Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Bulsajo]

I thought this article made some good points, not just about icebreakers but the policy decisions driving them and the practicality of their role. They also have some strong questions about another of Harper's choices for cabinet- something that has been in the news a lot and has potentially divided the Conservative party.

Harper's Military Plans Only Please Bush, Not Canadians
Embassy, February 15th, 2006
OPED
By Barbara Bedont and Erika Simpson

On Feb. 6, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed Gordon O'Connor--a retired brigadier-general--as his Minister of Defence. This is the latest in a series of events foretelling a radical change in military policy that will bring Canada closer to the United States.

O'Connor's appointment comes shortly after Harper announced, apparently in reply to American Ambassador David Wilkins, that his government had "significant plans" for defending Arctic sovereignty. Harper's sabre-rattling may appease a Canadian public that largely disapproves of the Bush Administration's aggressive foreign policy, but it prepares the ground for increases in military spending that promise to make President George W. Bush happy.

Before being elected in 2004, O'Connor was a lobbyist for the military industry. Between 1996 and 2004, he represented 21 defence contractors selling goods or services to the Department of Defence. Now, he's doing the shopping.

While Harper promised during the campaign to stop the revolving door between lobbying and holding government office, he has now put a lobbyist in his cabinet. This raises serious legal and ethical issues.

For example, O'Connor represented Airbus Military, a company that develops heavy-airlift planes. O'Connor now says the purchase of such aircraft is his top priority, even though they can be rented far more cheaply.

In 2004, then-Defence Critic O'Connor stated in Parliament that the Canadian Forces require $18 to $19 billion a year. Just one year later, when the Martin government exceeded his wildest expectations and increased military spending to $19.7 billion, O'Connor insisted on more money, proving yet again that military lobbyists are incapable of putting limits on their spending demands.

The new Defence Minister's avarice is reflected in the Conservative platform on defence. During the campaign, the Conservatives said they would increase spending on the Canadian Forces by $5.3 billion over five years. This would be in addition to the massive increase of $12.8 billion over five years made in the Liberal budget in 2005. Combined, these amounts would push Canada's military spending to the highest level in real dollars since Canada was involved in the Second World War.

Increased spending on the military is foolhardy. Canada still has a debt of $500 billion. The gains made in reducing this debt over the past nine years, through cuts to social programs among others, should not be squandered on overpriced military equipment.

The spending increases play into the hands of the Bush Administration. The United States is pressuring Canada to increase its military spending and transform its military to be more "interoperable" with their military. This paves the way for Canada to join the United States in future military ventures. But increased interoperability requires costly equipment that is not entirely suitable for the types of peacekeeping favoured by most Canadians.

O'Connor favours "stability operations" and is dismissive of more traditional peacekeeping missions. In a parliamentary debate in Oct. 2004, he stated, "A soldier standing by with a blue beret and a rifle encouraging people just to talk and resolve their problems will not restore stability."

The new Defence Minister also advocates purchasing equipment that emphasizes Canada's combat capacity. In addition to the heavy-airlift planes, the Conservatives are vowing to purchase three heavily-armed icebreakers estimated at over $2 billion. These expensive equipment purchases are ill-suited for dealing with the greatest threats to Canadian interests.

The real menace to Canada's interests in the Arctic is global warming. As the sea ice in the Northwest Passage melts, the Passage is likely to become an international commercial shipping route between Europe and Asia. Global warming also threatens the Inuit way of life by endangering their traditional hunting and fishing habitats.

Canadian policy-makers worry that the use of the Passage by foreign vessels and the decline of the Inuit presence would undermine our claim that the Passage belongs to us. But sovereignty should be a means and not an end in itself. The priority for Canadian policy should be to ensure that the Arctic is not the scene of an environmental disaster and that the Inuit culture and lifestyle are preserved.

For this, costly heavily-armed icebreakers operating under the Department of National Defence's purview are unsuitable. After all, Canada would never be able to afford enough heavily-armed icebreakers to patrol and enforce its laws in the vast expanse of the Canadian Arctic.

Instead, non-military solutions would be more effective. Take a page from Russia's book, which faces similar problems in the Northeast Passage. It has opened up the Passage to commercial navigation and offers services to companies such as icebreaking and navigational aid for a fee. This provides an incentive for companies to comply with registration regulations.

Canada currently has a voluntary registration system without the means to administer it. The best solution, therefore, is to make registration obligatory and build up the Coast Guard's ability to assist commercial navigation in the Arctic. This could include adding to their fleet of non-militarized icebreakers and setting up high-frequency surface-wave radars that can track ships.

The Inuit should be partners in these efforts. Training and education programs should be established to ensure the Inuit assume responsibility for operating radar stations, conducting search and rescue operations, and possibly conducting environmental clean-ups. This would build on their knowledge of the area and enhance their role in the Arctic. In this way, protection of Canadian sovereignty and of the Inuit could go hand in hand.

The threats facing Canada are fundamentally different than the traditional threats that the Canadian military is used to dealing with. The question is whether the new government will be able to deal with these challenges in a fair and judicious manner. The appointment of O'Connor as Minister of Defence raises doubts that it will.

Barbara Bedont is an international lawyer in Montreal and a co-director of the Canadian Forum for Global Security.
Erika Simpson is an associate professor of international relations in the department of political science at the University of Western Ontario.

http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2006/february/15/military/

[Hollywoodaction]

Here's an idea to put an end to the debate: stop pushing technology on consumers that creates a dependency on fossil fuels.

[Bulsajo]

Sure, a sensible long-term solution.
A no brainer, really, right?
But how to get from A to B?

What is everyone going to do between now and when the first shipyard to produce hydrogen-powered vessels opens-say, 50-75 years from now?

The Russians have nuclear-powered icebreakers, and some people have been advocating similar vessels for a Candian northern fleet- do you feel that would be an acceptable susbstitute for fossil-fuel powered vessels?

[Bulsajo]

Might be of interest to some here:

CBC NEWS: THE LENS
(Tuesday February 21 at 10pm ET/PT, repeating Saturday February 25 at 10pm ET/PT on CBC Newsworld)
ICEBREAKER (PREMIERE)
What type of person dedicates their life to the sea?
ICE BREAKER is an in-depth look at a voyage taken by the CCGS Henry Larsen - the most active of the Canadian Coast Guard ice breakers.
The Larsen and her crew travel from St. John's Newfoundland to Thule, Greenland, patrolling the icy waters to ensure the safety of mariners and marine vessels, and promotes Canada's sovereignty in the North.
Directed by: David Best and Jody Shapiro
http://www.cbc.ca/thelens/program_210206.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCGS_Henry_Larsen

[Hollywoodaction]

Bulsajo, great article that you posted. Harper found a way to make friends with Bush and win more votes once the next elections are called in a few months.

[Bulsajo]

Here is a rebuttal letter to that article:

Troubled By Expert's Claims
It is clear to me by the tone and content that Barbara Bedont is a Liberal supporter (Re: "Harper's Military Plans Only Please Bush, Not Canadians" Feb. 15). What is not clear is whether she deliberately chooses to misrepresent the facts or just does not understand the issues. I have long been a supporter of the Liberal Party, but the one area where they have not done well is defence. Their inability to develop a coherent defence strategy has created a department that is rudderless and in turmoil.

If the Liberals did increase defence spending to $19.7 billion per year, they are hiding it well. I work for the department of National Defence and can tell you that we are still operating with a budget of around $13 billion. There have some one-time cash injections from year to year and the announced but yet to materialize Liberal budget promises. The department has been forced to cancel or delay programs in order to defray the cost of operations in Afghanistan and Haiti, as well as unforecasted deployments such as the DART.

The Conservatives announced transport aircraft as their top priority. This "top priority" announced by the chief of defence staff prior to the election is largely due to the fact that the existing fleet of Hercules is about to fall out of the sky. They cannot fly past the year 2010.

While I agree that the real menace to the North is global warming, Ms. Bedont's complete misunderstanding of the complex sovereignty issues facing Canada in the North is troubling. It is far too complex an issue to discuss in this format, but suffice to say, if Canada does not exert sovereignty over its Northern territory in a real and tangible way, there is real danger that an international court will cede it to those who do--most notably Denmark. The notion that one can protect one's sovereignty through purely political means and that "spending on the military is foolhardy" represents a naiveté that is difficult to comprehend from someone who touts themselves an expert in such things. One need only to look around the world and back into recent history to see that this approach cannot work.

Again, Ms Bedont has not been keeping abreast of developments in the art of peacekeeping when she says traditional peacekeeping is the way to best solve international issues. Peacekeeping has evolved into a multifaceted approach to resolving issues. It has done so precisely because the "traditional approach" has failed so miserably. The more modern approach can be seen in Haiti and Afghanistan whereby a military force backs a combined effort of police, politicians, reconstruction teams and humanitarian workers. They work together under one command structure for the purpose of cohesion and have the same aim.

If this is the best foreign policy expert we can muster, it is no wonder our foreign policy is such a mess!

M MCEWAN
Brandon, MB

http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2006/february/22/let4/

[EFLtrainer]

[EFLtrainer]

[Bulsajo]

[coolsage]

As the US has already demonstrated in its repeated violations of treaty agreements, NAFTA being just one, it will do what it wants, because it's bigger, stronger, and in the end doesn't give a sweet f**k about the fortune of any other country that doesn't serve its interests. Unfortunately, the rest of the world is stuck with this situation, because the only other option is China as the world power. Nobody wants that, just as nobody will ever take a shot at Dubya, because the only option is Cheney. So kick back, you hosers, fire up the bong; the sun will look as good tomorrow. Keep the Big Picture in mind.