Is it really a surprise?
I will go on record as saying the following: Canada will participate in a space-based ballistic missile defence program. And are we really surprised?
Check out this article on cbc.ca: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/02/22/mckenna-missile050222.html
I once gave a book entitled How To Be A Canadian to some Australian friends in my community on the Waterloo campus. In that book, the Liberals are described a party who in the place of a heart; have a weathervane. This is how they have managed to remain in power for so long. They're not "nut-job right wingers" like the Conservatives or "nut-job left wingers" like the NDP. They're exactly...nowhere in particular, and Canadians generally like this idea.
Unfortunately, this facade of impartiality has lead to some pretty insidious actions on the part of Liberals across Ontario in particular. For example, Msr. Martin says that he is "undecided" on the missile defence program but he opposes the "weaponization" of space. What does that mean exactly? It leaves Msr. Martin open to say "we will not participate in the missile defence program" because he said that he opposes the weaponization of space. It also leaves him open to say "we WILL participate in the missile defence program" because a defence system is used for defence only; not as a "weapon" of aggression.
Either way, Msr. Martin allows himself no accountability. Therefore, does it really come as a surprise that the Liberals will support a missile defence program? I see Mr. McKenna's comments as just the beginning of a slew of Liberal rhetoric to justify their lack of an exact stance on the missile defence issue. It will basically boil down to the federal Liberal party saying "Hey, we never said we WON'T support the missile defence program."
I argue that the federal Liberal party has an agenda, and that's to take part in the missile defence program while insidiously gaining the electoral support of the Canadian population that opposes the idea of participation in a missile defence program.
3 Comments:
Your post still remains accurate, even given the news this morning that Paul Martin will say "no" to missile defence.
This morning's decision was not set by policy, but by politics. This is the only issue that is powerful enough to topple the minority government (as some Libs, and all of the Bloc and NDP are against it). Add on a Budget and dumb remarks by Frank McKenna, and you've got Canada opting out (for the time being).
I think there are merits to Canadian participation in ballistic missile defence, as long as it doesn't cost too much or actually get into space-based weapon systems (but land-based protection systems instead). But that's a whole other topic.
Wow, I really had a drink from the ugly keg when I initially posted this, didn't I? This must have been due to some frustration that particular day.
I would be interested to hear your ideas on the merits of ballistic missile defense, John. Or perhaps you might mention them on your own blog?
It IS a whole other topic, I agree, but perhaps I'll state the following to get some discussion going: I believe that Canada should look to its social support spending before it focuses on ballistic missile defense.
Just a quick update to this post:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/02/24/missile-canada050224.html
So apparently, this is the official Canadian federal line. I must say that I am extremely surprised. Let's hope and pray that we remain stalwart in this, and that I continue to be wrong about what the Liberals will do with missile defence.
Post a Comment
<< Home