by Ray Dick

Canadian and American soldiers are together again, this time united in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan. But is this a relationship that will last, or is it a marriage of convenience that will end as soon as the threat has passed and our troops and the Americans have gone home?

Many defence analysts believe the events of Sept. 11th and the Afghan mission have clearly opened the door for a closer military relationship between Canada and the United States, one that could see a lot more integration of forces. The question a lot of people seem to be asking though is not when more integration can be expected, but rather what form it will take. Some people believe there are really only two choices: Straight integration, something that would definitely challenge Canadian sovereignty or a nation-to-nation agreement that would clearly recognize Canada’s autonomy.

The United States, while keeping a watchful eye on Canada’s position on security, has moved ahead with plans to tighten its borders. In January it appointed a general to oversee homeland defence, a clear sign Washington is in fact forcing the issue of a North American defence strategy. While relations between the two countries have been cordial with some minor spats over the years, the Pentagon—according to a Time Magazine article published last January—has not hidden its doubts about Canada’s ability to absorb its share of international military responsibilities.

And so another question is: Would Canada bring a big enough dowry to a relationship that would see more force integration or would the Americans find themselves in a position of providing the main support for North American defence? And if that is the case, would Canadians, as some people believe, lose the sovereignty they have so scrupulously guarded?

A quick look at the facts shows Canadian and American military forces have been cooperating for many years. Examples include the building of the Alaska Highway and the formation of the First Special Service Force during World War II. Since then, the two countries have been courting in a mutual defence pact called North American Aerospace Defence Command in which a Canadian officer is always second in command. Today, Canadian ships operate with American carrier task forces in the Atlantic and the Pacific, not to mention coastal defence.

Although integration of the land forces has been less intense, there have been many exchanges of services and training among smaller units, especially in United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization-sponsored missions. Canadian troops have been under operational control of the U.S. military in several instances, and even the Americans have served under Canadian control in such hot spots as the former Yugoslavia. The relationship between Canadian and American ground forces in Afghanistan is bound to add to this legacy of cooperation and the mutual understanding of respective military capabilities.

The main bugbear, however, in this heated-up relationship remains the small dowry Canadians would bring to the table should both sides prefer an arrangement that would be more long lasting. Could the junior partner afford some of the costly high tech military hardware, such as a missile defence system for North America, that is already on the drawing boards south of the border? Would the Canadians agree to arm its border guards and allow U.S. officers to share guard duties at ports of entry?

The dowry that Canada brings to the partnership is a military that almost all defence analysts agree needs an additional billion dollars a year over its normal operating costs over the next five years just to maintain the status quo and its credibility on the national scene. Ships are tied up at docks because they lack the crews to go to sea, sovereignty flights, especially in the northern regions, have been cut to the bone and the army is hard pressed to meet its far-flung commitments at home and abroad. This is not to mention rusting equipment, a deteriorating infrastructure, outdated tanks and an immediate need to replace Sea King helicopters that are more than 40 years old.

The events of Sept. 11th and the rapid response by the U.S. to deal with terrorism and improve national security have caused a lot of people on this side of the border to examine what Canada has in the way of national defence, and how this country can make a meaningful and sustainable contribution to national and continental security. One image that sparked the debate about future integration with the U.S. was created with the arrival last February of the 750 Canadian ground troops at the American-controlled airbase at Kandahar, Afghanistan. The soldiers, mostly members of the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, and other Edmonton-based units, arrived with I Love NY stickers on their Coyote reconnaissance vehicles. The number of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan was increased in March when Defence Minister Art Eggleton announced Canada would send another infantry company of approximately 130 from the Winnipeg-based 2nd Bn., PPCLI.

Indeed, the recent performance of Canadian and U.S. soldiers in Operation Anaconda, a battle launched March 2 to clear al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters from caves in eastern Afghanistan, is an example of how well soldiers from both countries are working together to defeat terrorism. Some parts of the battle, which involved Canadian snipers and other ground troops, were led by a Canadian commander. Overall the operation drew praise from Prime Minister Jean Chretien and President George W. Bush.

The decision to have Canadian soldiers team up with Americans from the 101st Airborne followed a dustup between Ottawa and the British. Ottawa had initially offered 1,000 troops to a British-organized UN force in Kabul, but when the British suggested Canada supply 200 military engineers instead, Ottawa decided that Canadian soldiers would join the American force in Kandahar in flushing out terrorists and policing the region.

Did this decision signal a new era of integration with U.S. forces? And would such increased cooperation be a marriage made in Heaven or, as one analyst says, put Canada on a “slippery slope speeding toward integration” with the ultimate loss of Canadian sovereignty? Military and political analysts on both sides of the border have waded into the discussion, and the defence minister has stated publicly that closer military ties with the U.S. would serve Canada well. “Defence partnership and coordination does not mean subordination,” said Eggleton. “You just have to look at the last 50 years of cooperation between our two countries to see how true that is.”

And for at least once, retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie, who commanded UN troops in the siege of Sarajevo in early 1990s and who has been a vocal critic of the defence minister in the past, agrees with Eggleton. “I’ve had American forces under my operational control, and none of them wrote Washington and said ‘My God, we’re sacrificing our sovereignty.”

Military analyst Sean Henry of the Conference of Defence Associations in Ottawa—the largest military lobby group in the country—makes clear where he stands on the issue. “To a certain extent it is inevitable there will be a close working relationship between the Canadian and U.S. militaries simply because of geography and political factors. Just look at the map. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.” As for any danger of losing sovereignty, Henry goes back to the past to bring the issue into perspective, back to then prime minister Mackenzie King and the beginning of WW II when King realized Canada was in danger of being eclipsed by the U.S.

“The Alaska Highway was being built. There were about 15,000 Americans up there and no one really knew what they were doing. The result was a meeting between King and Roosevelt at Ogdensburg, N.Y., and the creation of the Permanent Joint Board on Defence “which exists to this day and is the highest body of formal consultations between Canada and the U.S. in defence of North America.” He added that there are about 260 other Canada-U.S. bilateral agreements on defence matters, the top one being Norad.

“There are people running around saying Canada would lose its sovereignty with closer military ties with the U.S.,” he added. “But what they don’t know is that there is already a large and extensive framework out there to address these matters and that all you have to do is work within it.” A good example was Norad. Sovereignty was protected because the essence of the agreement was consultation at the highest levels, the Canadian prime minister and the American president and down to the deputy commander of Norad who is always a Canadian.

Henry believes that any danger of loss of Canadian sovereignty lies in the fact that the military is in such sad shape it can’t make large contributions to bilateral defence projects. “If the Canadian input is going to be marginal into North American defence arrangements, then that is where you stand to lose your sovereignty. The Americans will say ‘OK, we’ll do it.’ The whole structure out there allows Canada to come in as an equal partner, but if you take off when it comes time to pay the bill you will no longer be invited to the table.”

Henry agrees with other military analysts and political observers that the military needs a lot more money. He believes the danger to sovereignty has nothing to do with procedures. “What it has to do with is Canada making adequate contributions to North American defence, which we haven’t been doing for many years.”

At least two other Canadian military analysts do not fear loss of sovereignty because of closer integration with American forces.

Lou Cuppens, a retired lieutenant-general who now is chairman of The Royal Canadian Legion’s National Defence Committee, said naval forces of the two nations have been integrated since the inception of NATO and have been cooperating for many years in coastal defence. The air forces have been co-operating since the beginning of Norad in the 1950s. The land forces have trained with the Americans, there have been exchange programs and military equipment has been sold and bought by both sides.

He did not fear any loss of national sovereignty. “We are already closely linked in trade, family history and in mineral and water resources,” he said. “We are collectively defending North America,” he added, a situation that was brought home to Canadians and Americans after the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks. But Canada would have to pay its fair share of the costs of North American defence. “We’ve been getting a free ride from the Americans for many years.”

Professor Joel Sokolsky of the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ont., says: “We must prioritize our defence, and a key priority must be the defence of North America. Anything that threatens the U.S. is a threat to Canada, mostly because most of our trade goes across the border.” He said it makes sense to establish more cooperation between the Canadian and American forces, more along the lines of interoperability through an institutionalized system rather than through direct integration. “There will be no loss of sovereignty if you institutionalize.”

As for the dustup with the British in Afghanistan, Sokolsky said “Canadian soldiers would rather fight alongside the Americans than be dishwashers for the British.” The British had wanted the Canadians in a support role. “The Canadian Forces are trained for war,” said Sokolsky. “They are not trained for peacekeeping.”

A note of caution, however, was sounded by military analyst Martin Shadwick of York University in Toronto. “Sept. 11th was a major jolt to the system,” he said. More integration with the American forces was inevitable in the defence of North America, but it was a question of what form it takes. “Geography locks us in, and there is a moral obligation. But as the junior partner we have to be very sensitive to sovereignty. We must be careful of sovereignty issues and how we protect them. But it is better to have a seat at the table than not.” The Americans thought of North American defence first. Canadians thought of sovereignty first, then security.

Shadwick said there is no doubt the Canadian-American relationship will grow closer, but that the Americans should remember that “Canada is not a star in the stars and stripes” on the U.S. flag. “It doesn’t mean we sign off on everything. This is a sovereign country.”

The American in-laws to this prospective union, some of the top defence analysts in the U.S., say the Americans are quite happy with the closer arrangement, but they make clear it will be no shotgun wedding. “This is a Canadian issue,” said Charles Doran, professor of international relations at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C. “Even if we had an opinion we would studiously remain outside of the debate.” He added that Americans know there has been close integration between the American and Canadian defence communities—”the closest of any country in the world”—and that the Americans are very happy with this situation. “But there are politics involved. This is a Canadian issue, and it’s for Canadians to decide.”

Christopher Sands of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington said there is no way the Americans are trying to “wipe out Canadian sovereignty. We have an integrated economy and integrated national interests. There is no doubt we need the Canadians and they need us.” He was referring especially to the North American front, such as border surveillance and port of entry control, and not especially towards overseas missions where the general dynamics are changing from a need for overwhelming force to battles of precision and technology. “We have an integrated economy and integrated national interests,” said Sands. “It’s critical to have the Canadians involved.”

Sands sees several options for integrated defence of the continent, including expansion of the NATO role in North America. Another would be to use the Norad model, folding in maritime and land components as well as missile and space defence. But if he had his druthers there would be an American commander in chief, a deputized diplomat who would work with both the Canadians and the Mexicans on North American defence.

And Jayson Spiegel, executive director of the Reserve Officers Association of the U.S. in Washington, said closer cooperation between the Canadians and Americans is coming and, as American television host Martha Stewart would say, “that’s a good thing.” The two countries were closely aligned culturally and already cooperate in many ways. Since Sept. 11th every western capital was a target of terrorism, and closer co-operation “was the right way to go in the future.”

But is this blossoming romance a “slippery slope speeding towards integration,” as writes Thomas Axworthy, a former principal secretary to prime minister Pierre Trudeau and now a lecturer at Harvard University. In an article in the Toronto Globe And Mail, Axworthy stated recent decisions on the military, border security and the economy are inching us closer to the U.S. and that “placing a Canadian battle group under the operational control of the American army is just one more example of an emerging trend that has galloped forward at a furious pace since Sept. 11th. Every incremental decision…on border security, energy, transportation and peacekeeping has moved us step by step into ever greater integration with the United States…. We need a full scale national debate on whether this is the future Canadians want.”

If one recent poll is any indication, Canadians are not as cautious as they used to be about closer ties with the U.S. The poll, conducted after Sept. 11th for the Centre for Research and Information on Canada, found only 36 per cent of those polled thought Canada should become less like the U.S., down from 46 per cent in previous surveys in 1998 and 2000.

There is certainly no indecision in military analyst Sean Henry’s mind. He would move to the groom’s side of the aisle in a heartbeat. “I am no longer proud of my country because it does things that embarrass me. It doesn’t pick up its share in defence…. I don’t want to be part of a country that defines itself through handouts and anti-Americanism. I don’t want to sell out to the Americans, but I’ve given up. If my wife would agree I would move down to Texas tomorrow. I would become an American citizen.”