|
This time, the United States is
counting on (rather than simply desiring) Canadian
co-operation to assure maritime security. Because of
North America's relative invulnerability to
conventional military attack, physical protection of
the continental coasts has not been in the policy
mindset since at least the end of the Second World
War. New realities now demand it: The 9/11 attacks
demonstrated that a new enemy can strike on North
American soil, exploiting weaknesses in security
rather than advanced military technological prowess.
As a result, aviation security has been tightened --
but gaping holes remain in ocean approaches and ports.
This weakness (the "soft underbelly of globalization")
leaves open the possibility that merchant ships, and
the containers they unload at North American ports
(including those on the Great Lakes), could be used to
introduce the tools of terrorism.
As part of a "layered" maritime
defence of the American homeland, Washington wants to
enhance "maritime domain awareness" in its ocean
approaches and coastal waters. It is also interested
in increasing NORAD's maritime dimension, and a
Canada-U.S. binational planning group at NORAD has
been looking into ways to strengthen bilateral
maritime co-operation. The U.S. Navy's traditional
focus on defence through the projection of sea power
abroad remains largely intact -- but there's also the
U.S. Coast Guard, the lead agency in maritime homeland
security. It's an armed service (unlike the Canadian
Coast Guard) and serves as a second navy.
Canadians should view this new U.S.
emphasis on maritime homeland security and defence as
an opportunity to help shape an increasingly important
dimension of bilateral defence co-operation. Ottawa
has already moved in several areas such as port
security. To make our marine transportation system
more secure, the recent federal budget called for new
mid-shore patrol |
vessels for the Canadian Coast
Guard for use in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence
Seaway.
But Canada's navy must play a
larger role in maritime homeland security than its
U.S. counterpart, and to do so will require sufficient
and suitable capabilities. While long used for
domestic roles such as fisheries protection and search
and rescue, our navy (like the U.S. Navy) is mainly
postured for high-seas operations and overseas power
projection. The projection of force abroad is
essential for Canada's broader foreign policy
objectives; a greater emphasis on continental maritime
homeland security is no excuse to abandon overseas
capabilities and operations. But unlike the U.S.,
Canada can't afford two navies, one to project power
overseas power and another to support homeland
security.
With the Aurora maritime patrol
aircraft, its frigates and destroyers (and even its
submarines), along with its surveillance capabilities,
the Canadian navy is already well positioned to
contribute to continental maritime security. These
forces can work with other government departments,
such as the Canadian Coast Guard and the RCMP. But the
navy will need additional capabilities, and it has
been investigating options for acquiring new, more
sophisticated, long-range coastal defence vessels to
fill gaps in its fleet.
In fact, we need a navy for all
seas. A Canadian navy that plays an enhanced role in
the maritime security of North America will pay
substantial dividends with regard to both national
security and sovereignty and Canada-U.S. defence
relations.
Joel J. Sokolsky is dean of arts at
the Royal Military College. His study, Guarding the
Continental Coasts: United States Maritime Homeland
Security and Canada, was just published by the
Institute for Research on Public Policy. |
