CANADA

Miguel Figueroa

About 35 km. north of Goose Bay —
Happy Valley in Labrador lies the town
of North West River. Nestled along the
shores of Lake Melville, this small, pic-
turesque village of 900 people has seen
better times. Jobs are scarce, with
unemployment reaching highs of 40-45

r cent during certain times of the year.
Many of those fortunate enough to be
working have Jobs connected directly or
indirectly to the military activities at the
airfield down the road in ‘“‘Goose’’. So
when the federal government announced
jts intention to bid for a NATO tactical
fighter and weapons training base at
| Goose Bay, many here welcomed the

proposal with relief, if not enthusiasm.

Acomplete denial of Native rights
Across a short bridge, on the barren
hillside opposite, lies another settlement,
the Innu village of Sheshashit (“‘shes-
sha-jeet’”)- From this side of the river-
bank, the view is different. Housed in
aging. dilapidated government-built
dwellings. the approximately 800 Innu
residents face an existence of wide-
a pread poverty and despair. To these
Sheshashit villagers, and to the Innu
e throughout Ntesinan (‘‘the-see-

>> _ the native name for the ter-
of Labrador and eastern
Quebec). the growing militarization of
the region represents an attack on their
traditional lifestyle and living standards.
The current low-level military fights and
the proposed NATO expansion signal a
| complete denial by the federal govern-
nt of the Innu people's aboriginal

{ night s to control their own territory, a
i facial which threatens their continued
existence as a distinct people in Canada.

The present air base is used exten-
ively by the West German, British and

; nadian air forces to train pilots in low-
eA. high-speed ‘‘assault”’ man-
uvres. In 1985 alone, over 4,000 milit-

A sorties were made from the Goose
Bay airfield to two massive fight ranges
| covering a 100,000 sq. km. area. The jets
ak through the skies, often no more
oe 50-100 feet above the surface, leav-
ft g in their wake ear-shattering sonic
eens that terrorize Innu hunters, their

families and caribou herds and other
wildlife upon which the Innu depend.

If Canada’s NATO bid for a Tactical
Fighter Centre is accepted, military
flights out of Goose Bay. would increase
dramatically. At a cost of $800-million,
the airfield would be upgraded and new
facilities built to accommodate up to 150
fighter aircraft and as many as 2,500
military personnel. A final NATO deci-

sion may come as early as this De-
cember.

But even if Canada fails in its bid fora
NATO base (a NATO “technical working
group”’ has recommended the alternative
site in Konya, Turkey), defence officials
still plan to extend military use of the
Goose Bay facility on the basis of bi-
lateral agreements with other individual
NATO countries. This past February, a
10-year deal was struck with the West
German Luftwaffe, granting that air force
both flying and bombing privileges over
Labrador. Britain, Holland and Den-
mark are pursuing similar agreements
and the Italian government has also ex-
pressed interest. According to David
Nuk, the Innu co-ordinator of the Cam-
paign Against the Militarization of
Ntesinan, “‘if this is allowed to happen,
eventually it will evolve inta.a
full-fledged NATO base, only without the
Official title.”

Preparations for a first Strike

The Pentagon and NATO need low-
level flight training facilities such as
those at Goose Bay as part of prepara-
tions for the ‘Follow on Forces Attack”
or “‘Deep Strike” Strategy adopted by
NATO Supreme Command in the early
"80s. This aggressive, destabilizing plan
calls for NATO fighter/bombers, slipping

beneath radar detection, to penetrate .

deep into the territories of Warsaw Trea-
ty countries to attack defence instal
lations. While NATO officials claim that
“Deep Strike’ is a defencive Strategy
designed to counter a ‘*Soviet attack on
western Europe,”’ peace researchers and
independent arms control experts have
roundly condemned the Strategy as
part and parcel of Washington's secret
first-strike preparations directed against

Indian Association.

the Soviet Union and other socialist
countries in Europe.

Low-level flying has been conducted
over the British and West German
countryside for several years but grow-
ing public outcry is forcing the military to
look elsewhere. Not only does the
‘horrendous, ear-splitting noise’’ of the
sonic booms frighten and anger resi-
dents, it also damages property, as this
August, 1984 report in Der Spiegel noted:

“Bavarian State police investigated
considerable damage in an area south-
east. of. Ansbach. in..central. Franconia:
houses that lost their roof tiles, shattered
windows, broken glass. But no hurricane
had ravaged through the land, no bomb
had exploded. Something ordinary had
happened. An air force fighter plane had
traversed the area, flying at low level.”

Numerous reports and medical studies
on physical, emotional and psycholog-
ical harm caused by low-level flying have
been documted in Europe and the U.S.
Yet Canadian Defence and government
officials in Labrador repeatedly make
light of Innu complaints when hunting
camps have been buzzed by low flying
jets, giving rise to a spate of racist jokes
about “‘frightened little indians in the
bush,”’ etc. David Nuk replies: “‘let’s
see Phantom F-4s and Tornadoes fly
over Confederation building (in St.
John’s) for one week and see how Peck-
ford and company react.”

The Department of National Defence
(DND) has also tried to brush aside con-
cerns over the impact on the territory's
wildlife and environment. In 1981 a so-
called *‘impact study’’ by the DND dis-
missed the effects as *‘negligible,”’ but
under increasing pressure from Innu, the
Canadian Wildlife Federation, and pro-
vincial government biologists, the DND
finally agreed this summer to undertake a
more comprehensive study. But this,
too, resembles more of a public relations
exercise than a scientific effort. Ben
Michel, a leading spokesperson for the
Innu National Council, points out that
the investigating panel has been commis-
sioned by and reports back to the De-
fence Department, not the Ministry of
the Environment, suggesting a glaring
conflict of interest. Furthermore, the
scope of the enquiry has been narrowed
to exclude examination of security-
related issues such as the impact of bi-
lateral agreements or the new North
Warning System. Finally, the panel is not
expected to release its final report until
the end of 1987, well after the decision
is expected on the NATO base.

Ben Michel (on left) of the Innu National Council and Bart Jack

Opposition to the military build-up

Their opposition to the militarization
of the region merges with the struggle of
the Innu people for a just solution to their
land claims which the federal govern-
ment has refused to acknowledge for al-
most ten years.”” It’s an issue of territo-
rial rights in terms of sovereignty — we
demand control over our environment
and institutions including education,
health, wildlife, non-renewable re-
sources and of course, our air space,”
states Michel, adding that once official
recognition and the right to self-deter-
mination is extended to the Innu.
““specific land claims can and should be
negotiated."" The Innu leaders recog-
nize, however, that if they are to win full
aboriginal rights, they must first halt and
reverse the military build-up which
threatens the integrity of their traditional
social structures and culture.

Opposition to the growing military
presence is on the increase even within
the civil community of Goose Bay-
Happy Valley, despite the constant boos-
terism of the military and business circles
chere. While a new NATO base may pro-
vide a **quick fix”’ in the short term to the
economic woes of the town, most jobs
will last only through the construction
phase of one to two years. Already with
the growing militarization of operations
at the airfield, several posts have been
shifted from civilian to military
personnel.

Uniting against NATO

Province-wide opposition is also grow-
ing, although it was seriously com-
promised when Peter Fenwick, NDP
provincial leader and only NDP member
of the House of Assembly, voted in
favour of the NATO base proposal ear-
lier this year.

Literally hundreds of national organi-
zations have come out against low-level
flying over Labrador and the NATO base
bid across the country, including the As-
sembly of First Nations, the Canadian
Council of Churches, the Canadian
Peace Congress, Project Ploughshares.
and numerous trade union bodies, most
notably all three union centrals in
Quebec.

The Canadian Peace Alliance has
given its full support to the campaign and
is acting as a national facilitating centre
for efforts by affiliated organizations to
promote the campaign, which is to in-
clude speaking tours, letter-writing pro-
jects, and local demonstrative actions.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, OCTOBER 29, 1986 e 5

VOYSNDIJ TANDIW ‘OLOHd ANNBINL

of the Naskapi-Montagnais

“hy