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