” . . . the opportunities for Canadian businesses to make money from our military strategy is prominent in the document; there is no discussion of peace-keeping.” ( “A Military in Partnership with Canadian Industry“)
” … The Canadian military strategy document (Canada and the U.S.) “.. the two nations’ armed forces will pursue their effective collaboration on operations in North America and abroad. To remain interoperable, we must ensure that key aspects of our equipment and doctrine are compatible.” The Americans are into first-strike war and profiteering from war. About the worst “defence” strategy I can think of. Lovely.
There is a re-statement on the compatible doctrine theme which ensures that if the Iraq War scenario arises again, we will go to war with our lovely American friends and no matter what the UN or NATO position is. How incredibly awful. Who in the hell is making these decisions on behalf of Canadians? /Sandra
CONTENTS
1. “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY”. WE ARE NO LONGER PEACE-KEEPERS.
a. ONE STATED OBJECTIVE: DOCTRINE COMPATIBLE WITH THE U.S.
b. MAKES THE CANADIAN ECONOMY MORE DEPENDENT UPON WAR, BLATANTLY.
c. BETTER GET THE UNIVERSITIES INVOLVED TOO. DALHOUSIE FOR STARTERS.
d. WAR BY KILLING IS THE STRATEGY OF FOOLS, ENTIRELY LACKING IN CREATIVITY
2. HOW DEPENDENT IS THE AMERICAN ECONOMY UPON THE WAGING OF WAR?
(Includes words from retiring U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower’s 1961 Farewell speech)
3. NEWSPAPER REPORTS ON INTRODUCTION OF THE NEW CANADIAN DEFENCE STRATEGY
4. OFFSET AGREEMENTS
5. MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE, PETER MACKAY, DETAILS OF $490 BILLION DOLLAR DEFENCE STRATEGY (newspaper)
6. CANADA’S UNRECORDED MILITARY TRADE
7. LETTER TO EDITOR SENT BY LEO KURTENBACH. I HOPE IT GETS PUBLISHED.
8. LETTER I SENT TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. (UPDATE: see 2008-09-17 Reply from DND to my email (July 3), “Absolutely NO to “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY”
======================
Instead of reading all of this posting, you might want to scroll down to item #8. It captures and adds to the detail, but in summary form. The detail is necessary to substantiate and source the statements I make in summary form. The detail will not be necessary for all of you.
========
1. “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY”. WE ARE NO LONGER PEACE-KEEPERS.
I read the Canadian military strategy document. Can’t believe this is happening. If it doesn’t spur people to get out and fight everything related to the extension of the American military-industrial complex into Canada, I don’t know what will.
The letter I’ve sent is in #8 below. The addresses sent to are included. The text of Leo’s letter-to-editor is #7. Feel free to cut, copy and paste – – use, as you see fit.
The Government posted the “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY” on a web-site but didn’t make an announcement.
Among other points:
a. ONE STATED OBJECTIVE: DOCTRINE COMPATIBLE WITH THE U.S.
The military strategy document released, but not announced, by the Government of Canada includes “.. the two nations’ armed forces will pursue their effective collaboration on operations in North America and abroad. To remain interoperable, we must ensure that key aspects of our equipment and doctrine are compatible.”
We are definitely into combat.
I don’t think we are any longer into peace-keeping.
I searched the Canada First Defence Strategy for “peace keeping” in various forms – there’s nothing. The word “Peace” appears 3 times in the 22 page document:
– “The peace dividend from the end of the Cold War was short-lived.”
– “Contributing to international peace and security” appears once and then again later as a heading with not much under it.
I would say that the opportunities for Canadian businesses to make money from our military strategy is prominent in the document, whereas there is no discussion of peace-keeping.
Note this from the document: “These operations will often be conducted under the auspices of the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Canada will continue to support and contribute to these key international bodies. In addition, the Canadian Forces will participate, where circumstances dictate, in missions with like-minded states as a responsible member of the international community.” Which means we would have participated with the U.S. in the illegal war on Iraq. It is very hard for me to hold my tongue and not swear.
The SOURCE DOCUMENT, “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY“, is at:
(Link no longer valid: http://www.dnd.ca/site/focus/first/June18_0910_CFDS_english_low-res.pdf)
Also at (Link no longer valid: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/doc-canada-first-defence-strategy-1.htm)
The U.S., among other atrocities, invaded and bombed Iraq using falsified information.
Even people inside the U.S. are calling for George Bush to be tried for War Crimes. I have no doubt it will happen, eventually.
Canada align itself even more with the U.S. military doctrine? Abu Ghraib, the contracting of mercenaries, the theft of resources, …
I am quite sure that a ten-year-old could think up a better “defence” strategy.
We need to run some people out of office. They’re bloody dangerous. To us and to a whole lot of other people around the globe.
——-
b. MAKES THE CANADIAN ECONOMY MORE DEPENDENT UPON WAR
Decades ago I read that the American economy was dependent upon the waging of war, because of the size of its military-industrial complex.
From the new Canadian Military strategy we get this:
“A Military in Partnership with Canadian Industry
The Canada First Defence Strategy will also have significant benefits for Canadian industry. The infusion of long-term stable funding it provides will enable industry to reach for global excellence and to be better positioned to compete for defence contracts at home and abroad, thus enabling a pro-active investment in research and development and opportunities for domestic and international spin-offs as well as potential commercial applications.”
And “It will also allow the Government to develop a stronger, mutually beneficial relation-ship with industry.”
The document is remarkably about making money from war. Canada, too, will develop a growing and progressive economy, fueled by war.
I want to swear.
———-
c. BETTER GET THE UNIVERSITIES, OUR YOUNG PEOPLE, INVOLVED TOO. DALHOUSIE FOR STARTERS.
Because of my trial which most of you know about, I pay more attention to the relationship between Canada and the American military, and Lockheed Martin Corporation in particular. I receive the news reports from you.
I will send you the report from people who demonstrated at Dalhousie University because of Lockheed’s funding of the University. And now in reading the military strategy document, Canadian Universities will play a role in military research and development.
—–
d. WAR BY KILLING IS THE STRATEGY OF FOOLS, ENTIRELY LACKING IN CREATIVITY
Gandhi brought the British Empire to its knees. His weapon of choice was non-violent resistance. I circulated this after a visit to Berlin in 1999.
ALL OUR COWARDICE AND SERVILITY
“… nonviolent resistance as a political force is still young, its possibilities not yet well enough known, and is thus seldom an incitement to the masses and is seldom encouraged by the media. For all that, those striving for human rights are dependent on our solidarity and the feeling is growing of an ever increasing threat through the power of dictatorships, the armaments race and the immobility of bureaucrats.
Gandhi presented the principles of nonviolent resistance to the world, but the methods – corresponding to the various hierarchies – have to be very different, should they lead to success. Through the multiplicity of nonviolent resistance, so rich in ideas, it can be demonstrated that the most powerful effective opposing forces can be mobilized against every form of violence …”
The Berlin Wall and the Communist regime in East Germany came down. The non-violent resistance that brought it down is graphically recorded in this homey, old, cramped museum. This poem was penned by an unknown East German.
It spoke to me then and always will:
“The red-painted tyranny was not
The worst about our tyrants
The worst thereby were we ourselves
All our cowardice and servility
And that we also were the evil ourselves
Just that is the chance and our luck
You see: It works! We also take back
The everlasting human right ourselves
Now we breathe again, we cry and we laugh
the stale sadness out of the breast
man, we are stronger than rats and dragons
– and had forgotten it and always knew.”
There are millions of us. Certainly enough to challenge this “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY“.
—————–
2. HOW DEPENDENT IS THE AMERICAN ECONOMY ON THE WAGING OF WAR?
We have to stand up for what we want. Do we want the Canadian economy to become dependent upon killing, destructive wars? Are we incapable of maintaining the vision of earlier Canadian Prime Ministers like Lester Pearson? Do we want to follow the U.S. doctrine?
Military-industrial complex
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
President Dwight Eisenhower famously referred to the “military-industrial complex” in his farewell address. A military-industrial complex (MIC) is composed of a nation’s armed forces, its suppliers of weapons systems, supplies and services, and its civil government. It is a type of iron triangle.
The term “MIC” is most often used in reference to the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, though the term is applicable to any country with a similarly developed infrastructure. It is sometimes used more broadly to include the entire network of contracts and flows of money and resources among individuals as well as institutions of the defense contractors, The Pentagon, and the Congress and Executive branch. This sector is intrinsically prone to principal-agent problem, moral hazard, and rent seeking. Cases of political corruption have also surfaced with regularity. A similar thesis was originally expressed by Daniel Guérin, in his 1936 book Fascism and Big Business, about the fascist government support to heavy industry.
Contents
1 History
2 Origin of the term
3 Cultural references
4 See also
5 Sources
6 Notes
7 Further reading
8 External links
History
According to historian William H. McNeill, the first modern MICs arose in Britain and France in the 1880s and 1890s. The naval rivalry between these two powers was of utmost significance in the fermentation, growth and development of these MICs. Conversely, the existence of these two nations’ respective MICs may have been the source of these military tensions.
Officers like Admiral Jackie Fisher influenced the shift toward faster technological integration (which meant closer relationships with private, innovative companies). Similar MICs soon followed in nations like Germany, Japan, and the United States.
Industrialists who played a part in the arms industry of this era included Alfred Krupp, Samuel Colt, William G. Armstrong, Alfred Nobel, and Joseph Whitworth.
Technology has always been a part of warfare. Neolithic tools were used as weapons before recorded history. The bronze age and iron age saw the rise of complex industries geared towards the manufacture of weaponry. These industries also had practical peacetime applications, as well; industries making swords in times of war could make plowshares in times of peace, for example. However, it was not until the 19th or 20th century that military weaponry became sufficiently complicated as to require a large subset of industrial effort solely dedicated to warfare. Firearms, artillery, steamships, and later aircraft and nuclear weapons were markedly different from ancient or medieval swords — these new weapons required years of specialized labor, as opposed to part-time effort. Furthermore, the length of time necessary to build weapons systems of high complexity and massive integration required pre-planning and construction even during times of peace; thus a portion of the economies of the great powers (and, later, the superpowers), was dedicated and maintained solely for the purpose of defense (and war). This trend of coupling some industries towards military activity gave rise to the concept of a “partnership” between the military and private enterprise.
The term is often used to refer to the “complex” in the context of the United States, where the term came into wide use by the public, following its introduction by President Dwight Eisenhower in his “Farewell Address”; the U.S. has a complex which, on an annual basis, accounts for 47% of the world’s total arms expenditures [1]. This also may be due to the ahistorical pattern of the previous ~70 years of military expenditures by the United States; prior to the Second World War, the U.S. maintained a small military (in comparison to its peers) in times of peace and instead relied on militia or, in later years, reserves, in the event of war; indeed, spending for arms in times of peace has always been looked upon with suspicion by the people of the United States[citation needed]. The coming of the Cold War changed that; the Cold War represented an indefinite period of low-intensity, unconventional conflict between the superpowers, with the ongoing potential to metastasize into an existential military struggle that could happen with only minutes of notice, would likely destroy both superpowers, possibly cause a new Dark Age, and might even result in the extinction of the human species. And in this time overshadowed by acronyms like M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) and N.U.T.S. (Nuclear Utilization Target Selection), the military-industrial complex rose to great prominence, and power, in the United States.
It is difficult to estimate the degree of dependence of the U.S. economy on its military and defense spending, but it is clearly enormous, and legislators fiercely resist defense cuts that affect their districts. In Washington State, an economist[citation needed] estimated in 2002 that in Western Washington 166,000 jobs, or about 15% of the workforce, depended directly or indirectly on military installations alone, not counting defense industries. In Washington State overall in FY2001, about $7.06 billion arrived in U.S. Department of Defense payroll, pensions, and procurement contracts—and Washington State was only seventh among the fifty states in this regard.[citation needed] Overall, U.S. spending on defense acquisitions and research is equal to 1.2% of the GDP.
Origin of the term
President of the United States (and former General of the Army) Dwight D. Eisenhower used the term in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961:
“ A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction… This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together. ”
In the penultimate draft of the address, Eisenhower initially used the term military-industrial-congressional complex, and thus indicated the essential role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry. But, it is said, that the president chose to strike the word congressional in order to placate members of the legislative branch of the federal government. The actual authors of the term were Eisenhower’s speech-writers Ralph Williams and Malcolm Moos.[2]
Attempts to conceptualize something similar to a modern “military-industrial complex” existed before Eisenhower’s address. In 1956, sociologist C. Wright Mills had claimed in his book The Power Elite that a class of military, business, and political leaders, driven by mutual interests, were the real leaders of the state, and were effectively beyond democratic control.
Vietnam War-era activists, such as Seymour Melman, referred frequently to the concept. In the late 1990s James Kurth asserted, “[b]y the mid-1980s the term had largely fallen out of public discussion… whatever the power of arguments about the influence of the military-industrial complex on weapons procurement during the Cold War, they are much less relevant to the current era.”
Contemporary students and critics of alleged American militarism continue to refer to and employ the term, however. For example, historian Chalmers Johnson uses words from the second, third, and fourth paragraphs quoted above from Eisenhower’s address as an epigraph to Chapter Two (“The Roots of American Militarism”) of a recent volume[3] on this subject. Peter W. Singer’s book concerning private military companies illustrates contemporary ways in which industry, particularly an information-based one, still interacts with the U.S. Government and the Pentagon.[4]
The expressions permanent war economy and war corporatism are related concepts that have also been used in association with this term.
The term is also used to describe comparable collusion in other political entities such as the German Empire (prior to and through the first world war), Britain, France and (post-Soviet) Russia.
Noam Chomsky has suggested that “military-industrial complex” is a misnomer because (as he considers it) the phenomenon in question “is not specifically military.”[5]. He claims, “There is no military-industrial complex: it’s just the industrial system operating under one or another pretext (defense was a pretext for a long time).”[6]
=================
3. NEWSPAPER REPORTS ON INTRODUCTION OF THE DEFENCE STRATEGY
Article appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, Regina Leader Post, the National Post.
Under heading
– Conservative defence strategy quietly released on Internet
– Parliament in the dark on major weapons purchase
(Link no longer valid: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=602046 )
http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=c3fcf7c4-0f60-41e1-89f8-0c95a2640229
Parliament in the dark on major weapons purchase
David Pugliese, Canwest News Service
Published: Thursday, June 19, 2008
Members of the U.S. Congress have been told the Canadian government plans to spend $114 million on new howitzers to contribute to the war on terror while parliamentarians at home have been kept in the dark over the deal.
And in another example of how the government is handling its defence policy, the Conservatives’ Canada First Defence Strategy was quietly released Thursday night on the Internet.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay will inform members of the public in a speech today that they can read details about the strategy online.
Dan Dugas, MacKay’s communications chief, said he didn’t have details on why the strategy was released the night before Parliament adjourns for the summer.
Asked for comment on the strategy, Dugas noted that “I think the whole document is a comment on it. I think it stands on its own.”
But parliamentarians are not amused.
“It’s like they’re sneaking something out there that they’re ashamed about,” said Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, who heads the Senate’s defence and national security committee. “It’s astonishing they didn’t have the material in the first place when they announced the strategy last month.”
“What happened to respect for Parliament and tabling it in the Commons?” he added.
The strategy was announced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in May, but defence analysts and opposition MPs criticized the fact there was no actual written document.
Military officials later held a technical briefing where they provided more details.
The document outlines the proposed future purchase of new naval vessels, surveillance aircraft and vehicles for the army.
It also outlines the Conservatives’ ongoing defence equipment projects, which include the purchase of new transport aircraft, helicopters, supply ships and used tanks.
The 22-page document released Thursday night repeats that information as well as information in previous government news releases. It does not contain any significant new details.
New Democratic Party Defence critic Dawn Black says she thought the release’s timing was more than a coincidence. “This leaves no time for the Commons defence committee to ask questions on this, nothing,” said Black. “Is that accountability?
“It’s embarrassing Canadians have to read a U.S. government website to get this information while our Defence Department says nothing about it.”
Neither the Defence Department nor Public Works released details on the howitzer deal, but Congress was told Wednesday about the pending sale.
Under American government accountability rules, the U.S. Defense Security Co-operation Agency must tell Congress of upcoming sales of weaponry. That information is also made public.
The estimated cost is $114 million, according to the security co-operation agency.
The agency told Congress that the proposed sale would contribute to the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the military capabilities of Canada and the Canadian military’s interoperability with U.S. forces.
“This proposed sale would greatly contribute to Canada’s military capability by making it a more sustainable coalition force to support the global war on terror,” the agency stated.
Canada currently operates M777 lightweight howitzers in Afghanistan.
U.S. firms in Mississippi and in Michigan will provide the equipment.
There are no offset agreements in place for the sale, which means that the U.S. companies aren’t required to provide industrial benefits to Canadian firms.
© Ottawa Citizen 2008
=================
4. OFFSET AGREEMENTS
Regarding the last line of the preceding newspaper article, “There are no offset agreements in place for the sale, which means that the U.S. companies aren’t required to provide industrial benefits to Canadian firms.”
I didn’t know they had a name, “Offset agreements”. They are of particular concern. They are the vehicle to accomplish the “Military in Partnership with Canadian Industry” under the “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY“.
There is something wrong with the statement in the newspaper article, “There are no offset agreements in place for the sale“. There is information on the Government web-site to contradict it.
I left a phone message for the journalist, David Pugliese to request clarification. What is the source of information for this statement? It seems to be at odds with:
(1) The Govt of Canada web-site, January press release. (Link no longer valid: http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=372509 )
Government of Canada Awards Tactical Airlift Contract
For immediate release
GATINEAU, January 16, 2008 – The Honourable Michael M Fortier, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, along with the Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay, Minister of National Defence, today announced that the government has awarded a contract to Lockheed Martin Corporation for the acquisition of the Canadian Forces new tactical lift aircraft. …
The purchase contract for 17 C-130J Hercules aircraft is valued at approximately $1.4 billion U.S., with an additional amount to be added in 2009 for at least 20 years of in-service support.
Under the contract, Lockheed Martin Corp. is required to invest in the Canadian economy, dollar for dollar, what the Government of Canada spends in procuring and maintaining the aircraft over the life of the contract.
“We are continuing to make sure Canada’s aerospace and defence industries obtain maximum benefit so they can build and sustain capacity to support these aircraft over the long-term,” Mr. Fortier said. “Under the in-service support portion, the contractor will be required to spend in Canada 75 per cent of the total cost in direct industrial regional benefits – well above the 60-per-cent ratio negotiated by the previous government for purchases of this magnitude.”
The Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of Industry, believes Canadian firms will play a significant role in the project’s progress. “Through the government’s industrial benefits policy, we are delivering maximum, high-quality economic benefits to Canadians while providing the military with the best equipment for its needs,” said Mr. Prentice.
Delivery of the first aircraft is expected in winter 2010.
(2) The statement in the newspaper is also at odds with the information from the people who protested Lockheed Martin’s funding to Dalhousie University:
“Dalhousie University is announcing a multi-million dollar research contract with Lockheed-Martin. This contract is the result of government policy, which requires a foreign company to invest in Canada before it can enter into a government contract. (How does the Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRB) policy work?
(Link no longer valid: http://www.strategis.gc.ca/epic/site/ad-ad.nsf/en/ad03661e.html)
==========================
5. MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE, PETER MACKAY, DETAILS OF $490 BILLION DOLLAR DEFENCE STRATEGY
(Link no longer valid: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/defence_strategy)
MacKay reveals details of $490-billion defence strategy to modernize military Fri Jun 20, 4:50 PM
HALIFAX – The chairman of the Senate defence committee criticized the federal government Friday for releasing its long-awaited defence strategy with no notice, while also accusing Ottawa of producing an unrealistic plan that’s a rehash of old promises.
Liberal Senator Colin Kenny said he was stunned when he was tipped off late Thursday that something “interesting” might be appearing on the Defence Department’s website and later saw a posting for the $490 billion Canada First Defence Strategy.
“This business of releasing it at seven o’clock at night is for the birds,”Kenny said from Ottawa. “It doesn’t make much sense to me unless you don’t want a lot of people to notice it.”
He described it as “a lousy paper.”
Defence Minister Peter MacKay dismissed the claim, saying the government merely wanted to add more details to the plan announced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Halifax last month.
Speaking at an international conference in Halifax on Friday, MacKay said the plan would modernize the Forces and provide the personnel, equipment and infrastructure to carry out domestic and international missions.
“It is a plan to give predictable, long-term funding and to rebuild and expand the Canadian Forces,” he told the audience, inviting them to view the 21-page document on the Defence Department’s website.
“We need to have a capable, flexible and deployable military and this is what we are doing in Canada with the Canada First Defence Strategy.”
The 20-year plan includes an annual spending increase of two per cent starting in 2011 that will boost the defence budget to $30 billion in 2027-28 from the current level of $18 billion.
The funding includes $20 billion for new aircraft, tanks and ships, in addition to $15 billion in transport planes, trucks and helicopters that had been purchased earlier.
The price tag includes a projection of $250 billion to recruit 70,000 regular and 30,000 reserve force personnel, along with $140 billion for spare parts, maintenance and training.
It focuses on six core principals: support for a major international event in Canada, like the 2010 Olympics (INSERT: try the G-20 Summit in Toronto in June 2010); responding to a terrorist attack; supporting civilian authorities during a natural disaster; leading major international operations for an extended period; deploying personnel to international crises; and maintaining the ability to conduct continental operations through NORAD – the North American Aerospace Defence Command.
The strategy cites the purchase of four C-17 Globemaster strategic lift aircraft and the procurement of 17 new C-130J Hercules tactical lift aircraft, along with plans to acquire 16 Chinook helicopters.
The acquisition of those previously announced items, including Arctic patrol ships, and new fleet replacements is projected to cost $35 billion over two decades.
Infrastructure and its maintenance is pegged at $25 billion over 20 years.
But one defence analyst said the document is based on economic factors and inflation that can fluctuate wildly and dramatically jack up the costs.
“That is vulnerable to some wild shifts down the road,” said Brian MacDonald of the Conference of Defence Associations, adding that the price of equipment can rise steeply over time.
“I’m pleased with the plan, but I have reservations about whether this is enough money to handle the equipment side.”
NDP defence critic Dawn Black said the document reaffirms her assertion that the Conservative government is aligned with the military goals of its neighbour to the south, and that Canada’s role in Afghanistan is the priority.
“This so-called Canada first strategy really indicates a lack of putting Canada first and putting the war in Afghanistan as the top priority,” she said.
“There is a strong emphasis on interoperability with the U.S. military, which I think will be a major concern to a majority of Canadians.”
In the document, the government says the strategy is based on the need for a boost in troop strength and modernized equipment to address global terrorism, the “proliferation of advanced weapons” and “nuclear-capable adversarial states headed by unpredictable regimes,” while establishing a strong presence in the Arctic.
================
6. CANADA’S UNRECORDED MILITARY TRADE
This was written in 1996. I don’t know today’s status.
(link no longer valid, www ploughshares ca)
Export controls loophole: Canada’s unrecorded military trade
Each year Canada exports more than $100-million of equipment to overseas military users that is neither subject to export controls nor reported as military sales. Ken Epps reports on a large conventional arms control loophole that could widen.
(Please go to web page for full article.)
======================
7. LETTER TO EDITOR SENT BY LEO KURTENBACH. I HOPE IT GETS PUBLISHED.
To the Editor,
Your readers who may have read my recent June letter regarding the possibility of a World War 3, may have muttered to themselves that the message came from the pen of a scaremonger or an alarmist.
If so, please consider the June 19th posting of a military strategy document by the Department of National Defence.[DND]
One Canadian military strategist wondered why this document had been released at this particular time of day, and just a day before the House of Commons prorogued for the summer. There was no public announcement. The following are some of the main points in that document.
1. It is proposed that the military budget be increased by 490 billion dollars over the next 20 years.
2. 60 billion dollars are budgeted for the purchase of helicopters, patrol ships, planes, destroyers, frigates, land combat vehicles and weapons.
3. 250 billion on personnel, 140 billion on training, and 40 billion on buildings and infrastructure.
The document stated that there would be more cooperation between the arms industry and the “state” in order to build up Canada’s arms industry on world markets.
It also stated that Canadian Universities (INSERT: Dalhousie University and then SIIT in Saskatoon) will play a role in military research and development. And Canada should be prepared to serve a longer term in Afghanistan.
Last but certainly not least, the document stated that “Canada’s military needs to enhance its ability to operate alongside US forces”.
The USA and Canada both profess and maintain that they are Christian nations. Am I too naive in believing that it is an oxymoron in striving to achieve Peace by killing people?
Let Canada return to its former role as Peace keepers, when we were acknowledged as one of the most highly respected nations on this planet.
Leo Kurtenbach, Box 268, Cudworth, Sask., S0K 1B0. Phone 256 3638.
===================
8. LETTER I SENT TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
NOTE: Canada got a new Chief-of-Defense on July 2. Rick Hillier stepped down. I phoned to ask for new Chief General Walter Natynczyk’s email address and to lodge complaint about the Military Strategy. You can call, too: 1 800 465-6890. There’s no email address. I am sending hard copy to him.
NOTE: I received a reply to the email below. See 2008-09-17 Reply from DND to my email (July 3), “Absolutely NO to “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY”
TO: (1) Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada, Rideau Hall, 1 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, ON K1A 0A1
e-mail: info AT gg.ca
Telephone (613) 993 8200 or 1 800 465 6890 (2)
General Walter Natynczyk
Chief of Defense Staff, Canadian Armed Forces
101 Colonel-By Drive Ottawa ON K1A 0K2 tel. Telephone: 613 992 5054
(3) Peter MacKay – Minister of National Defence National Defence Headquarters
Major-General George R. Pearkes Building, 101 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0K2
Phone: 613 996 3100 Email: dnd_mdn AT forces.gc.ca
Dear Michaëlle Jean, Walter Natynczyk and Peter MacKay;
RE: “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY“, posted on about June 19th, 2008
I am dismayed and appalled by the direction established through the “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY“.
It is not a strategy of defence. It is a strategy of war.
I call upon you to reverse the strategy.
Concerning DEFENCE DOCTRINE COMPATIBLE WITH U.S. DOCTRINE:
“.. the two nations’ armed forces will pursue their effective collaboration on operations in North America and abroad. To remain interoperable, we must ensure that key aspects of our equipment and doctrine are compatible.”
The U.S. launches illegal wars. It creates hatred in the world by appropriating the resources of other people. It has the atrocities of Abu Ghraib on its record. George Bush will eventually be tried for War Crimes. And Canada aspires to compatibility of doctrine with the U.S.? Are you out of your minds? That’s about the worst strategy I can think of.
Concerning the CREATION OF A MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IN CANADA:
“A Military in Partnership with Canadian Industry
The Canada First Defence Strategy will also have significant benefits for Canadian industry. The infusion of long-term stable funding it provides will enable industry to …”
It is not what it’s made out to be. The actual flow of money out of the public purse is explained by Peter Mackay in a newspaper interview: “The purchase contract for 17 C-130J Hercules aircraft is valued at approximately $1.4 billion U.S., with an additional amount to be added in 2009 for at least 20 years of in-service support. Under the contract, Lockheed Martin Corp. is required to invest in the Canadian economy, dollar for dollar, what the Government of Canada spends in procuring and maintaining the aircraft over the life of the contract.”
The funding goes to Canadian industry through the offset agreements in contracts made with, significantly and for example, Lockheed Martin Corporation. For all intents and purposes Lockheed Martin IS the American military. It is the world’s largest war contractor (a.k.a. “defence” contractor). It makes billions of dollars through the killing of people.
It has a public record of corruption.
Lockheed Martin is already well positioned in Canada. It is not only becoming the Godfather of Canadian industry, dispersing money from the public purse to Canadian businesses. Through offset agreements Lockheed has invested in Dalhousie University (also consistent with the stated intentions of the “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY”). It can only invest in Dalhousie if it has EXCESS profits. Its contracts are with the Government of Canada.
Ipso facto, you know that Canadian citizens are paying too much for its contracts, in addition to becoming the enablers of the aggressive American war machinery.
Jean Chretien, I sincerely thank God, kept Canada out of the Iraq war. We are in Afghanistan. You are no doubt aware that Canadian troops there will be helping to guard the Central Asian gas pipeline for American interests.
Read the following clause from the “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY” and tell me, when the U.S. declares war on Iran, will Canada be there helping to fire the bullets that are sheathed with Depleted Radioactive Uranium on the people of Iran?:
“These operations will often be conducted under the auspices of the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Canada will continue to support and contribute to these key international bodies. In addition, the Canadian Forces will participate, where circumstances dictate, in missions with like-minded states as a responsible member of the international community.”
Given that we are making our military doctrine “compatible” with the U.S., I would say that the U.S. is a “like-minded state”. I wonder what circumstances will dictate that we help the Americans to launch a killing and destructive war on Iran? And whose interests will be served by the war? Will we be on-side with the Americans and off-side with the United Nations? (as would have happened had we participated in the Iraq “mission”.)
Warnings from Dwight Eisenhower’s 1961 Farewell Speech are instructive:
“… In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
There are viable and realistic ALTERNATIVES TO KILLING WARS . Gandhi brought the British Empire to its knees. His weapon of choice was non-violent resistance. In war waged with intelligence and creativity, the killing and destruction is minimized and the wars are actually won in a comparatively short period of time. Nor do they leave as large a legacy of hatred. It is the killing that creates the hatred.
The Canadian Military, through the “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY” exhibits (I am sorry to say) very ineffective, obsolete, stupid and very expensive strategy.
From newspaper reports, “MacKay reveals details of $490-billion defence strategy”. With the looming monster of inflation (fuelled by enormous U.S. war debt) $490 billion will easily become half a trillion dollars. Can you imagine what could be done overseas with $500 billion dollars? It would actually make a significant contribution to peace in the world. Aaah! But then the Canadian military-industrial complex along with Lockheed Martin Corporation, their magnanimous benefactor, would be on the ropes.
“… nonviolent resistance as a political force is still young, its possibilities not yet well enough known, and is thus seldom an incitement to the masses and is seldom encouraged by the media. For all that, those striving for human rights are dependent on our solidarity and the feeling is growing of an ever increasing threat through the power of dictatorships, the armaments race and the immobility of bureaucrats.
Gandhi presented the principles of nonviolent resistance to the world, but the methods – corresponding to the various hierarchies – have to be very different, should they lead to success. Through the multiplicity of nonviolent resistance, so rich in ideas, it can be demonstrated that the most powerful effective opposing forces can be mobilized against every form of violence …”
We have not only the example of Gandhi. The East Germans brought down a fascist regime by successfully employing the tactics of Gandhi, creatively moulded to their situation and the opportunities-at-hand. None of them had any money.
Consider what the “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY“, our alignment with the American doctrine of war, will mean financially for Canadian tax-payors.
The Outstanding Public Debt of the United States as of 03 Jul 2008 at 04:41:28 PM GMT is a number so large I don’t know how to read or interpret it: $9,470,470,394,065.00
The estimated population of the United States is 304,288,339 so each citizen’s share of this debt is $31,123.34. A family of four in the U.S. shoulders responsibility for Government debt of $125 thousand dollars. That’s just for today.
The American National Debt has continued to increase an average of $1.66 billion per day since September 28, 2007. The debt is the consequence of American Military Strategy. The numbers are up to where Canada used to be in the neighbourhood of 60% of GDP. In 1980 the United States had its debt-to-GDP ratio around 40%, or where Canada was in fiscal year 2004-05.
But since then American Government debt has taken off – it is now above 60%.
It is a terrible mis-allocation of resources. Always at the expense of future generations.
The “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY” reflects obsolete thinking. It is a dangerous document for Canadians and for future Canadians. If it is not stopped Canada will be a danger to other people in the world, too. This is not too hard to figure out.
Yours truly,
Sandra Finley (contact info)
