Ready when you are, sir
Steven Staples
|
Lockheed Martin and Boeing are competing for a multi-billion dollar contract for new aircraft. The C-130J above can't hold some of Canada's essential ground vehicles, and Boeing's C-17s are overpriced and don't fit our hangers...
|
Canada's military-corporate complex and its services rendered to George W. Bush
In Why We Fight, documentary filmmaker Eugene Jarecki reminds us of Dwight D. Eisenhower's famous 1961 farewell address to the American people - a warning really - when he added a new concept into our vocabulary: the military-industrial complex. "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience," said the former U.S. president. "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Jarecki tests American politics to see if that warning was heeded and his conclusion is alarming. The powerful and profitable military industry and its allies in the Pentagon, combined with an American belief in moral and political superiority, have led the nation into conflicts that threaten to destroy the very values and security they are meant to defend and expand.
But what about Canada? Do we have a military-industrial complex, and is it exerting influence over our government?
Like Eisenhower, former prime minister Jean Chrétien may have been trying to send a warning in the last days of his tenure. In October 2003, he told reporters, "It's never enough. I have never seen an army anywhere in the world who return a government's money. They all need more and they all have plans for more."
A few weeks later at the Liberal Party convention that declared Paul Martin the new leader,
perhaps looking directly at his successor, Chrétien said, "Beware of those on the right who put the narrow bottom line ahead of everything else."In the early days of the nation, a British declaration of war was automatically a declaration of war for Canada, and our sons were sent to defend the motherland. After the Second World War and demise of the British Empire, Canada fell under American leadership. This was codified through North American defence arrangements like NORAD, and through the NATO alliance.
As a result, Canada's "military-industrial complex" is tied to our southern neighbour as we seek safety under the military and economic umbrella of the United States. While the intensity of this relationship varies, pressure to fall in line behind U.S. leadership has been particularly strong since September 11, 2001. Following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President George W. Bush declared, "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
Without question, the Canadian government fell in line behind the United States and dispatched hundreds of troops, planes and warships to aid the American-led invasion of Afghanistan. It was never about self-defence, but a desire to support the United States in a war to achieve their security interests.
Still, Eisenhower's military-industrial complex, which comprises a powerful military establishment working with arms-producing industries, does not translate perfectly to the Canadian experience. Here we have what you would more appropriately call a military-corporate complex - an alliance between organizations seeking more spending and a larger force closely integrated with the U.S. military, and private enterprise groups seeking government deregulation, privatization and an economy just as integrated as our two military forces.
Ideology and economic interests bond these lobbies together. For a retired general or conservative academic, it may be a belief in a strong military; for a CEO, it's the prospect of contracts. The result is that each demands the government spend billions more on the military.
Such was the case when CEOs and retired generals supported Canadian involvement in missile defence, not to defend Canada, but to build closer ties with the Bush administration and the Pentagon.
The Corporate Lobby
In Canada, the most powerful influence comes from corporations engaged primarily in finance and natural resources, with military industries making up only a small part. Canada's corporate lobby is not driven by a demand for more military contracts (though it won't object), but by greater integration with the U.S. market as a whole.
Organizations such as the Business Council on National Issues (BCNI) have in the past promoted deregulation, privatization, and especially free trade. Its greatest achievement was the 1988 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which was later expanded to NAFTA in 1994.
More recently, the BCNI, renamed the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), was alarmed by the closing of the Canada-U.S. border after 9/11. As the U.S. ambassador to Canada at the time explained to an audience of CEOs in Toronto, "Security will trump trade."
 |
| Graphic: DSTRBO |
In response, the CCCE launched a campaign to support the Bush administration's security and military agenda - be it the invasion of Iraq or help building "Star Wars" - under the assumption that U.S. security measures won't impact Canadian trade because we will be inside their "security perimeter," and that the ensuing goodwill with the President would help end U.S. protectionist measures such as softwood lumber tariffs (despite the fact these are determined by the U.S. Congress).As CCCE president Tom d'Aquino exhorted a 2003 meeting of mandarins in Ottawa, "Now we must integrate our plans for achieving economic advantage within North America with a strategy for assuring the security both of our own borders and of the continent as a whole."
The Military Lobby
While much smaller but no less successful than the corporate lobby, the military lobby comprises corporations seeking contracts and hawkish policy groups, or "think tanks."
Organizations such as the Conference of Defence Associations and DND-funded academics produce a steady stream of hawkish reports and analysis for the media and politicians.
On the industry side, the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries reports that in 2000 (the latest figures available) there were more than 1,500 firms with significant defence interests (i.e. more than $100,000 in defence revenues) comprising an industry worth roughly $7 billion per year.
A third of the industry's revenues are derived from arms exports, half of that to the United States. As a result, both the Washington-based Congressional Research Service and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute ranked Canada as the sixth largest global arms exporter in 2004.
These companies build everything from wheeled tanks to tactical helicopters. But most Canadian defence companies are branch plants or subcontractors, building components for U.S. systems, such as gearboxes for the Apache helicopter.
According to Project Ploughshares, the industry is dominated by a handful of companies who typically win the lion's share of Canadian military contracts: CAE Inc., General Dynamics Canada and General Dynamics Land Systems Canada, SNC-Lavalin Group, Bell Helicopter Textron, and Bombardier. Half of the top 10 companies are foreign owned or controlled, and only six of the top 10 companies actually rely on military contracts for more than 20 per cent of their revenue.
Finally, one cannot exclude the Department of National Defence itself from the military lobby. It spends millions of dollars a year on public relations, including public opinion polling, cultivating favourable coverage from journalists, in addition to funding conservative think tanks and university research institutes.
Successes of the Complex
Studies on the difference between Canadian and American values frequently conclude that Canada has a much less militaristic political culture than its American neighbour. Canadians consistently put health care, the environment and the economy at the top of priority lists and defence at the bottom. Even more, Canadians are much more likely to support the United Nations, international law and diplomacy over military solutions to international conflict.
Public opinion, and its impact on Canada's political system, is therefore the main obstacle to the military-corporate complex in Canada. Chief amongst the lobby's goals is to convince Canadians to give up the notion of peacekeeping and accept the U.S.-led "war on terrorism" as a Canadian priority, whether through a stronger defence of the homeland (immigration) or military interventions abroad (Afghanistan).
It has achieved many victories:
Dollar for dollar, the military's $15-billion spending is the seventh highest among the 26-member NATO alliance, and 15th highest in the world. The 2005 federal budget added $12.8 billion over five years to the military, and the Conservatries will top that by $5.3 billion, putting spending much higher than at any time during the Cold War. In the last election, all of the national political parties supported these massive increases to military spending, including the NDP. The media's support for joining the U.S. missile defence program was near total, despite widespread public skepticism and opposition.Once a top 10 contributor of soldiers to UN peacekeeping, today we can fit all our Blue Helmets onto a single school bus - less than 60, out of more than 60,000 UN peacekeepers worldwide.Our 2,300-troop-strong effort in Afghanistan, a counterterrorism mission currently under U.S. command, is a proving ground for the adoption of U.S. war-fighting doctrine and a symbolic end to Canadian/UN peacekeeping.The military-corporate complex does not win every time, as proven when tens of thousands of Canadians who opposed the invasion of Iraq neutralized the lobbying effort to join the "Coalition of the Willing." And again, taking advantage of the minority government and public distrust of the Bush administration, peace groups prevented the Martin government from joining the U.S. missile defence shield.
When sufficiently aroused or organized, Canadian public opinion can prevent the government from adopting the military-corporate complex's agenda. Its lobby can always be rebuffed when Canadians become informed and act upon their values.
Steven Staples is Director of Security Programs for the Polaris Institute, based in Ottawa.
| What can we do, and what happened to referendae |
|
Great article Stephen and right on. As a Canadian who moved to the US in 1965,I have had a grand chance to observe the US political scene.I know what they are up to. I believe I sank Frank McKennas ship when I corrected a Natonal news artcle on what great experience he had to run for P.M. I pointed out that his experience as a committee director for the Carlysle group would not be acceptable. Shortly after he decided not to run.
I now know what they are up to at all times. Our former Defence minister tried hard to suck up to Rumfeld and would jump as high as he was told.He botched the Submarine deal.I have the articles-what a waste for the tax payer. Canada should never buy second hand anything.
Any questions you have please let me hear about and I will freely give you my take.Pardon the pun.Have you read Greg Palast? If not you should.
We should not accept this latest crookery by the Americans and Harper but what do do.He knows the others wont force an election. Your columns are good for we interested one but we have to get to the people.The media are had. Ever consier a weekly handout to homes in simple English about what is happening. I am sure we could muster up volunteers to deliver them.
We need a powerful citizens group that can pressure Ottawa.The Council of Canadians could do that but I am not sure they want to be political???
|
|
Robert G. Mac Donald B.A.M.D.
|
{1 vote}
|
|
|
Just a correction on a previous post.
ADGA is NOT the biggest DND contract. As of 2005 it is a VERY distant 7th, at $57,780,000.00. The contract runs from 1-12-2005 to 30-11-2008 for a yearly total of $19,260,000.
The largest contract by far is to Kelowna Flightcraft Limited - reference #W3373-000002/001/FS. It runs from 28-10-2005 to 27-8-2027 and totals - are you ready for it? - $1,772,776,794 or $80,580,763 per year. Full details on this contract at http://www.smafinsm.forces.gc.ca/daip/contracts/contract_e.asp?q=3&y=2005&id=19497.
If you start to look at all contracts and divide the total contract amount by the number of years it will be active, you will no doubt find contracts that are much larger. These would include the United States Department of the Army (USASAC), Victoria Shipyards Company Limited, General Dynamics Land Systems, etc.
More DND contract info can be found (under Proactive Disclosure) at http://www.smafinsm.forces.gc.ca/daip/contracts/overview_e.asp.
A listing for DND contracts for 2005 (with links to DND) has been published (in order of dollar amount) by The ACTivist magazine at http://activistmagazine.com/images/stories/campaigns/peace/DND_contracts_2005.html.
Proactive Disclosure for other government departments, agencies, commissions, etc. can be found at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pd-dp/gr-rg/index_e.asp.
|
|
Chris Davenport
|
{14 votes}
|
|
|
| Conspiracy of the Military Machine |
|
I grant the author that Canadian companies are out to make money, and that there is more profit to be made in the United States then there is here, thus creating employment for Canadians participating in our democratic process. When North American military naysayers are driving in their expensive Saab and Volvo cars (built by a Swedish company), just remember that SAAB also develops and builds some of the most deadly aircraft in the world. I don't think many of you will look at your cars the same again. Why do you think the cars are so safe? They are like that because they are using materials that were developed for military purposes; strong, dependable, and life-saving.
As being close to the Canadian Air Force, I agree that the two types of transport aircraft aren't the best choices for our needs, but until the politicians actually listen to the soldiers who are going to use the tools that the government will be buying, screw ups like this will continue to happen. We might buy the bulk of our equipment from the US, but as we have always done, we improve it to make it more versatile and safer. that's another place where our tax dollars go.
He mentions how our Peacekeeping contingents have diminished, but does he think that even in that role, that Canadian soldiers don't need proper arms and equipment? Does he seriously think that the opposing forces, between which the Canadians are posted, will say: "Oh the Canadians are here, we will not fight each other, because we might hit one of the Blue Helmets" Get serious.
The author finally admits at the end of his article, that the Canadian people do have a voice, and has managed on numerous occasions to sway their political leaders. I guess the big scary conspiracy does have its limits after all. The Canadian population, and their government, isn't as weak as the author makes them out to be.
|
|
Brian Downing
|
|
|
|
there is very little if any justice in current society. we all share an ignorant common sense, more or less criminals in discard of the truth; sixty dollars for a shirt made in 60 seconds for sixty cents an hour, the ball and chain of guns gas and money, dragging down the progression of existence, a thousand years gone in a nuclear flash, the discontinuous strife and conflict; infant desires of faith in god and peace; greed lost in the dishonors of wars fought for the myth of death for freedom.
|
|
Trevor Peterson
|
|
|
|
Forgive me but I'm far less concerned by Canada's "military-industrial complex" than I am of the moral backbone of those in government. Simply put, if any "military-industrial complex" is by design trying to push their own agenda then the only true hope any of us have of curbing its progress is by having leadership strong enough to say enough! We don't have that. We haven't had that in a loooooooooooong time. The "Why We Fight" doc summed up pretty neatly the relationship at play, it's up to us and those we put into power to look after our interests.
|
|
Pedro Eggers
|
{2 votes}
|
|
|
| Gratuitous Smear is Actually Appropriate |
|
In response to the comment from Georges B., I would argue that the crucifix goes well with the proposed coat-of-arms on last week's cover. After all, both Bush & Harper have enjoyed & continue to enjoy support from the Christian right-wing. Now there is also a Christian left-wing as well, such as those who support the "Liberation theology" movement in Latin & South America. The role of taking up arms is just one of those things that divide the Christian body, just like the question of the death penalty or abortion.
|
|
Brad Thomas
|
{3 votes}
|
|
|
George Bush appeals to God and security are common knowledge - so I was pleased to see how you linked them on your cover. What's behind the growth in defense industry? Yes there is a corporate and military lobby pushing. While it has been argued to be security and protecting democracy, most of it seems to go to shareholders and stockpiling of weapons.
|
|
Joe Shebib
|
{1 vote}
|
|
|
| Gratuitous smear is unbecoming |
|
On your cover illustration for the week of April 13 I couldn't help noticing the ominous crucifix on the "coat of arms" drawn between Bush and Harper (Bushitler and Harperstein?). If you think the related article has something to do with Jesus Christ, please spell it out next time--I'd love to think the Ottawa Xpress was above cheap smears.
Yours,
|
|
Georges Buscemi
|
{6 votes}
|
|
|
This is a film that everyone should see. America is going to war because war feeds the economy. It gives people jobs and makes big money for heads of corporations. American soldiers and Iraqui civilians are dying so that large corporations can profit from the businesses attached to making war. Now we have a Canadian government that is more openly committed to helping the Americans. Canadian companies have long been profiting from the wars fomented by America and now we are sending soldiers to Afghanistan to help keep the war machine running. Canadian and American companies can keep making ammunition and weapons. Maybe more Canadian corporations will be able to profit from contracts in Iraq for the cleanup. Go see this film and get rid of the fiction that anyone is fighting for freedom. Every Canadian or American soldier, every civilian, every journalist that dies in these wars is dying in a war being fought to make money for a small elite in the world.
|
|
Susan Turansky
|
{9 votes}
|
|
|
I appreciate OttawaXpress for giving one of many informative articles about our country and it's doings. This article was extremely truthful and eye-opening, because we don't get these types of stories and commentary in the regular city newspapers. War is becoming a very serious issue in today's time, and it's only fair that us Canadians get the cold, hard information to it's fullest nature. I hope there's more articles like this covering such issues. It sure is nice to see truth out there in at least some newspapers!
|
|
Meghna Patel
|
{8 votes}
|
|
|
| Number One Military Corporation in Canada |
|
Your article neglected to point out that the number one defence contractor in Canada, ADGA Group, relies upon revenues from DND more than any other commercial interest in Canada and is privately owned by one man.
Perhaps more thorough research is in order.
|
|
Don Swanfield
|
{10 votes}
|
|
|
This is probably the best article I've read in a long while, inside Xpress or otherwise. Cheers to Xpress for publishing it, and for continuing to give at least some segment of the population actual news. If all we had was CanWest, we'd be in deep shit.
If anything, I'd like to see Xpress with even more political articles like this one. We certainly don't get these kind of cold facts or hard truths inside the National Post, or the Ottawa Citizen. And you have a great team with Akpata and Trew. Steven Staples sees hope in stopping the rise of a war machine here in Canada with an informed public. I agree that an intelligent and informed public is the best defence, and I hope the Xpress keeps helping out in that department with this kind of reporting. Cheers again!
On another note, I recently watched "Why We Fight" myself, and highly recommend it to everyone. I also recommend "The Century Of Self," another brilliant documentary.
|
|
Aaron Brown
|
{6 votes}
|
|
|
