source

Canadian Norad staff worry they'll lose jobs

October 26, 2003
By BETH GORHAM

CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN, Colo. (CP) - From deep inside a granite mountain, soldiers dressed in olive-green jumpsuits are tracking everything in the sky.

A control centre designed to withstand a nuclear bomb is full of high-technology gadgets and giant monitors where they follow every plane over North America and track missiles fired a world away.

If it weren't for the different flags on the shoulders of their uniforms, it would be impossible to tell some are Americans, others Canadians.

They'd like to keep it that way.

At Norad - North American Aerospace Defence Command - the two countries have been co-operating for decades in an increasingly sophisticated warning system against air attacks.

But the mood is more tense than usual these days, while the Norad team awaits Canada's impending decision on whether to support a U.S. anti-ballistic missile shield.

"It's a very awkward situation," said Canadian Forces Lt.-Gen. Rick Findley, the new deputy commander-in-chief.

"Everyone's got their fingers crossed."

A U.S. plan to station 20 interceptor missiles in Alaska and California will go ahead next year, with or without Canada's blessing.

But there's a problem if Canada doesn't go along. Monitoring missile threats and defending against them would become so intertwined that Canadians, who now have a front-row seat to U.S. defence operations, would have to bow out.

Many worry that would irrevocably change the face of a unique partnership they don't want to give up.

"This decision between the two governments is key to the future of Norad," said Canadian Maj. Scott Jones.

The air-defence organization, started in 1958, originally existed to warn Canada and the United States of an imminent attack, particularly from Soviet missiles.

It has evolved to include monitoring threats from space - U.S. staff constantly track some 8,500 man-made objects, including an astronaut's glove - and can detect an object the size of a soccer ball some 37,000 kilometres away.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, Norad has been using radar and satellites to track every flight overhead and has flown more than 32,000 sorties under Operation Noble Eagle to investigate if an aircraft isn't identified within minutes.

But the anti-ballistic missile shield envisioned by President George W. Bush represents a major change. It would employ interceptor missiles to shoot down an incoming attack from a so-called rogue state like North Korea.

Canada and the United States have been holding meetings since July on the issue and Defence Minister John McCallum has said a decision could come this fall. Paul Martin, likely Canada's next prime minister, has expressed support for the mission.

But critics, including many Liberal MPs, worry the program may kick off a new arms race, lead to weapons in space or cause Canada to lose control over its military. They also argue results of missile tests have been dismal and the technology is far from proven.

Lloyd Axworthy, onetime foreign affairs minister under retiring Prime Minister Jean Chretien, has called for open hearings so the public knows what Canada's obligations would entail and he has expressed concern the country wouldn't be able to set its own military priorities.

Defence sovereignty issues are never far from the surface, no matter how well the two countries co-operate.

A bi-national planning group of 50 people has been meeting outside of Norad for several months to devise ways of enhancing security in the face of natural disasters and potential terrorism plots conducted on inland waterways like the Great Lakes, container ships and land sites.

"We don't want to be exchanging business cards at (an emergency)," said U.S. air force Col. Laurie Cross.

Yet the future of the group is uncertain. No one is willing to predict whether it will lead to a permanent arrangement to respond to disastrous events.

"Canada has a good mechanism for homeland defence," said Lt.-Gen. Findley.

"The marriage proposal is out on the table. It's not really formal."

"We'll have to figure out what the dowry is."

When it comes to missile defence, some experts argue any sovereignty concerns, engendered by Canada's legacy of support for arms control, are misplaced.

"It's a symbol of independence," said Joel Sokolsky, dean of arts at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ont.

"If we give in on missile defence we've finally given away the store. But you don't have to agree to the strategic theory behind it."

"(You accept it) for the sake of the relationship."

Canada could make the choice not to participate, said Joseph Jockel, director of Canadian studies at St. Lawrence University in Canton, N.Y.

"The U.S. does not need Canadian territory, airspace or waters or Canadian forces to operate the system. It would not be the end of the world."

"There would still be a Canada-U.S. defence relationship. We'd still be allies."

"We'd still have to do air defence together."

But, said Jockel, Norad would no longer make sense. And Canadians could no longer participate in the assessment of a nuclear attack, a big minus.

"The U.S. would trust no other ally in that role, not even the British. Only Canadians."

The bottom line, he said, is Canadians would lose assurances of being protected by the missile-defence shield simply because of geographical proximity to the U.S.

"It might happen in some tactical situations. But Canadians can't count on it."

Others, including a foreign-policy adviser to former president Bill Clinton's administration, have predicted the death of Norad if Canada refuses to back Bush's missile-defence plan.

Dwight Mason said in a policy paper this month Canada's exclusive military access to the world's only superpower would be denied for the first time in decades.

"Space and missile functions would move elsewhere," he said.

"Canadian access to U.S. military space programs and related information would diminish or vanish."

Agreeing to the proposal would cost nothing but Canada's "moral purity about weaponization of space," said Jockel, a technology that's perhaps well over a decade away.

Bush's plan, costing close to $9 billion US a year, consists of land-based radar systems and high-speed interceptor missiles.

A second stage would put another 20 interceptors aboard U.S. warships.

U.S. officials point out they're already breaking the bank working on this system, never mind contemplating space weapons.

For those at Norad, the thought of losing the spirit of partnership is difficult to contemplate.

There are 120 Canadians stationed at the mountain and the air force base below in Colorado Springs. Another 300 Canadians are scattered at Norad sites from Alaska to Florida.

"It's a great example to the rest of the world how two nations can co-operate," said Canadian Brig.-Gen. Jim Hunter.

"You can't tell them apart."