Canada's Mini-Military-Industrial Complex

There has been a significant shift in how Canada operates in the world post-9/11. We’ve moved from being a nation that has championed internationalism, the United Nations and UN peacekeeping, to being a prop to an aggressive U.S. administration operating outside the constraints of international law.

But our little brother position in U.S. politics does not simply end with foreign policy; Canada plays a crucial role in the American military-industrial-complex often left unexamined.

The military-industrial-complex has been a buzzword among activists and documentary filmmakers since the 1960s. Despite this, few journalists and activists have covered the Canadian side of this industry and how it effects and influences the Canadian economy and government.

That is until one speaks to, or reads, any of Steven Staples’s policy papers.

While largely unknown in the U.S., Staples is one of Canada’s leading public intellectuals. He has also recently been at the center of a Canadian Forces scandal. Through Access to Information Act requests the Ottawa Citizen learned that the Canadian military was keeping a file on Staples. The report on Staples details his speech to a Halifax peace group last year and his views on Afghanistan and General Rick Hillier’s plans to move the military away from peacekeeping and into more combat-oriented roles. The report stated that Staples’s presentation did not seem to resonate with those attending the speech, but pointed out that he was expected to give other talks across the country.

The report recommended the military be prepared to counter Staples’s arguments. While mentioning that the military has gone too far in its file regarding his peace work Staples’s stated: “This is what happens when you have a different viewpoint on Afghanistan than the government and the generals.”

Staples is the head of Ceasefire, the Rideau Institute, and involved with the Polaris Institute, he was a key player in ensuring Canada not join the U.S. missile defense program in 2005.

Staples is a prominent figure in civil society organizations. Often called upon to comment on defense and public policy related issues by the national and international news media, Staples is well known North of the forty-ninth parallel and beyond.

Staples recently gave me a few minutes of his time.

The Military-Corporate Complex

Staples’s position on the military-industrial-complex is one that he feels is quite a different experience for the business community in Canada when compared with the U.S.

He calls it the military-corporate complex, I asked him to explain this difference:

“Here in Canada we don’t have as large a military industry proportionately as it is in the United States, and also our arms industry is essentially a branch plant arms industry for U.S. manufacturers, that makes it different.”

“At the same time, we do have a significant arms industry here, we are a major producer and exporter of arms in Canada. But the dominant corporate lobby is focused in Canada is largely concerned with achieving greater market access into the United States, particularly in terms of financial services, natural resources, the manufacturing sector, all of which are interested in promoting free trade with the U.S.”

“So, it’s not so much developing a domestic industry through greater government spending here, but Canadian industry sees itself as wanting to be an appendage to the larger economy to the south.”

“So, the largest lobby here is trying to do anything that can protect the current level of economic integration we’ve already achieved mostly through NAFTA and any way to expand that.”

“An interesting dynamic has developed since 9/11 where we’ve seen a new alliance occur in Canada, a military corporate alliance between the arms industry and the larger defense lobby in Canada .This includes the conservative think tanks, the cold warriors, even the military itself, and very conservative politicians, along with the much larger corporate lobby, those who have worked for greater economic integration.”

“The basis of this alliance was forged in the wake of 9/11 when business interests in Canada feared that the U.S. government’s new preoccupation with security would negatively impact the economic integration achieved by the U.S. government putting more onerous security requirements at the border.”

“Remember the border was closed for three days after 9/11 and this sent a panic through the Canadian corporate community that depends on free trade with the United States, or sees its fortunes being made through having free trade with the United States.”

“The dynamic in Canada was basically we have to give the Bush administration whatever it wants on the security side of things to protect the economic integration already achieved.”

“In comes the defense lobby that says, well yes, and we have all the solutions. We have to join the invasion of Iraq, we have to sign up for missile defense, we have to fight and die in Afghanistan, we have to harmonize our databases, we export oil to the U.S. and we import no fly lists, this is the new dynamic.”

“So, the alliance was achieved between the defense lobby and the corporate lobby and hence we have this military corporate alliance.”

The triumph of the defense lobby

As most know, Canada has an ex-soldier and defense lobbyist as a defense minister, I asked Staples what he thought Gordon O’Connor’s place is in the corporate military lobby and has this changed business as usual for Canadian or American firms:

“Well it’s certainly a unique situation where we have a retired military officer in the role of defense minister. It’s not something very common, not in general, to have former soldiers taking up political positions in the Canadian parliament.”

“I think what we have seen is a real sense of triumph in the defense lobby, that they have a conservative government in place, they have a former lobbyist in place. But that doesn’t mean all the various factions are singing Kumbaya and holding hands, there are minor divisions, generally the defense lobby has achieved a huge victory, particularly in defense spending.”

“They have convinced Canadians that Canada is a low military spender, which is not true, but nevertheless the perception is there, they have secured billions and billions of dollars, in fact, Canada is going through as great a military spending buildup as the United States is, proportionately. In fact, they have so much money the government doesn’t even know what to do with it all!”

“There was a debate within the military as to whether we should have fewer, long range, big transport aircraft, or should we have more, but smaller shorter range transport aircraft. There was even a division of opinion between the chief of defense staff and the minister of defense. The solution was, we’ll buy them all! Because there is so much money they don’t have to make any hard decisions!”

“We’re back to Leopard tanks now too because the minister of defense is a tank man, after a decision by the previous government that we’re getting out of main battle tanks with the big treads – oh-no – now we’re buying more then a hundred Leopards from the Europeans and sending them to Afghanistan. They have more money then they know what to do with, and now the defense lobby is in a rush to spend the money as fast as they can.”

“We’re spending more then any amount we had in WW2, so we’re exceeding any level of spending in the cold war. We’re spending as if we did invade Iraq if you compare it with U.S. spending.”

Made in America

In Staples’s, No Bang for Buck policy paper, he mentions that American corporations are the preferred government supplier, I asked him why this was the case:

“The schism seems to be between the U.S. suppliers and the European suppliers which are the main competing blocs of advanced military hardware. There are B grade Russian and Chinese, smaller players, but the main ones are between Europe and U.S. so its Airbus vs. Boeing for example.”

“Which is a little bit ironic in terms of O’Connor because he used to lobby mostly for European manufacturers. In fact some of the companies that he represented have come out on the short end of the stick because of the manipulation of the requirements in some of the contracts.”

“So that’s why I say there is not a complete consistency that just because O’Connor is a former lobbyist and he is in there that he is favoring his former clients. Actually we are seeing that American suppliers are being favored, and I think this is just another way to score points with the Bush administration.”

“We’ve signed a contract with Boeing with long range aircraft, medium to heavy lift helicopters are coming, Boeing is also the preferred supplier with that, we are leaning towards joint strike fighters, over European aircraft so Lockheed Martin again will be the winner on that one so wherever you look it seems that the preferences is going to American suppliers for equipment.”

The SPP connection

Thinking back to Staples’s statement that: “we export oil and we import no fly lists” my mind began to race. I asked whether the Security and Prosperity Initiative is enhancing this military-corporate alliance:

“I think there are elements of that, the original plans of the corporate lobby, to create the security and prosperity initiative, by Tom d’Aquino, and BCNI (now CCCE), the original proponents of free trade and later NAFTA has rebranded this initial plan.”

“So this is the outcome of linking trade and security together, by giving the U.S. what it wants through the security aspect in order to hopefully achieve greater economic integration.”

“Now, their initial plans have not rolled out as they originally wanted. I think it’s important to recognize that, the initial objectives were much grander and elaborate then what they have ended up with in the SPP.”

“Some could argue that the SPP has the makings of something bigger and we have not seen the outcome of all this. There has been a lot of integration already, we look for instance at the smart border accord which occurred weeks after 9/11which arguably resulted in Maher Arar’s ordeal. It was a result of this greater rush to security integration with the U.S. If not Maher Arar it would have been someone else. In fact there may be other Maher Arars out there that we don’t even know about.”

“Now the SPP is certainly dangerous and we need to monitor it, but the corporate proponents have not gotten all they wanted. And there are some marked achievements, in civil society, that have caused problems for their agenda.”

“Firstly, that Canada never went into Iraq. That was the first thing the corporate lobby wanted. When Canada did not join, very surprisingly, the corporate lobby went ballistic!”

“Secondly, the corporate lobby set its sights on missile defense. That Canada had to join the ballistic missile defense program, never arguing that there was a missile threat to Canada, but merely that we had to because the U.S. was our largest trading partner. So the missile defense was not about defending Canada from missile attacks, but about protecting free trade.”

“But civil society organized and we were part of the campaign that maneuvered through a minority parliament and using various methods actually preventing Canada from joining missile defense. So it’s a constant tug of war, between the pro-integration side and civil society on the other side, pulling the robe back and forth, over this agenda. Sometimes it gets pulled over to their side of the line, sometimes we’re able to pull it over to our side. So its a mixed record, which on the one hand keeps me very alert and vigilant about what’s happening, but also I remain optimistic that they have not got all they wanted.”

The pulse of the movement

Switching gears, I asked him what he thought of the Canadian anti-war movement and whether the movement was stagnant in Canada:

“Well it depends how you want to talk about the movement, or how you want to measure it. There is public opinion, which is moved by a variety of factors. But do we have people marching in the streets? Is that the measurement of a movement? If you would use that as a measurement it would seem pretty bleak. But if you look at where public opinion is, where the expectations of the government and where Canadians want foreign policy to be it bodes well.”

“That the Canadian public has not accepted the argument of the business sector, that’s precisely why they have to do much of this in secret. Because the Canadian public is not convinced, that we should be adopting the national security priorities of the Bush administration as Canada’s priorities. But look, we kept Canada out of missile defense, there were no demonstrations against it, yet we were able to achieve policy victories on that because we were able to mobilize public opinion.”

“The movement in Canada is very divided here. As it is in the United States, we have not escaped the same divisions that have occurred, there here in Canada too. They are not as loudly pronounced, but I think there are a number of divisions between the progressives around the war.”

I don’t think any activists in the “great north strong and free” involved with the anti-war movement are under any illusions. We don’t have the size the U.S. does, but we don’t necessarily need it. We fight and win battles on other fronts, using other tools, that sometimes includes the state, and when necessary the streets.

The continued integration of Canadian and American economies gives the appearance of a Canadian willingness to go along with Washington. However appearances can be deceiving, and the quiet victories that are often ignored by the mainstream press are being written down in our history books.

Posted by supercanuk

RECENT COMMENTS

View Full Thread