

En mars 1986, le Canada et les États-Unis renouvelaient l'accord de NORAD, mais cela ne mettra pas un terme aux débats sur les liens entre NORAD et la stratégie nucléaire américaine, y compris l'Initiative de défense stratégique (I.D.S.). Cet article se penche sur les enjeux: d'une part, la possibilité que la participation canadienne à NORAD entraîne inévitablement le pays à s'impliquer dans l'I.D.S. et d'autre part, le risque que la stratégie américaine n'empêche le Canada de demeurer actif en matière de défense de son propre territoire, voire d'exercer dans les airs sa souveraineté.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 1986 , pp. 751 - 774
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Canada, House of Commons, Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, Report on Canada-US Defence Cooperation and the 1986 Renewal of the NORAD Agreement (1986), xi.

2 On public opinion polls conducted by the Department of External Affairs, see Chapin, P. H., “The Canadian Public and Foreign Policy,” International Perspectives (January/February 1986), 14–16.Google Scholar

3 On the roles and perception of lesser powers in alliance, see Rothstein, Robert, Alliances and Small Powers (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968);Google ScholarKeohane, Robert. “Lilliputians' Dilemmas: Small States in International Politics,” International Organization 23 (1969), 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Canadians have often referred to their country as a “middle power.” It is a characterization hard to define, especially because in some areas of international relations, such as economics, Canada may rightly be viewed as a great or “principal” power. In terms of its military contributions to its alliances. Canada comes closer to being a small power. However, unlike other small powers in NATO, such as Luxembourg and Iceland, Canada has traditionally been active in allied political councils. It regards itself, therefore, as being able to influence the actions of larger allies in a way that small powers do not. It is, perhaps, this perception of the need and capability for exercising diplomatic leverage within alliances which makes Canada a “middle power.” See Sokolsky, Joel J.. “Canada in NATO: The Perceptions of a Middle Power in Alliance,” The Fletcher Forum 4 (1980). 203–26.Google Scholar

4 For an analysis of the importance of alliances in Canadian defence policy, see English, John and Hilmer, Norman. “Canada's Alliances,” Revue Internationale d'Histoire Militaire (Edition canadienne) 51 (1981), 31–51.Google Scholar

5 On this point see Holmes, John, The Shaping of Peace. Vol. 2: Canada and the Search for World Order, 1943–1957 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982), 13, 29.Google Scholar On Canada's role in the creation of NATO, see also Reid, Escott, Time of Fear and Hope: The Making of the North Atlantic Treaty 1947–1949 (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. 1977).Google Scholar

6 Canadian ambivalence towards close strategic co-operation with the US on a strictly bilateral basis has long been a subject of some controversy. Some argue that political leaders were moved along by the activities of the Royal Canadian Air Force which, working closely with the United States Air Force, created a fully integrated North American air defence network even before NORAD's creation. See, for example, Swanson, Roger F., “NORAD: Origins and Operations of Canada's Ambivalent Symbol,” International Perspectives (November/December 1972), 3–8;Google ScholarIgnatieff, George, The Making of a Peacemonger: The Memoirs of George Ignatieff (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985):CrossRefGoogle ScholarGranatstein, J. L., Canada 1957–1967.The Years of Uncertainty and Innovation (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1986).Google Scholar For an account of the origins of NORAD based upon declassified US documents, see Jockel, Joseph T., No Boundaries Upstairs: Canada, the United States and North American Air Defence, 1945–1958 (forthcoming. University of British Columbia Press).Google ScholarJockel, takes issue with the view that Canada's political leaders were completely unaware of what the military was doing, although he shows that the two military establishments did work closely together. See also his article, “The Military Establishments and the Creation of NORAD,” American Review of Canadian Studies 12 (1982), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, Report (1986), 17.Google Scholar

8 Minifie, James, Peacemaker or Powder-Monkey (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1960).Google Scholar

9 Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, Report (1986). 17.Google Scholar

10 Quoted from Holmes, John, appearing before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence (1st Session, 33d Parliament, 1984–85). 37:15, October 10, 1985.Google Scholar

11 Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, Report on NORAD. December 19, 1980, Recommendation 3).Google Scholar

12 On the 1968 ABM debate in the US see Anti-Ballistic Missile: Yes or No?, A Special Report from the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions (New York: Hill and Wang. 1968).Google Scholar

13 Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, Proceedings, 52:15, December 6, 1985.Google Scholar

14 United States, Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Ballistic Missile Defense Technologies Summary (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1985), 17.Google Scholar

15 Canada, Department of National Defence, Defence in the 70s (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1971), 6, 29–30.Google Scholar

16 Canada, Senate, Special Committee on National Defence, Report on Canada's Territorial Air Defence (1985), 10.Google Scholar

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 Collins, John M., U.S.-Soviet Military Balance 1980–1985 (New York: Pergamon-Brassey's, 1985). 54.Google Scholar

21 Ibid., 154.

22 Extracts from JUSCAD's Executive Summary, 5.

23 Hamre, John, “Continental Air Defence, United States Security Policy and Canada-United States Defence Relations,” in G. R. Lindsey et al.. Aerospace Defence: Canada's Future Role? (Wellesley Papers 9) (Toronto: Canadian Institute of International Affairs, 1985), 22.Google Scholar

24 Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, Report (1986), 30–31.Google Scholar

25 Ibid., xi.

26 Canada, House of Commons, Debates, Feb. 4, 1985, 1, 961.Google Scholar

27 This explanation of the deletion of the ABM clause is offered by James Everard, A., “Canada and NORAD: The Eroding Agreement,” Journal of the Royal United Services Institute 127 (1984), 21.Google Scholar

28 As quoted from letter from DND to SCEAND, Nov. 20, 1985.

29 See, for example, Lt. Col. Cammarota, Richard S., USAF, “Defense Watch,” Air Force Magazine 68 (February 1985), 67.Google Scholar

30 Letter from the Minister of National Defence to the US Secretary of Defense; Prime Minister's Statement, September 7, 1985.

31 Ross, Douglas, American Nuclear Revisionism, Canadian Strategic Interests and the Renewal of NORAD (Behind the Headlines XXXIX, 6) (Toronto: Canadian Institute of International Affairs, 1982), 29–30.Google Scholar

32 Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, Proceedings, 43:30, November 18, 1985.Google Scholar

33 United States, Department of Defense, Report to Congress on the Strategic Defense Initiative (Washington, 1985), C–21.Google Scholar

34 Brown, Harold, “The Strategic Defense Initiative: Defensive Systems and the Strategic Debate,” Survival (March/April 1985), 56.Google Scholar

35 See, for instance, General Herres, as quoted in Cammarota, “Defense Watch,” 64.

36 See,, for example, “Why Canada may Star in Star Wars,” Toronto Star, November 10, 1985.Google Scholar

37 For the position of the Liberal and New Democratic parties on this issue, see. Toronto Star, February 15, 1986.Google Scholar See also the NDP “Communiqué.” December 16, 1985, 2; and the Canadian Centre for Arms Control and Disarmament “Communiqué,” January 22, 1986, 2. Operation Dismantle was also in favour of re-insertion: see Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, Proceedings, 48:7, November 21, 1985.Google Scholar

38 See testimony of the Toronto Disarmament Network, in Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, Proceedings, 47:26, November 21, 1985:Google Scholar Canadian Centre for Arms Control and Disarmament, ibid., 39:9, October 15, 1985: and the NDP “Communiqué,” December 16, 1985.

39 Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, Proceedings, 43:6 and 43:36, November 18, 1985.Google Scholar

40 Ibid., 52:6. December 6, 1985.

41 Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, Report (1986), xi.Google Scholar

42 Hamre, “Continental Air Defence,” 25.

43 Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, Proceedings, 41: 107, October 31, 1985.Google Scholar

44 Carver, George A. Jr. (ed.), The View from the South: A US Perspective on Key Bilateral Issues Affecting US-Canadian Relations (Significant Issues Series VII, 41) (Washington: Georgetown University, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1985), 46.Google Scholar

45 Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, Proceedings, 52:11, December 6, 1985.Google Scholar

46 See, Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, Report (1986), 79, and Senate Report (1985), 56–57.Google Scholar

47 Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, Proceedings, 34:31. See also Dr. Schofield's testimony before the Senate Special Committee on National Defence. Senate, Minutes of Proceedings, 4:24. March 14, 1984.Google Scholar

48 Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, Proceedings. 52:11, December 6, 1985.Google Scholar

49 Ibid.

50 See, Boston Globe, March 5, 1986, 4.Google Scholar

51 Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, Proceedings, 52:11, December 6, 1985.Google Scholar

52 ibid., 44:8, November 19, 1985.

53 Legault, Albert, “Canada and the United States: The Defense Dimension.” in Doran, Charles F. and Sigler, John H. (eds.), Canada and the United States: Enduring Friendship, Persistent Stress (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1985), 198.Google Scholar