Defense, Nuclear Policy Discussed : 5,000 Canadians Flock to U.S.-Bashing Conference

“The United States is the driving force behind the nuclear arms race,” shouted the speaker, to the applause and cries of agreement from 5,000 listeners.

The noise was matched in intensity only by the booing and hooting aimed at a government official who rejected a comparison between supplying components for nuclear weapons to the United States and giving gas ovens to Nazi Germany.

More applause and shouts of “Yeah! Right!” greeted arm-waving pronouncements that “Canada should separate from the United States.” More boos assailed a suggestion that the Soviet Union’s political values and its international record might not be equal to America’s.

The occasion was a two-day inquiry here in Edmonton earlier this month into Canada’s defense and nuclear policies. More than 5,000 people--10 times the number that the organizers had expected--drove through the season’s first blizzard to sit in a drafty athletic field house. They cheered attacks on U.S. defense policies and jeered anything smacking of sympathy for things American.

Media Attention

The conference’s tone reflected the political views of its sponsors, the militantly pro-disarmament Physicians for Social Responsibility and the ultranationalistic Council of Canadians. But the attention accorded it in the Canadian media and its unexpectedly high attendance distinguished it from the self-congratulatory exercises that such meetings of true believers, peace groups and America-bashers usually turn out to be.

The conference’s title, “Canada--The True North Strong and Free?,” played off a line from the Canadian national anthem by replacing the original exclamation point with a question mark. It reflected the growing number of Canadians who are wondering just how strong and independent their nation is, given its strong ties to the United States.

So the 5,000 people who paid $22 each to sit in the discomfort of the field house passed resolutions condemning the Reagan Administration’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI or “Star Wars”), demanding an end to U.S. testing of cruise missiles in Canada and endorsing the Soviet Union’s unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing.

Among those present were Cabinet members and senior members of Parliament from all three national political parties, as well as generals, government officials, Roman Catholic bishops, prominent academics, former diplomats and prestigious scientists. The federal External Affairs Ministry paid part of the conference’s costs.

Cautious Attitude

That there should be such an official and high-level involvement in something so challenging to the nation’s history and current policy is not all that surprising.

Even though Canada’s record in both world wars and the Korean war is unsurpassed, and even though Ottawa is an original and full-fledged member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and shares the defense of North America with the United States, its recent attitude has been one of caution and even ambivalence over its role in international affairs, particularly in the East-West conflict.

So although Canada was a significant participant in developing the atomic bomb during World War II, it has refused to build or possess nuclear arms and has forced the United States to remove all nuclear weapons from Canadian soil. Furthermore, it prohibits the sale of uranium and other nuclear components to the United States if they are to be used in weapons.

Canada’s per-capita defense spending is the lowest of all NATO countries except for tiny Luxembourg. Canada commits 10,000 troops to the alliance, only half of whom are based in Europe.

Small Navy, Air Force

Canada is bound by treaty to sharing the defense of North America, a status it guards jealously in the abstract. But while the country has 180 modern jet warplanes, it has only three workable submarines, a tiny and aging surface fleet and half a dozen surveillance planes. This is a far cry from Canada’s strength at the end of World War II, when it had both the world’s fourth-largest air force and navy.

The nation believes that its best hope for defense and influence lies with it alliances in Europe and with the United States.

At the same time, Canadian officials and political leaders developed a parallel if not conflicting concept that Canada as a middle world power has a special moral and political role to play. It sees itself not as a tool of U.S. foreign and defense policy but as an independent force that can be trusted and used as a bridge between the superpowers by Third World and nonaligned countries.

This led Ottawa to criticize U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and, in more recent times, to back away from Washington’s policy in Central America, South Africa and, to a degree, in arms control matters.

‘Benefit of Doubt’

But today’s Conservative Party government says the days of moving away from its military alliance are over. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney has even declared that he wants to give the United States the “benefit of the doubt” in foreign policy. Nevertheless, there seems to be a trend away from the tradition of NATO and North American military agreements.

Pauline Jewett, the foreign policy critic for the New Democratic Party, told the Edmonton conference that “the United States is the driving force behind the nuclear arms race” and that Canada should withdraw from NATO and the North American Air Defense Treaty (NORAD). She was reflecting the official position of a political party that is tied for second with the ruling Conservatives behind the Liberals in popularity.

The Liberals, who developed much of the alliance strategy, are themselves shifting quickly toward a more independent approach. Lloyd Axworthy, the foreign policy spokesman for the Liberals in Parliament, stopped short of calling for withdrawal from NATO. But he told a cheering audience in Edmonton that Canada needs a new vision of its foreign policy position, one that “will say no to the defense system being devised” in Washington.

He also criticized the U.S. deployment of the cruise missile, the SDI program and the American strategy that pushes the NATO naval presence north toward the Arctic Ocean. He called for a reorientation and restructuring of NATO.

Loss of Independence?

Otherwise, said the spokesman for the party that would likely form the government if elections were held today, “we’re about to lose our independence,” because Canada won’t be able to extricate itself from dangerous American policies.

Mulroney and External Affairs Minister Joe Clark do not go that far, but they are hardly firm supporters of U.S. policy. The government refused to join the SDI development program and is officially opposed to the Reagan Administration position that “Star Wars” testing does not violate existing treaties limiting missile defense systems.

Canada also has criticized Reagan’s plans to violate the ballistic missile restrictions of the signed but unratified second Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, or SALT II. That has cast doubt on Canada’s willingness to continue allowing U.S. testing of unarmed cruise missiles over Alberta province next year.

The force of shifting public policy away from tight arrangements with Washington was seen beyond Edmonton this month when the Ontario provincial legislature voted 61 to 9 for a non-binding resolution to make the province a nuclear-free zone and prohibit U.S. warships that carry nuclear weapons from using Toronto or other Ontario ports.

No Reagan Support

This sentiment was obvious in the Edmonton meetings, where no government official supported any of Reagan’s new defense approaches. They opted instead to talk in historical and traditional terms of the value of alliances, claiming they give Canada a forum to express dissenting views.

But even these mild expressions drew boos and jeers from the delegates, who overwhelming turned down a resolution calling for maintaining an adequate defense capability while working to promote arms control within existing alliances.

What was wildly acclaimed by the audience was a plan by Gwynne Dyer, a historian and one of Canada’s few experts on defense matters, to make Canada neutral, following the model of Finland, by pulling out of NATO and all other alliances.

“Is it unreasonable to expect the United States to grant Canada the same kind of freedom as the Soviets give Finland?” he asked the crowd, which was clearly on his side.

Support in Poll

While the government opposes such an approach and the Liberals are reluctant to go so far, a recent public opinion poll shows that a third of Canadians agree with Dyer, a significant proportion in a nation with such a strong connection to Western alliances and American foreign policy.

It also reflects dissatisfaction with current policy, since past polls indicated less than 20% support for withdrawing from NATO and other alliances.

Some government officials say that such sentiments are transitory, reflecting concern over President Reagan’s view of the world and his ability to conduct rational foreign policy.

“Many Canadians, including some of us here (in the government), just don’t trust Reagan,” one official who asked not to be identified said. “If we can get through the next two years, I think you’ll see a more relaxed Canadian view.”