Canada must fix its missile defence error

Earlier this month in Washington, a small news item emerged that should be noted by Canadian officials. It threatens our efforts to maintain a stable relationship with the United States, especially as we set out to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. Fortunately, there is something Canada can do to mitigate the problem, which it would not only be in our national security interests to do, but would also undo a policy mistake that’s been with us for more than a decade.

The news item came from reports about a contentious meeting between President Trump and his national security team regarding the ongoing fighting in Afghanistan. More than 8,000 U.S. troops remain in that country, and are losing ground to a resurgent Taliban. Several thousand NATO troops have also been deployed there to augment the U.S. contingent and help train the Afghan military and police. According to multiple U.S. news organizations, Trump expressed frustration that the U.S. was not getting enough help from its NATO partners during the course of this meeting. certainly wasn’t perfect then. It antagonized China and Russia, who feared that their nuclear deterrents would be partially negated. It had suffered from a series of highprofile technical failures. And while there was concern even then about future threats from North Korea or Iran, none seemed imminent. A case could be made that Canada ought to have joined anyway — a case we agreed with — because of the close ties between the U.S. and Canadian air defence systems, and as a way for Canada to meaningfully contribute to continental defence. But one can at least understand why, in 2005, Canada’s decision to stay out was at least open to debate.

But the facts have changed since then. The missile threat, particularly from North Korea, has badly worsened. North Korea is now testing missiles with intercontinental range, sufficient to hit targets in North America. And the danger of the Kim Jong Un regime actually deploying one is increasing, at a worrying rate lately. BMD technology has advanced considerably, and tests (under admittedly optimal conditions) now routinely result in simulated missile attacks being shot down by American interceptor rockets. Critically, many of Canada’s international allies have adopted BMD systems in collaboration with the U.S., including Japan, South Korea and, of particular note, NATO.

Canada, of course, is a NATO member. Through NATO, we have already endorsed the importance of effective defences against ballistic missile attacks. The United States has worked with our European-based NATO allies to establish a limited BMD system, capable of blunting an attack from Iran while not materially threatening Russia’s missile force. As a NATO member, Canada supports this program, and plays a contributing role. And yet we have chosen not to involve ourselves in a similar system at home. We embrace missile defence for the French and Romanians, but not, oddly, for Canadians.

In the current global environment, this needs to change. Canadian participation in BMD would almost certainly be modest, limited to some financial contributions (which we already make through our commitment to the continental air defence command NORAD), and perhaps some radar sites on Canadian territory (to provide enhanced early warning and target tracking information to the American interceptor missiles).

And the timing would be convenient. The American president has every right to be disappointed by the tepid support the U.S. gets from its allies. Our federal government has recently talked up its commitment to security and defence, announcing plans to ramp up military spending. We hope we’ll see that.

Finally committing Canada to the American BMD system is a next logical step, and as NAFTA negotiations get under way, would show that Canada is a country that takes its alliances seriously.