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