It might be that Prime Minister Jean Chretien does not
believe Defence is all that important. In all, Mr Pratt's
committee membership embraces one-third of the elected
members of Parliament. Although 16 of these are full
members, none of them are from the Cabinet. Another 81
are associate members of the committee including *one*
cabinet minister, the Hon David Anderson, Minister of
the Environment. Of the four opposition leaders,
Stephen Harper (CA) and Joe Clark (PC) are associate
members of the committee; neither Alexa McDonough (NDP)
nor any of the NDP leadership hopefuls is; Gilles
Duceppe (BQ) is not. Paul Martin, heir apparent to the
Prime Minister, is not a member of the committee.
So it would appear that the PMO is not alone in viewing
Canada's defence as largely irrelevant.
Foreign Minister Bill Graham notes that his department
would begin a "dialogue process" with Canadians later
this year to determine Canada's foreign policy. There
were no promises of anything more than dialogue -- not
even of a white paper emerging.
Canada must be the only developed nation which
determines foreign policy in this manner. Most nations
argue that leadership is preferable.
Mr Pratt speculates that the PMO is blocking any action
in this direction in order not to saddle Mr Martin, the
incoming Prime Minister as of February, 2004, with new
policy papers he may not agree with. That would be a first
in recent months for Mr Chretien to be so concerned
about Mr Martin's welfare.
It's more likely that the Prime Minister doesn't really
give a hoot.
Mr Pratt grumbles: "We're in almost a Catch-22 situation.
The government is saying there can't be any major
investment in defence without a foreign- and defence-policy
review and then saying we're not going to have that review
for some time yet."
That's not *almost*; that *is* a Catch-22. And it is
obviously a deliberate one, with the full backing of the
Cabinet. Of five Cabinet Committees, none are focussed on
foreign affairs or defence. But one of the five, at least,
shows its colours, the aptly-named Government Communications.
This is a government largely of words and not deeds.
Well then what *should* Canada's defence and foreign policy
be? Perhaps we can start this dialogue without the
assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade.
The reality is that, on its own, Canada is defenceless.
With a deployable military of 24,000 (New York City, by
contrast, has 39,000 police officers), Canada is in no
position defend itself from anyone. With 1.4 million
active duty American military personnel, including roughly
one million currently stationed within the US, we'd
better hope the US doesn't sneeze in our direction.
The Canadian government currently spends about $11 billion
annually on defence just to get us this far. Imagine if we
wanted to build an armed forces of, say, 200,000 -- or even
to match the New York City police department. How much more
do Canadians want to spend in taxes than they already do?
So if Canada's defence capability is something akin to
deploying a fly-swatter against the black flies in cottage
country in June, what can we do? What should we do?
Do what we do best: peace-keeping and lobby for an end to
war, war mongering, and urge disarmament. George Bush wants
to remove "weapons of mass destruction" from Sadaam Hussein.
Why not call for verifiable destruction of ALL such weapons?
Of course there are realities in the world where force is
sometimes necessary -- but in defence of the defenceless,
in defence of our own borders and those of our allies, not
in a war against those whose oil we want to control.
Canada's military do an excellent job given the resources.
We are not here to assist foreign powers, morally or with
troops, in their murderous goals of world domination
invading countries out of revenge or seeking economic gain.
Using the rallying cry of terrorism is not morally
justification to send Canadian troops to foreign soils and
aid in taking innocent lives.
Canada's role ought to be raising a loud voice for Peace.
And it's time we used our reputation as gentle, reasoned
folk to turn down international rhetoric for war.
If blessed are the peace-makers, what about the war mongers?
The Prime Minister and his Cabinet, by their very inaction
on defence issues, have got it half-right. The way to stop
violence against our neighbours is to choose not to
participate in offensive, pre-emptive actions. The government
could get it *more* right if they were to find a voice
declaring ourselves against the murder of fellow world
citizens.
But that would take a back-bone this government has never
been willing to demonstrate.
Alexander Inglis (January 7, 2003)
In Toronto
-- 30 --