BiLateral Defense Agreements and Canada

Approximately one million people reportedly viewed H2O, a political thriller/miniseries, on CBC in the fall of 2004. The plot lines, which included political murder and intrigue, involved secret negotiations to sell control over a precious Canadian natural resource - clean water - to the United States wherein the unsuspecting (perhaps) Canadian plotters may actually have sold the most precious Canadian asset - political sovereignty.

H2O was a work of fiction by Paul Gross and John Krizanc; however, several story lines evoked recollections among many Canadians of actual events that occurred over the preceding 30 years. Unfortunately, there may be parallels between the insinuations H2O concerning risks to Canadian political sovereignty and real-life Canada-United States bilateral defence agreements and institutions that are as significant and more salient than the events portrayed in the television miniseries.

The evolution of the Canada-United States defence relationship is examined through a review of selected Canadian-United States defence agreements and/or institutions. The Permanent Joint Defence Board (PJBD) was created by the Ogdenburg Agreement in 1940, prior to the entry of the United States into the Second World War. The PJBD continues in effect as a consultative and advisory body for bilateral defence and security between Canada and the United States (Maloney, 1997). While

. . .
If the pre-emptive strike policy of the current political administration in the United States serves as the framework within which an American ballistic missile defence system is to function, Canada could not be true to the principles that define Canadian identity and join such an American system. Similarly, Canada cannot stay true to its principles and be a completely non aligned nation that looks on aggressors and their targets will equal indifference. Some middle path obviously is indicated; however, the exact character of that path also depends on other issues. With respect to the question of how best Canada can defend itself if the country is on the target list of some other country or group, the essential underlying issue is (a) should Canada attempt to intercept and destroy a missile once it is on its way or (b) minimise the possibility that such a missile will be fired in the first place. The obvious preferred approach is to pre vent a ballistic missile attack. The United States, however, has opted for a ballistic missile defence system that will destroy a hostile missile after it is fired but before it reaches its intended target, and this system is the one that the United States wants Canada to join. The essential
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
World War, Bush Administration, North America, Latin American, Saddam Hussein, Command NORTHCOM, Canada United, Similarly Canada, EU Ireland, Oklahoma City, ballistic missile, missile defence, ballistic missile defence, bilateral defence, world war, neutral country, september 2001, ottawa ontario, ballistic missile attack, missile attack, 11 september, canada united, 11 september 2001, accessed internet 2005-02-15, target ballistic missile,
Approximate Word count = 4754
Approximate Pages = 19 (250 words per page)

More Essays on BiLateral Defense Agreements and Canada