I I I A Te ee

DISARMAMENT

Tory policy

Canadians at both ends of the country
_ awoke last Wednesday to discover that U.S.
_ President Ronald Reagan and the Pentagon
__had secret contingency plans to deploy
nuclear depth charges at Canadian Forces
bases Comox and Greenwood, Nova Scotia
_In the event of war.
~The disclosure — by William Arkin of
the Washington-based Institute for Policy
_ Studies, who released a leaked classified

ing questions about the military relation-

~ ship between the U.S. and Canada, the role

that Canada is playing in US. strategic

_ plans — and whether Canada is indeed free

__ Of nuclear weapons as both Liberal and
Tory governments have claimed.

__ And the federal government has consid-

_ €rable explaining to do to resolve those

_ questions, Gary Marchant, vice-president

___ Of End the Arms Race, stated Friday. EAR

Was expected to send a letter to Defence

_ Minister Robert Coates declaring its oppo- ©

10n to Canadian participation in the pact.

___ Arkin, the nuclear weapons research
director for the Institute, released the doc-
Ument, called :the Nuclear Weapons

: Deployment Plan, on January 10. Prepared

__ by Pentagon staff and updated each year, it
WS intended for outside scrutiny only by the
U.S. president and outlines what weapons
_ Would be deployed outside the U.S. and the

Conditions under which they would be

deployed.

Inthe case of this country, B-57 bombers

Would deliver 32 nuclear depth charges
mtended for deployment from CFB Comox

and Greenwood. Presumably, each base:

Would get 16 charges, Arkin said.

The depth charges, which carry a nuclear |

evice roughly equivalent in force. to the

omb which devastated Hiroshima would

© deployed aboard the Aurora aircraft sta-

oned at Comox for anti-submarine war-
eitare,

Weapons would also be stationed in
er countries besides Canada including
Spain, Iceland, the  -
Bermuda,

_ in the Indian
Ocean. In the case
Of Bermuda and the
ippines, the weap-

ns would be de-

Ployed even before
_ there is a state of

ar, during a stage

“advanced readi-
» Arkin said. ;
Following the disclosure of the docu-
ment, Coates claimed that he-knew nothing
Of its existence and would have to seek an
Planation from the U.S. Both U.S. and
adian military officials refused to con-
or deny its existence and stonewalled
questions about military contingency

GARY
MARCHANT

7

But Coates’ comments, coupled with the

ficial military silence only underscored the
estions about Canadian sovereignty and
‘Canadian role in nuclear planning that
> document raised.

“If the government didn’t know of this,
Us even more shocking than if they had
anged the policy (on Canada’s nuclear
fole) behind our backs,” said NDP external
fairs critic Pauline Jewett. “It suggests
the U.S. Defence Department is mak-
these contingency plans to place nuclear
apons in countries outside the U.S. with-
it any consultation with the countries
olved.”” ;

Comments Friday by Richard Logan,

cutive assistant to Coates did nothing.to
ify the government’s position. But they
emphasize Canadian subservience to

‘U.S. in military matters and the threat

t that poses.

Logan said that the government “trusts”

i

memorandum — has opened up disturb-

under spotlight as N-war plan revealed

DEMONSTRATION AT COMOX, AUG. 1980... .Pentagon contingency plan makes demand relevant again.

the U.S. to keep Canada informed of its
plans in time of crisis. He added that any
delivery of weapons would have to be pre-

ceded by a government-to-government »

agreement,” a claim which has been ridic-
uled by disarmament experts who warn that
a crisis situation would give the Canadian
government little choice but to accept U.S.
plans or face having them carried out any-
way.

Canadians should be very concerned
about who did know of the existence of the
document and the contingency plans it out-
lines, Marchant said.

“Arkin said that the policy. was a deal
between the U.S. and Canadian military,”
Marchant noted. “‘And if that is so, then it’s
an extremely dangerous development since
it means that the military is making deals

ehind the back of government.

“If the Canadian military didn’t know
about it, it means the U.S. is taking action
without any consultation — and _ that’s
even more dangerous,” he said.

But Marchant also recalled that the
government had been secretive about cruise
testing which Canadians discovered only
because Southam correspondent Don
Sellar leaked the story in 1983. “The
government had no intention of telling us
about cruise testing,” Marchant said.

He told the Tribune that EAR would be
pressing the government on two other issues
that have been raised by the document —
Canadian* participation in U.S. nuclear
planning and the strategic implications of
the Canadian role.

That Canada would be the recipient of
nuclear anti-submarine depth charges “is

extremely destabilizing”, said Marchant,

“because it fits in with the U.S. policy of
developing a first strike capability.”

Submarines are the third leg of the deter-
rent “triad” — nuclear-armed bombers
and land-based missiles make up the other
two legs — and at the moment are consi-
dered the least vulnerable to a pre-emptive
strike, thus giving the Soviet Union some
perceived security against a U.S. first strike.

Because the weapons to be deployed
from Comox and Greenwood, N.S. would
be directed at that “third leg,” Marchant
emphasized, “Canada would be seen as tak-
ing a big part in the development of a U.S.
first strike capability.

“Tn fact, release of this document shows
that Canada is actively involved in planning
for nuclear war,” he said.

And unless the government disavows
that role, it will only undermine Canadian
credibility in the world, he emphasized.

The government’s statements in the wake

of the release of the document have, how-

ever, demonstrated clearly the Tory posi-
tion on the U.S. arms build-up and deflated
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s posturing
as an advocate of disarmament. Signifi-
cantly, the disclosure of the Nuclear Wea-
pons Deployment Plan came just as Coates
was addressing a defence seminar and urg-

ing increased defence spending and greater -
emphasis on military industry and contracts.

Coates likened his role to that of U.S.
Defence Secretary Caspar Weinberger who
set out four years ago to overcome all Con-
gressional opposition to massive increases
in arms spending.

“This shows clearly what the Tories’
approach really is,’ said Marchant. “It
shows they are eager to become involved in
the arms race.”

It has also spurned new activity in the
peace movement and has given a new
urgency to the actions planned for this
spring, particularly the April Walk for

Peace which last year brought.more than —

100,000 people into Vancouver streets.

In Comox, which is once again the centre
of the storm having been supposedly
nuclear-weapons free since last ‘year, the
disclosure of the document has re-opened
the issue of nuclear weapons at the base and
Comox mayor George Cochrane has been
called upon to address three public meetings
by residents demanding an explanation.
Janet Fairbanks, chair of the Comox Valley
Nuclear Responsibility Society said Friday
that the group would be meeting on the
weekend to draft a statement to Coates pro-
testing Canadian participation in the U.S.
plan.

The disclosure that the Pentagon
has secret plans to ship nuclear wea-
pons to Comox and Greenwood,
Nova Scotia in a time of international
crisis should touch off a massive pro-
test across the country and Canadians
‘should demand the immediate renun-
ciation of any Canadian role in the
plan, B.C. Communist Party leader
Maurice Rush declared in a statement
Saturday.

The Pentagon’s Nuclear Weapons
Deployment Plans, revealed by Wash-
ington defence analyst William Arkin
Jan. 9, places Canada “in mortal
danger,” Rush warned. He added that
the disclosure of the document “‘dem-
Onstrates the deceitful character of
Tory assurances that all nuclear wea-
pons have been removed from Cana-
dian territory.

“Canadians should demand the
immediate renunciation of such a
plan and call for a formal declaration
by government that we will not toler-
ate nuclear weapons of any kind on
our territory, that we are a nuclear-
weapons free zone and that we will -
formally notify the U.S. and the
Soviet Union of that fact and ask

‘Renounce war memo,’
CP urges government

those governmments to recognize our
nuclear-weapons-free-status,” he said.
_ Rush noted that the plan outlined
in the document followed earlier reve-
lations of further cruise and other
U.S. weapons tests as well as calls by
Defence Minister Robert Coates for
increased integration of the Canadian
economy with U.S. military industry.

“That demonstrates the real threat
to Canadian independence, ” he said.

“The secret Pentagon plan, now
made public brings the crisis of Cana-
dian foreign policy to a head,” he
emphasized. “It reveals the extent to
which the U.S. dominates our foreign
policy and demonstrates the need to
break that domination.

“Canada should declare an inde-
pendent foreign policy of peace under
which we would withdraw from
NATO and NORAD.

“Such a stand by Canada at this
time when talks for a new arms
agreement have been launched at
Geneva would contribute to easing
tensions and help create an interna-
tional atmosphere conducive to
reaching an arms agreement and
returning to detente.”

_ PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JANUARY 16, 1985 e 3