Canada Plans Submarines for Arctic Claims

Canada on Friday outlined a 15-year defense program that calls for a nuclear-powered submarine fleet to defend Canada’s claim of sovereignty to Arctic waters against an American challenge.

The plan, submitted to Parliament by Defense Minister Perrin Beatty, is the first serious review of Canada’s defense program since 1971. Instead of giving priority to Western Europe, it outlines a narrower strategy of continental and border protection.

Beatty said that Canada will withdraw its commitment under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to provide 5,000 troops for a rapid deployment force to support Norway in the event of a Soviet attack.

Modernization Proposed

But he proposed that the Canadian brigade and air force unit based in West Germany be modernized, though he acknowledged that only about 200 soldiers would be added to the 5,000 troops now stationed there.

In 1984, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney promised to increase Canada’s defense spending, which in per capita terms is among the lowest in NATO. But the white paper made public Friday says that over the next 15 years, the defense budget will be increased by an average of only about 2.2% a year.

Even though the proposal calls for a minimum of $135 billion (U.S.) over the 15-year period, that is about equal to the current spending rate and is less than half of the alliance’s per capita average. Canada ranks 13th among NATO’s 15 countries in defense spending, and Beatty said this will not change under the proposed program.

Submarine Procurement

The major feature of the new program is the construction of the submarines, to be carried out over two decades at a cost of at least $370 million each for between 10 and 12 vessels. They would replace Canada’s three diesel-powered submarines.

Beatty sought to de-emphasize Canada’s conflict with the United States over Arctic waters as a reason for acquiring new submarines. He said the vessels “will be employed . . . essentially” to protect sea lanes and detect unfriendly submarines.

However, other officials have made it clear that the new submarines’ most important task would be to project Canadian sovereignty in the Far North.

Canada claims that region of the Arctic Ocean that embraces the Northwest Passage connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The United States holds that the passage is an international waterway, open to use by surface ships and submarines of all nations.

U.S. Challenge

External Affairs Minister Joe Clark recently told a parliamentary committee that the proposed new submarines would be most important in defending challenges to Canada’s Arctic sovereignty and that the major challenge is posed by the United States.

Canadian officials who asked not to be identified by name acknowledged that the only submarines known to have passed through the contested waters are American.

Soviet vessels have not been sighted in the area and are not considered likely to appear there, since they can position themselves below the ice in their own territorial waters and still reach targets throughout the continental United States.

Even Beatty, who sought to leave the impression that the submarines would be deployed for purposes other than projecting Canadian sovereignty, finally said: “The military role in sovereignty is that of the ultimate coercive force available . . . when Canada’s right to exercise jurisdiction is challenged by other states.”

‘Essential Roles’

At the moment, he went on, “the Canadian navy cannot carry out in the Arctic these roles essential to our security and sovereignty.”

Besides the submarines, Beatty said, his government will continue building frigates, up to a total of 12, mostly for use in submarine detection in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. It will also modernize its tank corps at home and in Europe and increase the military reserve from its current level of 15,000 troops to 90,000. The regular military force totals about 85,000 and will stay at about that level.

U.S. officials, asking not to be identified by name, criticized the white paper. They said the submarine program is not necessary and that the money could be better spent elsewhere--in building up Canadian forces in Europe, for example. They said Canada should at least double its troop strength in West Germany.

The Americans said they were pleased with Canada’s expressed intention of improving and enlarging its Atlantic and Pacific submarine surveillance.

Complaint From Norway

Norway, too, has complained about Canada’s intention to withdraw from the rapid deployment force. Beatty pointed out that the current arrangement does not work. The last time the Canadians practiced moving forces to Norway, it took three weeks to complete the move, and when the troops got there, they had no ammunition.

The opposition in Parliament attacked the white paper. Doug Frith, the Liberal Party’s spokesman on defense matters, said, “It is a mistake to acquire nuclear-powered submarines.”

He charged that Canada would be drawn into participation in the United States’ forward deployment strategy, which is aimed at keeping the Soviet navy from extending much beyond its territorial limits.