U.S. not obliged to defend Canada in event of North Korean missile attack, MPs told

The highest-ranking Canadian officer at
Norad has demolished a long-held political
assumption by telling a parliamentary
committee that the U.S. is under no obligation
to defend Canada in the event of a ballistic
missile attack.
Lt.-Gen. Pierre St-Amand laid out on
Thursday — in stark terms — where the
military lines of each nation begin and end in
the event the North Korean crisis erupts into a
shooting war.
"The extent of the U.S. policy is not to defend
Canada," said St-Amand, who is the deputy
commander of the North American Aerospace
Defence Command, which is responsible for
defending the skies and maritime approaches
to North America. "That's the fact I can bring
to the table."
The debate over whether Canada should join
the U.S. ballistic missile defence program re-
emerged this summer following a series of
successful intercontinental missile tests by
North Korea, including another missile launch
from that country's capital Pyongyang on
Friday.
The missile flew over Japan before landing in
the northern Pacific Ocean. South Korea's
Joint Chiefs of Staff said it travelled about
3,700 kilometres, reaching a maximum height
of 770 kilometres.
North Korea threatens to 'sink' Japan,
reduce U.S. to ashes
UN Security Council approves new
North Korea sanctions
'Odd' Canada hasn't joined U.S. missile
defence: ex-top general
The Liberal government in its recent defence
policy review chose to uphold a 2005 decision
by former prime minister Paul Martin to
remain outside of the U.S. missile shield.
The often-cited political narrative has been
that the U.S. would shoot down a missile if it
was headed toward Toronto, Vancouver or
Montreal.
St-Amand made clear that is not guaranteed
and it would be a decision made "in the heat
of the moment" by U.S. political and military
leaders.
No direct threat?
The Commons defence committee held a
marathon session Thursday about the
escalating threat from North Korea, taking in
the views of not only military commanders,
but also senior diplomatic and intelligence
officials, as well as academic experts.
The regime of Kim Jong-un doesn't have
Canada in its crosshairs, but the rogue regime
does represent a significant threat to global
peace, said Mark Gwozdecky,
assistant deputy minister for international
security at Global Affairs Canada.
He tried to strike an optimistic tone.
"There's been no direct threat to Canada,"
said Gwozdecky. "In fact, on the contrary, in
recent contacts with the North Korean
government, including in August when our
national security adviser was in Pyongyang,
the indications were they perceived Canada as
a peaceful and indeed a friendly country."
But he said the regime's "actions represent a
grave threat to regional security, our friends
and allies, South Korea and Japan."
There are signs North Korea is willing to talk
if there are no preconditions, Gwozdecky
added.
The assistant chief of defence intelligence at
National Defence, Stephen Burt, downplayed
the notion of a missile attack on North
America, calling it a "hypothetical scenario"
that could be spun in a number of directions.
"If you go back to the fact the regime in North
Korea is primarily motivated by its desire to
survive and sustain its rule ... While their
rhetoric is colourful and their behaviour
occasionally strikes us as peculiar, they're no
fools, and they understand the consequences
of that kind of an action," Burt said.
Conservative defence critic James Bezan said
he was shocked to hear that North Korea
doesn't consider Canada a potential enemy,
particularly in light of the country's
participation in the Korean War between
1950-53.
He wasn't, however, prepared to say that his
party advocates joining ballistic missile
defence, saying he will take all of the
testimony back to caucus for consideration.
The Conservatives were in favour of joining
the U.S. missile shield in 2005 but chose not
to follow up during their nine years in power.
Pump up diplomacy
New Democrat MP Randall Garrison said the
testimony only reinforces his feeling that
there is no military solution to the crisis and
that diplomacy is the only way forward.
Experts were divided when they had their
chance to testify.
"It's not even clear the Americans want us in
missile defence," said Michael Byers, a
University of British Columbia defence policy
expert, who argued Washington would prefer
to see Canada spend more on its
conventional defences.
Joining ballistic missile defence would be
"purely symbolic," he said, while
acknowledging the situation with North Korea
is extremely dangerous.

Tweet