Continental Defense and Sovereignty Debates in Canada

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

The functioning of NORAD
Missile defense program
Conclusion
Bibliography
Footnotes

The diplomatic and military relations between the United Stated and Canada have always been critical for ensuring security in North America. Much attention should be paid to the policies of the Canadian government which has to reconcile conflicting priorities. In particular, the policy-makers of this country focus on the need to retain the sovereignty of their country. However, at the same time, they must protect the citizens of Canada from various global threats such as the dangers posed by terrorist organizations or rogue states. Both countries currently operate North American Aerospace Defense Command which is important for securing the air space of the continent.

Nevertheless, there have been tensions over Canada’s participation in the missile defense program. The government of Canada refused to participate in this program in 2005. Nevertheless, despite these disputes, Canada supported many of the initiatives led by the United States. For instance, one can speak about the military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, Canada and the United States are willing to maintain the balance of power in the Arctic region¹. Overall, it is important to examine the defense cooperation of these countries in greater detail.

While examining this issue, one should focus on the long-term of concerns about the so-called Americanization of Canada. Allegedly, this Americanization can entail the loss of sovereignty². This apprehension takes its origins in the nineteenth century during which the United States and Canada had several territorial disputes. Another important issue is that the government of Canada cannot always form the strategic goal of the international agencies formed by the two countries. This is one of the details that should not be overlooked. Additionally, the Canadian support of the U.S. foreign policies has often been debated by local politicians and journalists.

This issue is important for understanding the relations between these two countries and their joint efforts to protect the security in North America. These details should be considered by people who develop the security strategies of the United States³. To a great extent, this information can be useful for explaining possible obstacles to the integration of the defense policies pursued by each of these countries.

The functioning of NORAD

At first, it is important to focus on the activities of North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). This system was developed in order to respond to the threats associated with the Cold War. Its major task is to provide aerospace warning. In this case, one should speak about the detention of possible threats that can be posed by missiles, aircrafts, as well as space vehicles. Additionally, this organization is responsible for identifying potential maritime threats. For example, it is possible to mention missiles launched from sub-marines. One should keep in mind that the NORAD commander-in-chief is always a four-star General of the U.S. Army⁴.

In turn, the deputy commander is the Canadian General. Thus, one can say that the United States plays a more prominent role. Currently, this agency takes an active part in the operations that are aimed at curbing drug trafficking and preventing potential attacks of terrorist organizations. This task has become particularly important after 9/11 attacks. To some degree, its role has evolved after the end of the Cold War. Nevertheless, this agency plays a critical role for maintaining the security of both countries. These are the main points that can be made.

Additionally, American and Canadian policy-makers have often disputes over the functioning of NORAD, especially the control of Canadian military personnel. This argument is particularly relevant if one speaks about the Cuban missile crisis during which the Canadian officers were placed on high alert, even though the Prime Minister of Canada did not authorize this command⁵. This is one of the cases that can be identified because it gave rise to the arguments according to which the Canadian government could not shape the functioning of NORAD. Moreover, the role in decision-making was simply neglected. Nevertheless, one should also keep in mind that the country has benefited from the participation in this military initiative because this cooperation is important for the timely identification of possible dangers. These are some of the details that should be taken into account.

Missile defense program

It is also important to discuss the role of Canada in the missile defense program implemented by the United States. One should note that the Canadian government refused to participate in this program. In particular, in 2005, Paul Martin, who was the Canadian Prime Minister, stated that the government did not want to be involved in this plan. In particular, he stated that the country did not want to support the “weaponization of space”⁶.

It is important to determine that Paul Martin did not fully explain the factors that shaped this decision. This step gave rise to the criticisms made by American politicians. Nevertheless, at the same time, Canadian policy-makers expressed their support of NORAD. Overall, this defense system is aimed at intercepting missiles that can be headed towards the United States. The key goal is to destroy nuclear missiles that can endanger the lives of many people. To a great extent, this program is aimed at eliminating the threats that can be posed by Iran and North Korea. Additionally, it is necessary for the prevention of the potential attack by Russia or China.

These are the main objectives that can be identified. The government of Canada could refuse this plan due to several reasons. At first, the government of Canada did not want to support the foreign policies implemented by the Bush administration. His foreign policies were not accepted by Canadian citizens. As it has been noted before, this refusal can be explained by the long-term apprehensions of Canadian politicians who often express concerns about the alleged decline of the Canadian sovereignty. Very often, they believe that the increased participation in the defense programs developed by the United States can undermine the sovereignty and independence of Canada. Additionally, this decision could have adversely influenced the political future of the Liberal Party.

These are some of the obstacles that should not be overlooked. Additionally, this participation could put a strain on the military budget of the country. Overall, the public reaction to this step varied dramatically, For instance, in Canada, many people supported this choice, because they opposed the militarization of Canadian foreign policies. In turn, more conservative people believed Canada should strengthen its strategic alliance with the United States. Yet, this problem does not mean that the United States and Canada cannot align their defense policies.

Overall, it is possible to argue that Canada should take part in this program, and there are several reasons for this decision. In particular, any nuclear threats, to which the United States can be exposed, can inevitably affect Canada as well. Furthermore, if the country does not support this initiative, Canadian government will have no control over the interception of the missiles headed towards Canada. Certainly, this scenario is unlikely, but it cannot be completely rejected. However, this policy can be supported only if it does not turn Canada into a potential target for a nuclear attack. Thus, policy-makers should attach importance to the long-term national security interests of Canada. These are some of the main details that can be identified.

Conclusion

On the whole, this discussion shows that the continental defense efforts of the United States and Canada are partly influenced by political and social tensions within each country. This argument is particularly relevant if one speaks about Canada. To some degree, this problem can be explained by the fact that Canadian government cannot always shape the military agenda and development of strategic goals. Additionally, much attention should be paid to concerns about the declining sovereignty of Canada. The functioning of NORAD illustrates the power struggles between two countries. This conflict is one of the reasons why Canada does not fully participate in the ballistic missile program developed by the United States.

Admittedly, many of these concerns can be based on false premises. However, these difficulties can dramatically shape the decisions of policy-makers. Still, despite these issues, this cooperation between the two countries has been critical for protecting peace and security of this region. This partnership should be continued, even though many of the Cold War threats have been eliminated. These tensions cannot be compared to critical disagreements that cannot be resolved. However, it is vital to understand how internal trends affect the foreign policies of Canada. These are the main aspects that can be singled out.

Bibliography

Charbonneau, Bruno, and Wayne Cox. “Global Order, US Hegemony and Military Integration: The Canadian-American Defense Relationship.” International Political Sociology 2, no. 4 (2008): 305-321.

Grinspun, Ricardo. Whose Canada?: Continental Integration, Fortress North America, and the Corporate Agenda. New York: McGill-Queen’s Press, 2007.

Lambakis, Steven. On the Edge of Earth: The Future of American Space Power. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2013.

Massie, Justin. “Canada’s (In)dependence in the North American Security Community: The Asymmetrical Norm of Common Fate.” American Review of Canadian Studies 37, no. 4 (2007): 493-516.

Parkey, Jeffrey. “Assessing Institutional Alternatives for Future Northwest Passage Governance.” American Review of Canadian Studies 42, no. 2 (2012): 171-194.

Footnotes

1 Jeffrey Parkey, “Assessing Institutional Alternatives for Future Northwest Passage Governance,” American Review of Canadian Studies 42, no. 2 (2012): 171-194.

2 Justin Massie, “Canada’s (In)dependence in the North American Security Community: The Asymmetrical Norm of Common Fate,” American Review of Canadian Studies 37, no. 4 (2007): 493.

3 Bruno Charbonneau and Wayne Cox, “Global Order, US Hegemony and Military Integration: The Canadian-American Defense Relationship,” International Political Sociology 2, no. 4 (2008): 305.

4 Steven Lambakis, On the Edge of Earth: The Future of American Space Power (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2013), 230.

5 Justin Massie, “Canada’s (In)dependence in the North American Security Community: The Asymmetrical Norm of Common Fate,” American Review of Canadian Studies 37, no. 4 (2007): 500.

6 Ricardo Grinspun, Whose Canada?: Continental Integration, Fortress North America, and the Corporate Agenda (New York: McGill-Queen’s Press, 2007), 122.

Click Here To Order Now!