On Tuesday, Frank McKenna emerged from a meeting with the parliamentary subcommittee on foreign affairs and replied to a reporter’s question about missile defence, “We're part of it now and the question is what more do we need?”

McKenna was referring to Canada’s participation in the controversial so-called missile defence system being implemented by the Bush administration, basing his assessment on an August 2004 letter affirming Canada’s continued cooperation with the United States in NORAD. The passage of the letter in question, from former ambassador Michael Kergin to former Secretary of State Colin Powell and dated August 5, 2004, is as contradictory as the Liberal position on the issue:

…our two governments agree that NORAD's aerospace warning mission for North America also shall include aerospace warning, as defined in NORAD's Terms of Reference, in support of the designated commands responsible for missile defence of North America.

This decision is independent of any discussion on possible cooperation on missile defence. (Foreign Affairs Canada, Note No. JLAB-0095)

Not having yet retracted his comments, McKenna’s statement indicates that he believes that the affirmation of NORAD cooperation amounts to an agreement to participate in missile defence. This goes against the ensuing paragraph in the letter, and seems to refute the public statements of Paul Martin and top government officials. As of late Tuesday, in fact, reports originating with Radio Canada were stating that Paul Martin was set to announce later this week that Canada would not be participating in the missile defence program.

The comments of the ambassador select seem to validate the concerns that many voiced last month when the former New Brunswick premier was named as Canada’s new man in Washington. At the time, the Polaris Institute released “The McKenna File,” a comprehensive look at the intertwined business and political connections of the new ambassador, which included sitting on 9 corporate boards. Most notable amongst these was McKenna’s position on the Carlyle Canada Advisory Board, an adjunct to the notorious Carlyle Group, the ‘ex-president’s club’ that includes John Major, George Bush Sr. and James Baker, and holds just under $19 billion in private equity.

So, with his comments Tuesday, either McKenna committed a major error is failing to toe the Liberal party line, or he made a calculated move to push forward military collaboration between the Canadian government and Washington. Given the broad public opposition to missile defence, he may have been calculating that the only way that the Liberals could push this decision through was by convincing us that it’s already a done deal.

Reaction to McKenna’s statement was swift. Liberal officials denied that a decision had already been made on missile defence. Question Period in the House of Commons was dominated by accusations – coming from the NDP, Bloc Quebecois, and even the Conservatives – that Paul Martin’s government had been misleading the public for months by claiming that the missile defence decision had yet to be made.

One could also have been excused for thinking that McKenna’s comments were related to the U.S. occupation in Iraq, given the announcements made by Paul Martin this week at the NATO meeting in Brussels. In a speech in line with the overall theme of “fence-mending” between North America and Europe, Martin announced new Canadian support to the U.S. occupation, while reminding all present that – despite overwhelming public opposition to the war in Iraq – this country is indeed ‘a part of it now’:

Canada has been involved in police training in Jordan since the beginning of 2004 and we are now ready to commit up to 30 military trainers to work outside Iraq in training the Iraqi security forces once a concept of operations has been finalized in NATO.  And we will be contributing $1 million to the NATO trust fund to help finance their training. (Government of Canada, February 22, 2005) 

Martin’s remarks are worth quoting at some length, as his address clearly spells out the shared interests of the most developed capitalist countries, and the chauvinist worldview that hides systemic exploitation of the rest of the planet behind a mask of noblesse oblige:

Europe and North America share a common world-view based on peace and security; democracy and rule of law; respect for human rights, including those of minorities; and market-based economies, tempered by a moral sense of the common good.  This world-view has served our own societies well and history has shown that countries that ignore these principles not only have internal problems but can also be the cause of global instability…

Whether regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, the Middle East, or even Iran, we must always be guided by our shared objectives.  We will have our differences, but we cannot afford to allow differences to become divisions.  The world needs our collective support of, and investment in, the Atlantic Alliance.

The Prime Minister’s message was clear: Despite the rivalries and competition that exist, it is in the interests of Europe and North America to work together to impose pliant regimes in the rest of the world. And it’s no accident that Iran made the list at the conclusion of Martin’s speech. The drums of war keep beating, from missile ‘defence’ to the Middle East, and the Canadian government is most clearly ‘a part of it.’

Home Features David and Goliath Stop smirking, Bettman Books this week Essays & Reviews The Big Sellout Operation Filmmaker Salud!