The author, Michael Chossudovsky, has a bit of a shrill tone, and his web site Global Research does seem to hyperventilate a bit. Still, this material seems well documented and meshes at key points with things I understand to be true. The decision to allow US military forces to enter Canada for active operations is alarming as is it's formulation and implementation at military--not governmental--levels. All of this is presented by the US and Canadian defence establishments as a benign program to afford mutual assistance in times of stress including "civil emergencies". There's more, a lot more, so have a read.
The Deployment of US Troops Inside Canada
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, March 13, 2008
VPO NOTE: Companion article to the one below.
On February 14th, Canada and the US signed an agreement which allows
for the deployment of US troops inside Canada.
There was no official announcement nor was there a formal decision at
the governmental level.
In fact the agreement was barely mentioned by the Canadian media.
The agreement, which raises farreaching issues of national
sovereignty, was not between the two governments. It was signed by
military commanding officers.
U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) released a statement confirming that
the agreement had been signed between US NORTHCOM and Canada Command,
namely between the military commands of each country. Canada Command
was established in February 2006.
U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of North American
Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, and Canadian Air
Force Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command, have signed a
Civil Assistance Plan that allows the military from one nation to
support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.
"This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align our
respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other
nation's requests for military support of civil authorities, " Renuart
said. "Unity of effort during bilateral support for civil support
operations such as floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and
effects of a terrorist attack, in order to save lives, prevent human
suffering and mitigate damage to property, is of the highest
importance, and we need to be able to have forces that are flexible
and adaptive to support rapid decision-making in a collaborative
environment. "
"The signing of this plan is an important symbol of the already strong
working relationship between Canada Command and U.S. Northern
Command," Dumais said. "Our commands were created by our respective
governments to respond to the defense and security challenges of the
twenty-first century, and we both realize that these and other
challenges are best met through cooperation between friends."
The plan recognizes the role of each nation's lead federal agency for
emergency preparedness, which in the United States is the Department
of Homeland Security and in Canada is Public Safety Canada. The plan
facilitates the military-to- military support of civil authorities once
government authorities have agreed on an appropriate response.
U.S. Northern Command was established on Oct. 1, 2002, to anticipate
and conduct homeland defense and civil support operations within the
assigned area of responsibility to defend, protect, and secure the
United States and its interests.
Similarly, Canada Command was established on Feb. 1, 2006, to focus on
domestic operations and to offer a single point of contact for all
domestic and continental defense and security partners.
The two domestic commands established strong bilateral ties well
before the signing of the Civil Assistance Plan. The two commanders
and their staffs meet regularly, collaborate on contingency planning
and participate in related annual exercises.
(NORTHCOM website: http://www.northcom .mil/News/ 2008/021408. html
The Decision to Allow the Deployment of US Troops inside Canada was
taken in April 2002
While a formal agreement was reached in February 2008, the decision to
allow the deployment of US troops in Canada was announced in April
2002 by (former) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Territorial control over Canada is part of Washington's geopolitical
and military agenda as formulated in April 2002 by Donald Rumsfeld.
"Binational integration" of military command structures was also
contemplated alongside a major revamping in the areas of immigration,
law enforcement and intelligence.
The matter has been known for more than five years. It has been
deliberately obfuscated. There has been no public debate. It has not
received news coverage nor has it been the object of discussion in the
Canadian House of Commons or the US Congress.
In an article published in 2004 entitled Is the Annexation of Canada
Part of Bush's Military Agenda?, I provided a detailed analysis of the
process of integration of military command structures. I also examined
the broader issue of sovereignty. The Toronto Star accepted to publish
an abridged version of my November 2004 text as an oped. The article
explained that Ottawa had been:
"quietly negotiating [since April 2002] a far-reaching military
cooperation agreement, which allows the US Military to cross the
border and deploy troops anywhere in Canada, in our provinces, as well
station American warships in Canadian territorial waters. This
redesign of Canada's defense system is being discussed behind closed
doors, not in Canada, but at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado,
at the headquarters of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM)."
Despite repeated assurances by the Toronto Star OpEd Editor, the
article never appeared in print. Below is a summary of my more
detailed November 2004 text as well as links to the original articles:
"The creation of NORTHCOM announced in April 2002, constitutes a
blatant violation of both Canadian and Mexican territorial
sovereignty. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced unilaterally
that US Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North
American region. Canada and Mexico were presented with a fait
accompli. US Northern Command's jurisdiction as outlined by the US DoD
includes, in addition to the continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as
well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic
and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian
coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.
NorthCom's stated mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for
[continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support
for [the] nation's civil authorities in times of national need."
(Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian
American Strategic Review (CASR),
http://www.sfu. ca/casr/ft- lagasse1. htm
Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that "the NORTHCOM – with all of
North America as its geographic command – `is part of the greatest
transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception
in 1947.'" (Ibid)
Following Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's refusal to join NORTHCOM, a
high-level so-called "consultative" Binational Planning Group (BPG),
operating out of the Peterson Air Force base, was set up in late 2002,
with a mandate to "prepare contingency plans to respond to [land and
sea] threats and attacks, and other major emergencies in Canada or the
United States".
The BPG's mandate goes far beyond the jurisdiction of a consultative
military body making "recommendations" to government. In practice, it
is neither accountable to the US Congress nor to the Canadian House of
Commons.
The BPG has a staff of fifty US and Canadian "military planners", who
have been working diligently for the last two years in laying the
groundwork for the integration of Canada-US military command
structures. The BPG works in close coordination with the Canada-U.S.
Military Cooperation Committee at the Pentagon, a so-called " panel
responsible for detailed joint military planning".
Broadly speaking, its activities consist of two main building blocks:
the Combined Defense Plan (CDP) and The Civil Assistance Plan (CAP).
The Militarisation of Civilian Institutions
As part of its Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), the BPG is involved in
supporting the ongoing militarisation of civilian law enforcement and
judicial functions in both the US and Canada. The BPG has established
"military contingency plans" which would be activated "on both sides
of the Canada-US border" in the case of a terror attack or "threat".
Under the BPG's Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), these so-called "threat
scenarios" would involve:
"coordinated response to national requests for military assistance
[from civil authorities] in the event of a threat, attack, or civil
emergency in the US or Canada."
In December 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks, the Canadian
government reached an agreement with the Head of Homeland Security Tom
Ridge, entitled the "Canada-US Smart Border Declaration. " Shrouded in
secrecy, this agreement essentially hands over to the Homeland
Security Department, confidential information on Canadian citizens and
residents. It also provides US authorities with access to the tax
records of Canadians.
What these developments suggest is that the process of "binational
integration" is not only occurring in the military command structures
but also in the areas of immigration, police and intelligence. The
question is what will be left over within Canada's jurisdiction as a
sovereign nation, once this ongoing process of binational integration,
including the sharing and/or merger of data banks, is completed?
Canada and NORTHCOM
Canada is slated to become a member of NORTHCOM at the end of the
BPG's two years mandate.
No doubt, the issue will be presented in Parliament as being "in the
national interest". It "will create jobs for Canadians" and "will make
Canada more secure".
Meanwhile, the important debate on Canada's participation in the US
Ballistic Missile Shield, when viewed out of the broader context, may
serve to divert public attention away from the more fundamental issue
of North American military integration which implies Canada's
acceptance not only of the Ballistic Missile Shield, but of the entire
US war agenda, including significant hikes in defense spending which
will be allocated to a North American defense program controlled by
the Pentagon.
And ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada
will cease to function as a Nation:
Its borders will be controlled by US officials and confidential
information on Canadians will be shared with Homeland Security.
US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as a result
of a binational arrangement.
Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on behalf of
their Canadian counterparts and vice versa.
But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and
understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as a Nation.
The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern
history. The US has launched a military adventure which threatens the
future of humanity. It has formulated the contours of an imperial
project of World domination. Canada is contiguous to "the center of
the empire". Territorial control over Canada is part of the US
geopolitical and military agenda.
The Liberals as well as the opposition Conservative party have
endorsed embraced the US war agenda. By endorsing a Canada-US
"integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and
intelligence, Canada not only becomes a full fledged member of George
W. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing", it will directly participate,
through integrated military command structures, in the US war agenda
in Central Asia and the Middle East, including the massacre of
civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of POWs, the
establishment of concentration camps, etc.
Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national
security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to
embrace Washington's pre-emptive military doctrine, including the use
of nuclear warheads as a means of self defense, which was ratified by
the US Senate in December 2003. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The US
Nuclear Option and the "War on Terrorism"
http://globalresear ch.ca/articles/ CHO405A.html May 2004)
Moreover, binational integration in the areas of Homeland security,
immigration, policing of the US-Canada border, not to mention the
anti-terrorist legislation, would imply pari passu acceptance of the
US sponsored police State, its racist policies, its "ethnic profiling"
directed against Muslims, the arbitrary arrest of anti-war activists.
__._,_.___
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
No comments:
Post a Comment