Continental Integration of Military Command Structures:

[Oscar]

Continental Integration of Military Command Structures: A Threat to Canada's Sovereignty

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... cleId=2428

www.GlobalResearch.ca

by Michel Chossudovsky May 12, 2006 GlobalResearch.ca

The issue of continental integration of military command structures has been on the US-Canada agenda since April 2002. Until recently, it has barely been mentioned by the Canadian media.

Territorial control over Canada is part of Washington's geopolitical and military agenda as formulated in April 2002 by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Binational integration" of military command structures is also contemplated alongside a major revamping in the areas of immigration, law enforcement and intelligence.

Since 2002, Ottawa has been quietly negotiating a far-reaching military cooperation agreement. In November 2004, Global Research published a detailed article on the subject, an abridged version of which was accepted for publication as an Op Ed piece in the Toronto Star. That article never appeared in print. More generally, the Canadian media has failed to provide coverage of an issue which strikes at the heart of Canada's territorial sovereignty.

What the current news coverage fails to acknowledge is that the US Military can 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 has for the last four years been discussed behind closed doors, not in Canada, but at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado, at the headquarters of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM).

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)

In my "censored" Toronto Star article, I had warned that the process of Bi-National Integration implying the integration of military command structures was slated to be completed in May 2006:

"What we are dealing with is a "military marriage' characterized by the integration of the two countries' command structures.

Missile Defense is part of "the vows" of this "military marriage", something which nobody in Canada wants to talk about.

This military marriage has certain underlying obligations and commitments.

If Canada accepts to join NORTHCOM and integrate US command structures, it not only "promises to cherish" Star Wars, it also becomes an official member of the Anglo-American military axis, integrated by Israel (unofficially) and Australia.

Canada thereby becomes a pro-active partner in America's ongoing military adventure, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Iran, North Korea and beyond, not to mention the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in conventional war theaters directed "against rogue enemies and terrorists".

Shortly prior to the Bush-Martin meetings in Ottawa in November 2004, it was decided to extend the Binational Planning Group arrangement until May 2006. In other words, what is really at stake is the process leading up to a formal announcement of Canada's accession to NORTHCOM, prior to the May 2006 cut-off date." (emphasis added)

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 12 May 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below are the links to the original articles published by Global Research:

Is the Annexation of Canada part of Bush's Military Agenda? - by Michel Chossudovsky - 2004-11-24 (detailed analysis of the Bi-National Planning Group and the process of integration of military command structures).

Canada and America: Missile Defense and the Vows of Military Integration - by Michel Chossudovsky - 2005-02-23, article accepted on three occasions by the Toronto Star, never published. Recipient of Project Censored Award, University of California at Sonoma.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See Prof. Michael Byers Op Ed in the Toronto Star

Continental integration by stealth

As Ottawa prepares to renew NORAD agreement, a bi-national panel suggests nothing less than the complete integration of Canada's military, security and foreign policy into the decision-making and operating systems of the U.S., writes Michael Byers

Apr. 28, 2006. 01:00 AM

They seem harmless enough at first: two mid-level Canadian Forces officers and a mild-mannered bespectacled American consultant explaining the work of their 48-member Bi-National Planning Group to audiences across Canada Their professed goal is to improve co-operation between the Canadian and U.S. militaries, the better to defend both countries.

Yet a close reading of their final report released last month, reveals that their actual intent — or at least the intent of the politicians who set their mandate — is far from benign. They seek nothing less than the complete integration of Canada's military, security and foreign policy into the decision-making and operating systems of the U.S.

In 2002, it was revealed that Ottawa and Washington were contemplating a "combined defence plan" that would have placed our forces under the umbrella of the U.S.'s new Northern Command (NORTHCOM).

Opposition to the plan quickly led to its being shunted out of view and into the newly created Bi-National Planning Group (BPG). Based at the headquarters of NORTHCOM and the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) in Colorado Springs, the planning group was intended to devise counterpoints to critics' concerns, while postponing formal decision-making until a more politically opportune moment.

Today, two Canadian elections later, the authors of the BPG report can hardly believe their luck. Prime Minister Stephen Harper may have only a minority government, but there is little doubt he desires closer ties with Washington.

The BPG recommendations are far-reaching. They aim at "enhanced co-ordination and co-operation among our foreign policy, defence and security organizations" at "the level (although not necessarily the form) of co-operation that now exists in NORAD."

In NORAD, the defence of Canadian and U.S. airspace is assigned to a single command which, while supposedly based on the equality of the two countries, is always headed by a senior U.S. officer.

The BPG is, in actuality, advocating co-operation at the level of a single, U.S.-dominated command for all of Canada's territory and our surrounding seas. Under this plan, the entire Canadian Forces, unless deployed overseas in operations not led by the U.S., could find themselves under American "operational control" with Americans making all key day-to-day decisions.

Not to worry, the BPG assures us calmly: "Command" will remain in Canadian hands. And that's true, insofar as Canadians would retain responsibility for administrative tasks such as hiring, promotion and pensions.

The BPG also recommends closer co-operation in security and foreign policy: "Canada and the U.S. must continue to act as partners; indeed ... the partnership must be expanded, to shape the future of North American defence and security, using all of the instruments of diplomatic, economic, informational and military power."

It is in the context of information-sharing that the BPG recommends the immediate extension of NORAD into the maritime domain as part of next month's renewal of the NORAD agreement.

Ottawa intends to follow this recommendation when it brings the new NORAD agreement, complete with a provision on maritime surveillance sharing, before Parliament in one or two weeks.

In normal circumstances, the instantaneous sharing of information on ships approaching North America might make sense.

In an age of sea-launched cruise missiles, approaching vessels could pose security threats on timelines that are too short for conventional communication protocols.

But the BPG changes the circumstances by indicating that maritime surveillance sharing is intended as a forerunner for much closer co-operation:

It calls the upcoming NORAD agreement renewal "an important step toward enhancing the defence and security of our continent. To continue this momentum a `Comprehensive Defence and Security Agreement' is the logical next step ... "

The BPG presents four alternatives for the new agreement. The first is an expanded NORAD responsible for "all-domain warning" — in the air, at sea, on land and in cyberspace — but with its response capability limited to the air. This new, surveillance-focused NORAD would exist in parallel with Northern Command and the recently established Canadian-run Canada Command.

The second alternative involves a NORAD command that would provide both "all-domain warning and response to asymmetric threats and attacks." Under this approach, NORTHCOM and Canada Command would continue to exist separately with "the capability to respond unilaterally to threats against their respective countries."

However, in reality, the single command would prevail in most defence matters on the North American continent, including armed responses at sea and on land. It would also, inevitably, be dominated by the U.S., a fact which the BPG admits would generate "concerns over sovereignty."

The third alternative gives primacy to NORTHCOM and Canada Command and demotes NORAD to a "Standing Combined Task Force" responsible for providing "bi-national, all-domain awareness and warning" to each national command and, "where appropriate, a combined and co-ordinated response to threats and attacks against Canada and the United States."

As the BPG explains, this alternative "relies upon the ... commitment of those commands toward a continental approach to defence and security." But don't be misled: It still envisages a comprehensive system for surveillance sharing as well as "combined" responses.

The fourth, most ambitious alternative involves "a truly integrated approach to continental defence and security through a deliberate melding of defence and security functions." This would be achieved by "establishing a single organization responsible for all-domain, bi-national warning and execution in the realms of defence and security."

This fourth alternative — full integration — is presented as the ultimate goal of improved co-operation."

The BPG report thus reveals that expanding NORAD to include maritime surveillance sharing is intended to create momentum toward complete military, security and foreign policy integration.

It is part of a deliberately fostered trend that includes Canada's involvement in the U.S.-led counterinsurgency in southern Afghanistan, the instantaneous sharing of NORAD aerospace surveillance for U.S. missile defence, and the Harper government's support for Bush administration foreign policies on climate change, nuclear proliferation, and the Middle East.

We are being subjected to continental integration by stealth. Indeed, the BPG report warns of a "small but vocal minority" concerned about Canadian sovereignty and recommends the use of an "incremental" approach.

Beware the gentle proponents of closer military co-operation. Canada, once proudly independent, is in danger of allowing itself to be suffocated in America's embrace.

Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia.

====================================

Canada, U.S. agree to use each other's troops in civil emergencies

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=
403d90d6-7a61-41ac-8cef-902a1d14879d

David Pugliese , Canwest News Service Friday, February 22, 2008

Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other's borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.

Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.

The U.S. military's Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

American soldiers arrive on board the HMCS TORONTO as part of a training exercise in carrying out a NATO presence patrol in the Indian Ocean near Somalia. A new agreement between the U.S. and Canadian militaries has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S.

The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S.

The left-leaning Council of Canadians, which is campaigning against what it calls the increasing integration of the U.S. and Canadian militaries, is raising concerns about the deal.

More:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=
403d90d6-7a61-41ac-8cef-902a1d14879d

=======================================

[Oscar]

40% of military contracts non-competitive: report

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/06/ ... nding.html

June 11, 2007 | 12:29 PM ET CBC News

Ottawa awarded more than 40 per cent of its military contracts over the last year without fully competitive bidding, and the value of these contracts has doubled over the past two years, says a report released Monday.

The report by the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found more than $16 billion in major military equipment contracts had a "limited tendering process."

The centre relied on publicly available information from a database of federal contracts awarded by the Department of Public Works and Government Services on behalf of the Department of National Defence.
The report also slammed Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor for his work as a lobbyist for 28 firms, including five of the world's top 10 defence contractors, "almost all seeking government contracts during the period just prior to his appointment as defence minister."

"This report raises the alarm on the use of public dollars, and the need for greater transparency and federal accountability in military contracting," executive director Bruce Campbell said in a news release.

The report's authors urged the government today not to sign any new military contracts valued at more than $100 million pending reports by the auditor general and the Commons Standing Committee on National Defence, expected by the end of the year.

More: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/06/ ... nding.html

==================================

HARPER ANNOUNCES $15 BILLION IN NEW MILITARY SPENDING

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/06/ ... 62006.html

CBC News Online | June 22, 2006

For military buffs, all next week should be like Saturday morning at Canadian Tire. That's because, with Parliament having risen, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is set to announce the Conservatives' much-trumpeted plan to buy new transport aircraft, helicopters, ships and trucks for the Armed Forces.

In all, the purchase is expected to total roughly $15 billion, to be spread out over several years. And according to the CBC's French-language service Radio-Canada, Harper will unveil the plans in a series of announcements from Quebec to central Ontario to Alberta in a bid to underline the local benefits from such a massive procurement.

According to news reports and what the military has said to date about its requirements, the purchases are expected to fall into five categories:

- Up to four heavy-lift long-range transport planes to move troops, tanks and entire hospital units halfway around the globe in one shot.
Estimated cost: $3 billion.

- Up to 17 heavy-lift, mid-range transport planes to replace Canada's aging fleet of Hercules aircraft.
Estimated cost: $4.6 billion

- A fleet of between 12 and 15 heavy-lift helicopters to move troops and supplies quickly around war zones.
Estimated cost: $4.2 billion.

- Three new troop carrier ships.
Estimated cost: $2 billion.

- Up to 1,000 new trucks for the army, likely to be built in Quebec.
Estimated cost: $1.1 billion.

Of the five, the three involving planes and helicopters have so far created the most controversy.

Long-range transport planes:

This purchase is the pet project of Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, a former brigadier-general - and former defence industry lobbyist. Because of that, and because of the way this contract is expected to be structured - in such a way that it can only be awarded to Boeing's giant Globemaster aircraft - this is the one element of the deal expected to kick up the most immediate fuss.

More than three years ago, before he became a Conservative MP, O'Connor was a defence industry lobbyist, acting for Airbus at one point. He is reportedly particularly enamoured of the Globemaster, a massive hulk that can transport entire strike teams or up to 144 soldiers with full equipment for 4,400 kilometres without refuelling, then offload its entire cargo in minutes.

Boeing's main competition, Europe's EADS/Airbus consortium, says it can supply the same number of planes with similar capabilities for $2 billion, which is considerably less than the Globemaster price. It has a drawback, though. The Airbus version is still on the drawing board and won't be in the air until 2008 at the earliest, with delivery not expected for some years after that.

Other options: A company called Skylink Aviation, which charters large aircraft for the commercial carriers and the Canadian military, says it can provide two Russian-built long-range carriers, which the Armed Forces
have used in the past. According to the Skylink proposal, which was obtained by the Ottawa Citizen, Skylink has offered to lease two each of the smaller IL-76 Ilyushin and the somewhat bigger Antonov An-124 and base them at Canadian Forces Base Trenton in Ontario for the exclusive use of the Canadian military. Lease costs would be in the range of $46 million a year.

The Antonov is a well-known Clydesdale of the sky. The Canadian-American Strategic Review, a think-tank that analyzes Canadian foreign and defence policies, says the Antonov can carry a bigger load than the Globemaster, has twice the maximum cargo volume and can fly 1,500 kilometres further when fully loaded.

The Globemaster, CASR's reviewer admits, is more fun to fly and can be seen as heavy aviation's 'equivalent of the Lamborghini.'

Mid-range planes:

Called strategic and tactical aircraft, the main competitors in this category are Lockheed Martin's revamped C130J Hercules and the Airbus A400M, which is not expected to come into service before 2010.

The C103J Hercules is the new and upgraded version of the aging carrier that has served Canada's Armed Forces well over the years and also seems to be the plane of choice for the U.S. and British air forces, at least as an 'in theatre' carrier. The Brits are also upgrading and have offered to sell Canada some of their older and so-called shorter versions, which can carry heavier loads than other Hercs.

But with the public still smarting from the fiasco involving refurbished British subs - which Canada's military bought for $891 million in 1998, only to face serious electrical problems, rust and general deterioration - it is hard to see the Harper government wanting to risk its reputation on more used goods.

Canada currently has a squadron of 31 Hercs but 22 of these are more than 30 years old and nearing the end of their useful life. The new Hercules is said to be more fuel-efficient, with six propellers, up from four in the older models. Thanks to its improved electronics, it can also be piloted by a smaller crew. Its claim to fame is that it works well in battle situations - it can get in and out of difficult terrain while still carrying a pretty heavy load.

The Airbus A400M is to be Europe's answer to the Hercules but design and construction delays have hurt its order sheet and some analysts question whether it can deliver what it has promised. Its posted price of roughly $90 million US is higher than that of the Hercules, which has been listed in the range of $60 million US. But it is a bigger plane than the C103J, boasts more sophisticated engines and other avionics, and is suggested to be the next-generation plane for NATO in Europe.

A late entry into the competition is the Russian Ilyushin IL-76 Airlifter, a modernized Soviet-era freighter that is much in use today in Afghanistan, particularly by Canadian troops. The Russian planes have been listed for about $50 million US each and suppliers have reportedly told Canada they can deliver the planes directly to Kandahar within the next year. It has a carrying capacity of about 40 tonnes and a range of 5,000 kilometres when fully loaded.

Heavy-lift helicopters:

This is another controversial purchase if only because it is the main focus of Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence. He wants many more of these aircraft - which are used as the taxis of the war zone to shuttle about soldiers and supplies - and fewer, if any, of the long-range transport.

Canada, for the most part, has had to beg, borrow and lease Boeing-built Chinooks from the Americans in Afghanistan to resupply its forward bases - or else risk truck convoys that are often targeted by roadside bombers. The military now wants its own dedicated fleet.

The battlefield bird of choice for Hillier (and the U.S. military), the Chinook can carry up to 44 fully equipped soldiers, land in tight places and hurl cargo from one of three distinct holds. Its main claim to fame, however, is its two large counter-spinning rotors. They enable the Chinook to continue to fly in hot, dry climates like Afghanistan's (where birds with small back rotors have difficulty, for some reason) and let it hover with only its two back wheels touching down, for quick unloading.

The main problems with the Chinook at this point are its relatively high cost and its fairly high demand all over the globe. Canada would have to take a number.

Options for the military, according to CASR, have included repainting and re-equipping Canada's new search-and-rescue helicopters, the Cormorant. They might be able to carry up to 30 soldiers but Canada would then need new search-and-rescue copters.

There could also be some sort of deal with Washington to take possession of new or newish U.S. military Chinooks while both countries wait for the updated version to come off the assembly lines.

Another proposal on the table is the Russian-built Mi-17 from MIL. It is smaller than both the Cormorant and the Chinook, with about a quarter of the carrying capacity of the Chinook, and can probably transport only about 24 or so soldiers (estimates vary).

But at a listed price of about $5 million US a bird, it costs a fraction of the Chinook and has proven itself under fire. Mi-17s moved Canadian soldiers about in the Balkans during the NATO deployment there in the early and mid-1990s. The helicopter is also much in evidence now in Afghanistan, and Canadian Forces and technical personnel are said to be very familiar with its abilities.

====================================

Federal government quietly releases $490B military plan

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/ ... -plan.html

June 20, 2008 | 4:51 PM ET CBC News

The Conservative government has quietly released the details of its extensive plan to beef up the military, including spending $490 billion over the next 20 years to ensure Canadian soldiers are well-equipped, well-trained and highly active.

Details of the plan, known as Canada First Defence Strategy, were posted Thursday night without fanfare on the Department of National Defence's website.

The posting comes almost six weeks after Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced at a news conference that his government had a strategy for the military but provided few details about it. Critics at the time said the strategy was nothing more than a speech, since Harper offered no document to back it up.

Speaking in Halifax on Friday, Defence Minister Peter MacKay defended the nighttime posting of the plan, saying the government was simply striving to provide more specifics about the strategy to Canadians.

Military analyst Rob Huebert told CBC News that he can't understand why Harper would release the document so quietly, and why he would do so the day before the House of Commons is expected to adjourn for the summer.

Still, he praised the document's contents, saying the strategy appears to be a well-balanced assessment that juggles the military's commitments at home and overseas.

"I'm hard-pressed right at this point, looking at it, to be really overtly critical," said Huebert, associate director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies in Calgary. "I do think they've got a good balance on this particular aspect."

The opposition also questioned the timing and delivery of the announcement in Parliament Thursday.

Liberal MP Rodger Cuzner said posting the information online in the "dead of night" sounded like the actions of "a government with something to hide."

But Laurie Hawn, MacKay's parliamentary secretary, pointed to Harper's previous announcement, saying the information had already been posted on the government website and that Canadians "wanted more details on it."

$60 billion on equipment

The document, which stresses the importance of giving the Canadian Forces predictable and stable funding, says $60 billion must be spent on much-needed military equipment, such as helicopters, patrol ships, planes, destroyers, frigates, land combat vehicles and weapons.

A total of $15 billion of these equipment purchases has already been confirmed and announced publicly.

Other military spending over the next 20 years is to include:

$250 billion on personnel, with the military's numbers increasing to 70,000 regular members and 30,000 reserve members. (Currently, there are 62,000 regular members and 25,000 reservists.)

$140 billion on training and maintenance of equipment.

$40 billion on military buildings and infrastructure.

The document suggests that in the next 20 years, the international community will be coping with failed states, rogue nuclear nations and the increasing threat of terrorism. It also notes that the military needs to enhance its ability to operate alongside U.S. forces.

"The Canada First Defence Strategy will enable the Forces to … address the full range of defence and security challenges facing Canada now and into the future," the document states. "This strengthened military will translate into enhanced security for Canadians at home as well as a stronger voice for Canada on the world stage."

Six core duties for the military

The document says the Canadian Forces will have six core duties over the next 20 years and will often have to juggle more than one duty at once in Canada and overseas.

The duties are:

Conducting daily domestic and continental operations, including protecting Arctic sovereignty.

Supporting a major international event in Canada, such as the 2010 Olympics.

Responding to any major terrorist attacks.

Providing aid to civilian authorities during natural disasters and other crises in Canada.

Conducting a major international operation for an extended period, such as the Afghan mission.

Have enough troops remaining to deploy to other international crises for shorter periods of time.

NDP defence critic Dawn Black questioned why the document does not stress the peacekeeping work of Canadian soldiers.

"The more and more we become meshed with American foreign policy… the less and less ability we have to be independent and have a clear Canadian voice on the international stage."

======================================
MacKay announces $274M for military vehicles

http://www.calgaryherald.com/MacKay+ann ... story.html

Canwest New ServiceJanuary 9, 2009 10:01 AM

CFB VALCARTIER, Que. — Federal Defence Minister Peter MacKay announced Friday $274 million for the purchase of 1,300 vehicles for the military.

The "militarized commercial off-the-shelf vehicles" will be used to support operations by the Canadian Forces inside Canada, MacKay said.

MacKay made the announcement at CFB Valcartier, near Quebec City, with Josee Verner, minister of intergovernmental affairs.

More:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/MacKay+ann ... story.html

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service

[Oscar]

PRIME MINISTER HARPER UNVEILS CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=2095

May 12, 2008

Halifax - Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Minister of National Defence and Minister of Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Peter MacKay today unveiled the Canada First Defence Strategy, the government’s comprehensive plan to ensure the Canadian Forces (CF) have the people, equipment, and support they need to meet the nation’s long-term domestic and international security challenges.

“If you want to be taken seriously in the world, you need the capacity to act - it’s that simple,” said Prime Minister Harper. “The Canada First Defence Strategy will strengthen our sovereignty and security at home and bolster our ability to defend our values and interests abroad.”

The Prime Minister noted that defending the country and protecting Canadians at home are the main priorities of the Canada First Defence Strategy. The other major priorities are meeting Canada’s responsibilities for continental defence and being a robust and reliable contributor to international security and humanitarian missions.

Minister MacKay provided details as to how the Canadian Forces will grow and evolve under the Canada First Defence Strategy. They include:

Expanding to 70,000 Regular Force and 30,000 Reserve Force;

Improving key CF infrastructure;

Increasing the overall readiness of the CF; and

Proceeding with the major combat fleet replacements of surface combat ships, maritime patrol craft, fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft, fighter aircraft, and land combat vehicles and systems.

“Beyond strengthening our security at home and abroad, the Canada First Defence Strategy will deliver significant economic benefits for tens of thousands of Canadians,” said Prime Minister Harper. “Moreover, by investing in new military equipment and technologies, the Strategy will benefit Canada’s knowledge and technology industries, which will produce lucrative civilian commercial spin-offs,” said Prime Minister Harper.

Today’s announcement complements the significant steps the government has already taken to strengthen the CF, including the procurement of new and upgraded equipment such as new strategic and tactical lift aircraft, joint support ships, armoured vehicles, helicopters, and Arctic/Offshore patrol ships.

[Oscar]

Ottawa arms show CANCELLED! Campaign continues!

----- Original Message -----
From: coat@list.openconcept.ca
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 9:04 AM
Subject: [COAT] Ottawa arms show CANCELLED! Campaign continues!

Dear friends!

YES, an upcoming Ottawa Arms Show has been CANCELLED!!

However, COAT's campaign (including our online petition) CONTINUES against all other Ottawa arms shows!

For details on the cancellation and our continuing struggle, see the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT) website: http://coat.ncf.ca

Please sign COAT's Online Petition to Stop ALL of these Arms Bazaars!

If you haven't done so already, it is not too late to sign our online petition to ensure that "CANSEC 2009" and ALL other military trade shows remain banned from City of Ottawa facilities. Please encourage your friends, colleagues and fellow activists across Canada to sign this important petition!

-----> http://prax.ca/view/coat/No-Arms-Shows <-----

ARMS EXHIBITION Cancelled!

"Secure Canada 2008," the military trade show that was scheduled for Lansdowne Park, Ottawa (Sept.30 - Oct.1) has been "cancelled until further notice." So says the official website of "Secure Canada 2008."

Feast your eyes on their cancellation notice here:
http://www.securecan.ca

This indeed calls for celebration! However, we need to make sure that City Staff do not just sign another contract with the organizers of "Secure Canada."

And, more importantly, there's an even bigger arms bazaar looming on Ottawa's horizon called "CANSEC 2009." This huge weapons exhibition is scheduled for May 27-28, 2009 and the City has been negotiating a contract with its organizers. This too must be stopped!!

Join COAT in celebrating the cancellation of "Secure Canada 2008" by helping us to STOP "CANSEC 2009."

Now that they're on the run, let's drive them ALL right out of town!

Can we do it? Yes we can! Please join us!

Thanks very much for your help in continuing this important campaign!

Cheers,

Richard Sanders, Coordinator, COAT
Editor, Press for Conversion!
http://coat.ncf.ca

P.S. The Candlelight Vigil outside "Secure Canada 2008" (Sept.30) has been cancelled, due to the demise of "Secure Canada 2008."

[Oscar]

Massive 'Homeland Defense' Joint Exercise Is Under Way

http://www.alternet.org:80/rights/107195/
By Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive
November 15, 2008

This week and into next, NorthCom and NORAD are conducting a joint exercise called “Vigilant Shield ’09.”

The focus will be on “homeland defense and civil support,” a NorthCom press release states.

From November 12-18, it will be testing a “synchronized response of federal, state, local and international partners in preparation for homeland defense, homeland security, and civil support missions in the United States and abroad.”

NorthCom is short for the Pentagon’s Northern Command. President Bush created it in October 2002. (The Southern Command, or SouthCom, covers Latin America. Central Command, or CentCom, covers Iraq and Afghanistan. And the new AfriCom covers, well, you get the picture.)

Vigilant Shield ’09 “will include scenarios to achieve exercise objectives within the maritime, aerospace, ballistic missile defense, cyber, consequence management, strategic communications, and counter terrorism domains,” the press release states.

NorthCom’s press release also says that other participants in the exercise include the U.S. Strategic Command’s “Global Lightning 09,” which is a plan to use nuclear weapons in a surprise attack.

The Pentagon’s “Bulwark Defender 09” is also involved in the exercise, and it is a cyberspace protection outfit of the Pentagon.

Something called the “Canada Command DETERMINED DRAGON” also is participating, as is the California National Guard and California’s “Golden Guardian.”

California’s involvement appears to center around planning for a catastrophic earthquake.

“Under the leadership of Governor Schwarzenegger and direction of his Office of Homeland Security, the nation’s largest state sponsored emergency exercise will take place November 13-18,” a press release from the governor’s office states.

“Golden Guardian 2008 tests California’s capability to respond and recover during a major catastrophic earthquake. The Golden Guardian 2008 full-scale exercise scenario focuses on a simulated, catastrophic 7.8 magnitude earthquake along the southern portion of the San Andreas Fault.”

NorthCom is being shy about giving out additional information about Vigilant Shield ’09. When I called for a fact sheet on it, I was told there was none.

But the Pentagon did issue such a fact sheet for Vigilant Shield ’08.

Last year’s exercise included “the simulated detonation of three nuclear dispersal devices.” The fact sheet stressed the need to support a “civilian-led response” and to “exercise defense support of civil authorities,” including involvement in “critical infrastructure protection events” and coordinating “Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection activities.”

That fact sheet ended by saying: “There will be minimal deployment of active duty forces and no crossborder deployments. We anticipate little to no direct impact on local communities.”

NorthCom has been in the news lately, after the Pentagon designated to it a battle-tested fighting unit from the war on Iraq. This appears to be against the law, according to the ACLU, since the army isn’t supposed to be patrolling our own country.

On top of that, NorthCom was up to its eyeballs in getting peace groups spied upon.

“The security people at USNORTHCOM . . . had begun noticing some trouble at a few military recruiting events in 2005,” Eric Lichtblau recounts in Bush’s Law: The Remaking of American Justice. “Military officials at NORTHCOM asked their counterparts at CIFA [the Pentagon’s Counterintelligence Field Activity] to ping their powerful new database -- do a broader study and find out how many episodes of violence and disruption were actually imperiling their recruiters."

And NorthCom even was in the loop at the Republican Convention in St. Paul.

Is it too much to ask Congress to look into NorthCom?

--------------------
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive.
© 2008 The Progressive All rights reserved.