FEATURE —_______—_-_— =

By SEAN GRIFFIN

I is already late morning but the mist still
hangs in the cold December air over the
water. Earlier, the Canadian Navy frigate
that had been lying at anchor in the bay,
slipped out quietly into the open water of
the strait and we can just make out its
ghostly outline moving past, Winchelsea
Island, first one way, then back.

Later, it returns and as the angular line of
the bow comes more into view, Peter
Danenhower picks up the binoculars and
glances through them briefly. “It’s Canadian
— you can tell by the color,” he says. “It’s
out there working the range.”

The range. . . Though the persistent efforts
of the peace movement in recent years have
made it common knowledge, it’s still hard
to accept that beneath the placid waters of
this bay and out into Jervis Inlet is one of
the most sophisticated maritime and sub-
Marine weapons testing ranges that U.S.
military technology has so far devised.

This is Nanoose Bay, site of the Canadian
Forces Maritime Experimental and Test
Ranges, or CFMETR for short.

If thousands more people today know of
CFMETR and the Canada-U:S. agreement
covering its operation — and the ominous
significance of the base at a time when the
US. is developing new submarine technol-
ogy, including the submarine-launched
cruise, the Tomahawk — it is due, in the
main, to the work of the Nanoose Conver-
sion Campaign.

For the past eight months — since Apr.
1 — the campaign has been focused here,
on three tipis erected on a small promon-
tory of land on the shoreline of Nanoose
Bay, where the Nanoose Peace Camp 1s
located. :

The Apr. 1, date is significant. In just a
little over three months, on Apr. 1, 1986,
the Canada-U.S. agreement governing
CFMETR is set to expire. And the NCC has
been campaigning hard to press the federal
government not to renew the agreement —
or better still, to cancel it altogether.

When the agreement was first established
May 12, 1965, it was known as the
“Exchange of Notes Between the Govern-
ment of Canada and the Government of the
United States of America concerning the

Be

Establishment, Operation and Mainten-
ance of a Torpedo Test Range in the Strait
of Georgia.”

As far as CFMETR personnel, including
Lt.-Cmdr. Michael Dunn, are concerned,
the range is still for “testing torpedos”. But
for the NCC — and for anyone else famil-
iar with recent developments in weapons
systems — CFMETR has assumed a signif-
icant new role in the escalation of the arms
race.

“The Navy argues that they’re just testing
conventional weapons for conventional
war — but that’s just a World War II men-
tality,” says Danenhower.

He notes that the U.S. has concentrated
in recent years on developing “attack”
submarines and now has several subs of the
top “Los Angeles” class in its arsenal.

Under the theory of deterrence, subma-
rines, armed with sub-launched ballistic
missiles, form the third leg of the “defence
triad”. Because they patrol in deep water,
they are the least vulnerable and, in theory,
their missiles are available for retaliation
even after the other legs, the land-based
missiles and bombers, have been knocked
out.

‘ut as part of the massive arms build-up
Bina: the Carter and Reagan administra-
tions, the U.S. began developing @t.ack
submarines. They are capable of seeking
out and destroying other submarines and,
once armed, in the case of the Trident sub-
marine with D-5 missiles and, in the case of
the Los Angeles subs, with Tomahawk
cruise missiles, they become vital compo-
nents in a first-strike arsenal.

And that is what has made the base and
the weapons that may be tested there

~ extremely destabilizing to the arms race, the

NCC contends.

“We've seen both the La Jolla and the
Salt Lake City, both Los Angeles class subs,
in Nanoose Bay this summer,” says Danen-
hower, emphasizing that both submarines
were scheduled to be fitted this year with
nuclear-armed Tomahawk cruise missiles,
according to Janes Fighting Ships.

He adds that NCC thinks that the U.S.
Navy is doing some testing of the sea-
launched Tomahawk cruise missile at
Nanoose Bay, a contention that is backed
up by New Zealand researcher Owen
Wilkes who has worked for both the Stock-

PETER DANENHOWER, LAURIE McBRIDE. ..regular chores at the Nanoose Peace Camp.

holm and Oslo Peace Research Institutes.
Wilkes told a meeting in Victoria Oct. 16.
that that was evidence to suggest that the
release mechanism for the Tomahawk was
being tested at Nanoose. The missile is
launched through a vessel’s torpedo tubes.

The Navy has denied that such tests are
being carried out although in light of the
recent revelations about secrecy over
NORAD, these denials mean little.
be Navy does acknowledge that it tests

anti-submarine rockets (ASROC) which

are fired trom surface vessels, including fri-
gates and destroyers. The weapon consists
of a rocket motor and either a MK-46 tor-
pedo or a nuclear depth bomb with an
explosive charge of one kiloton.

In addition, although the U.S: Navy
refuses to confirm or deny their nuclear
capability, various vessels that have visited
Nanoose may be carrying SUBROC mis-
siles, anti-sulymarine missiles equipped with
nuclear derth charges, or nuclear-armed
Tomahawk cruise missiles.

“Putting Tomahawks on these subs puts
a whole new dimension on the arms race,”
Danen‘iower asserts. “‘And the fact is, even
if these missiles are not being tested, when
Los Angeles class subs come in here, all the
testing that is done is improving the capabil-
ity of their weapons systems.

“‘And that involves us even more in the
arms race.”

Danenhower, a graduate student in
mathematics at Simon Fraser University,
has, he estimates, put in “about a month in
total” at the peace camp since it was estab-
lished in April. He comes during semester
breaks and stays for several days at a time.

It’s been tough the last few weeks with a
foot of snow and with the temperature dip-
ping sometimes to-15 C. But itis warm and
dry inside the main tipi and pretty well ever-
ything is there: in the centre, the wood
stove — “made for us at cost by a
supporter” — is kept constantly stoked
with wood, also donated. Around the
periphery, sleeping bags and bedrolls are
laid out on raised pallets, leaving just
enough space near the door for a small
cupboard for food and cooking.

The camp itself sits on a small grassy area
of land jutting out from the CPR right-of-
way. And although the lands manager of
the CPR subsidiary which owns the land did

pay them a visit several weeks ago, the issue
has not been raised further.

Like many of the peace campers, Danen-
hower was inspired by the example of the
women at Greenham Common near Lon-
don, England where several hundred
women have maintained a peace camp for
three years near the base that is the site for
the cruise missile deployment in Britain.

“I was impressed by their dedication and
their willingness to stick it out,” he says. “I
think it’s really important to have a pres-

ence and to be persistent with it.”

FEF: Laurie McBride, one of the main
co-ordinators of the NCC — although
the groups eschews structure and leaders, as
such — the inspiration was different, but
the same dedication is evident. She was
active around the issue of weapons testing at
Nanoose for some two years before the
NCC was formally established last December
and she recently took a year’s leave of
absence from her job as a teacher to devote
all her time to the campaign.

She says there are about 15 people who
concentrate on the peace camp — including
two people who will be spending their
Christmas vacation in the camp — but the
support is far wider. One man who lives just
up the hill from the camp offers the regular
use of his shower to campers while another
woman brings by a hot meal — every Sun-
day. Another brings bread and milk. “And
there’s a whole number of people who give
us regular donations of food,” she says.

A monthly newsletter mailed out to
about 300 people also brings in donations
from supporters. Although it was a little
financially uncertain at first, the donations
now more or less keep NCC ahead of its
bills which, says McBride, average about
$1,000 a month.

The campaign for non-renewal of the
CFMETR agreement has gained new
momentum in recent months. Suddenly,
Nanoose Bay weapons testing is a national
issue.

Everyday, there are people stopping by
the peace camp, some just to wish the
campers well, some to ask questions about
CFMETR. But the revelation made by U.S.
analyst William Arkin earlier this month
that the Canadian Defence Department
was deliberately withholding information

See PEOPLE'S page 21

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, DECEMBER 18, 1985 e 15