By Dana Gabriel
Portions of the Civil Assistance Plan (CAP) signed by the U.S.-Canadian military in mid-February were just recently posted on the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and Canada Command websites. The plan would allow for military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency, including one that does not involve a cross-border crisis. Some fear that this agreement could lead to foreign troops being used for gun confiscation and marital law. CAP, along with the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), are further advancing the merging of U.S.-Canadian military command structures and represent steps towards a North American Union.
In 2002, then U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, announced the creation of NORTHCOM, and boasted that it would have jurisdiction over all of North America. In an article by Michel Chossudovsky, he states the, “redesign of Canada’s defense system is being discussed behind closed doors, not in Canada, but at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado, at the headquarters of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM).” He went on to say, “Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated.” In addition, this is taking place through the SPP and poses a serious threat to Canadian sovereignty and any resemblance of an independent foreign policy.
Canada Command and NORTHCOM have established close bilateral ties, meeting regularly and planning as well as participating in joint military exercises. American, Canadian, and even Mexican troops have held military training exercises in advent of a possible natural disaster or terrorist attack during the 2010 winter Olympics in Vancouver. It is unclear whether American troops will be providing any type of security at the Olympics. On top of merging command structures, binational integration is also taking place in areas of intelligence and law enforcement.
In advance of the SPP Leader Summit in Montebello, Quebec back in 2007, it was reported that the RCMP, along with the U.S. Army, blocked the Council of Canadians from renting a municipal community center to hold a forum in. The reason cited was that it was located inside the reported 25 km security perimeter. There is little doubt that the SPP is also further advancing the police state.
The majority of Canadians reject the SPP, and deeper integration with the United States. It is not surprising that the Harper Conservative government and the Canadian military failed to announce the signing of CAP. This agreement was not signed by the governments of both countries, but by military commanding officers with no public debate or Parliamentary and Congressional oversight. There was no Canadian Forces press release, and the government refused to answer questions on the agreement in the House of Commons. It is hard to imagine that an agreement of such magnitude, which would allow U.S.-Canadian troops on each other’s soil and threaten the sovereignty of each nation was not debated or voted on. Just like the SPP, CAP is shrouded in secrecy, with many missing annexes that remain classified. This agreement goes hand in hand with parts of the North American Plan for Avian and Pandemic Influenza, which was announced at the SPP Summit in Montebello.
Canadian military command structures are further merging with the U.S., and it is becoming more aggressive in its operations. The Canadian government’s tone and language directed towards other nations is becoming more hostile. There has been a shift from its more traditional role as a peacekeeping nation, which has garnered praise and respect from around the world. Canada might play a more active role in the war on terror, including possible participation in future U.S. military operations. The SPP is further advancing Canadian security and military assimilation into the U.S. and a North American Union.
Related articles by Dana Gabriel
Police State Canada 2010 and the Dark Side of the Olympics
U.S.-Canada Border Security and Military Integration
Afghanistan: Canada Must Pursue a More Independent Foreign Policy
