Military Links

Nuclear climate warming up

jessie — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:09:03 -0700

Nuclear climate warming up

Bob Groeneveld, April 4, 2008, The Chilliwack Times -- Here's an interesting take on global warming that ought to chill your blood.

Gwynne Dyer, a highly respected Canadian journalist and military historian, has suggested that climate change may make it imperative that Britain carefully maintain its stockpile of nuclear weapons.

Ouch!

Just when the world seemed to be coming to its nuclear senses, the Americans and Brits have both announced (not too loudly, lest the neighbours complain) that they have to upgrade their nuclear arsenal, and a guy like Dyer suggests that they might not be wrong.

He points out that northern countries like Canada and Britain will be less seriously affected by the climate when the planet achieves its new, warmer equilibrium.

Parts of countries like ours might even become more people-friendly than they currently are.

Our country's imminent blessings paradoxically ought to put us on our guard. We are likely to be flooded by refugees from more southerly countries whose lands are destined to become desert wastelands under a new climate regime that may be upon us by the time our children's grandchildren take their turn at becoming parents.

Worse than the flood of refugees may be the flood of military forces of countries that decide to take what they need from the few of us who still have something left to take.

For Canada, it should not be a great surprise that our greatest threat is most likely to rise up from a desertified, agriculturally impoverished America.

Global warming might set off a nuclear war.

Who'da thunk it?

Guys like Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau and even Brian Mulroney spent years and huge efforts at planting and nurturing Canada's peace-making reputation all around the world.

Ours may be the only country on the planet that developed its own nuclear capability without actually using it to build nuclear bombs--although, admittedly, one or more current nuclear weapons programs probably piggy-backed off our technology.

We don't even allow nuclear weaponry on our soil--although, once again admittedly, the United States almost certainly violated that sanctity several times, and just as certainly with a nod and a wink from our federal authorities.

Pearson was presented with the Nobel Peace Prize for his work at saving the planet from what many believed was an imminent Third World War by defusing the Suez Crisis in 1957, in no small part by coaxing into existence the United Nations peacekeeping forces that continue to operate today, albeit with somewhat altered motivations, it seems.

Under successive prime ministers, including Joe Clark, John Turner, and Kim Campbell, Canada's peacekeeping service to the world was unequalled by any other country. Our one-half per cent of the world's population provided fully 10 per cent of peacekeeping activity throughout the planet's hot spots.

And then it seems to have changed.

Canada went to war in Iraq--without UN sanction for the first time in most Canadians' memory --in support of the Desert Storm.

Now there's Afghanistan.

And the carbon that we are belching out of the Athabasca Tar Sands might not only be remembered as one of the chief causes of the global climate catastrophe that burned up or sank half of the planet, it might end up having fueled the nuclear war that rendered the other half unsuitable for humanity.

If there's anyone left to remember, that is.

- Bob Groeneveld is editor of the Langley Advance.

Iraq War; Five years of war in Iraq have hit home in Edmonton

jessie — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:48:39 -0700

Iraq War; Five years of war in Iraq have hit home in Edmonton

David Berry, March 20, 2008, Vue Weekly -- The further we get away from the actual date, the better Canada’s decision to not get involved with the US invasion of Iraq looks. Five years after the US launched its ill-conceived assault on the Middle Eastern nation, there aren’t many—except perhaps those in the highest offices of the American government—who consider the situation anything but a quagmire.

The pretext for the war was quickly revealed to be specious, smoke and mirrors designed to hide what would appear to be a more imperial motive; talk of being greeted as liberators, of spreading democracy throughout the region, was revealed to be starry-eyed optimism at best, as fervently anti-American factions sprung both in Iraq and the region as a whole. And all this comes at a terrible cost: to date, conservative estimates put the cost of the war at more than $500 billion, with some predicting it may reach as high as $1 trillion before it’s over. Though outrageous, such numbers ignore the human cost: almost 4000 American soldiers dead, nearly 30 000 wounded, to say nothing (as is frequently the case) of the almost 90 000 confirmed Iraqi civilians killed.

And yet, though Canada has managed to escape the most direct affects of the war, we don’t remain untouched. The beast beside has been twitching awfully violently lately, and we can’t help but feel its effects—and nowhere is that more true than in Edmonton. North of our city lie two areas profoundly affected by the war in Iraq: the Fort McMurray tar sands and CFB Edmonton. Though the Iraq War is an earthquake rumbling on the other side of the globe, stand in the right spot in Alberta, and you can fully feel its trembles.

OIL

Critics and cynics will often point to oil as America’s real justification for invading Iraq, so perhaps it’s no surprise that one of the biggest effects the war has had on our province is in the tar sands.

To start to understand, we first have to realize why the Athabasca tar sands have sat relatively dormant for so long. The short answer is, of course, money: as any Albertan who works up north or pays attention is aware, pulling oil from the sand is an involved, lengthy process. First, the lot of it has to be strip-mined, then the raw bitumen must be separated; even with newer refining techniques, the whole process costs in the neighbourhood of $24 - $28 (all figures Canadian) per barrel. It simply isn’t economically feasible to pull it out of the ground if oil prices are lower than that, which—with a brief exception in the late 1970s and early 1980s—they routinely were. Until recently, that is.

Since 2003, world oil prices have increased more or less steadily. There are multiple reasons for that but, as Joseph Doucette, a professor of energy policy and director of the School of Energy and the Environment at the University of Alberta explains, it’s mostly an issue of supply and demand.

“If you look at what’s happening at the supply side and on the demand side, you’ll get a big piece of the answer [to why oil prices have risen],” Doucette explains. “If you think of the textbook supply and demand curves ... the supply side a bit steeper because the cost of producing it is going up, and the demand curve is steeper, too, because we don’t have many good substitutes for most of our uses of oil.”

Of course, it’s not just a matter of supply and demand, but who’s supplying and who’s demanding. Though the energy demands of Asia—particularly China and India—are steadily rising, the United States is still far and away the world’s number one energy consumer: the US uses 24 per cent of the world’s oil supply, just under the total consumption of Europe, and almost triple its nearest competitor (China, which uses nine per cent). That demand has only increased of late, due in large part to the war in Iraq: Energy Bulletin recently reported that wartime has increased oil usage by almost 40 million barrels a year, or more than 100 000 per day. Combined with regular growth, that pushed total US consumption to over 20 589 000 barrels a day in 2006, the most recent year for which full data was available, an increase of more than 828 000 barrels from 2002 levels, the last full year before the war.

At the same time, oil is becoming increasingly hard to find, especially for the Americans. Stocks of sweet, light crude are slowly dwindling, and the majority of oil of any kind tends to be located in areas that are politically unstable or hostile towards the US. And, if America did go into Iraq for the oil, it hasn’t worked out for them: frequent sabotage and the unwillingness of US companies to invest in the oil fields has left them producing under 2 million barrels a day, according to 2006 statistics, well below both their 2000 peak (2.6 million barrels) and pre-war estimates of potential (3 million barrels or so).

Enter Canada, and specifically Alberta. The tar sands represent perhaps the largest single reserve of oil in the world (Saudi Arabia actually has more, but it’s in different places): estimates say there is likely more than 174 billion barrels of recoverable oil trapped in the ground. (The US, coincidentally, did not officially recognize these reserves until 2003.) It may be hard to get out of the ground, but it is close and, most importantly, it is safe.

“People look at prices and costs, but they adjust those based on local conditions, things like political risk, risk to workers, disruptions of productions and things like that,” explains Doucette. “Even if it had the same rate of return as a place like Nigeria, for instance, Alberta is going to be, hands down, the preferred place to invest: you’d need to get a much higher rate of return to make investment worthwhile in a riskier place.”

That’s a sentiment that’s echoed by Paul Hagel, the senior communications rep for Shell Canada’s oil sands growth team. Shell is a relatively recent comer to the tar sands, having officially opened the Albian Sands in 2003, but they’re making up for lost time: last year, they announced plans for a $27 billion expansion that, pending government approval, would eventually increase their production capacity to more than 250 000 barrels a day. According to Hagel, Shell’s reasons for putting that kind of money into the Alberta ground are simple.

“Politically stable, secure, with an abundance of natural resources: that’s Canada,” he says. “It makes us a secure place to invest, and we’re here for the very long haul.”

And though the sheer amount of oil will eventually draw other suitors, for now, what doesn’t stay between our borders—and it’s worth pointing out that Canada doesn’t currently have a pipeline from the tar sands to Eastern Canada—goes to the US. According to the US Energy Information Administration, in 2006, 99 per cent of Canada’s oil exports went to America, for a total of almost 2.4 million barrels a day, more than the entirety of the Persian gulf and almost one million more than the second highest exporter, Saudi Arabia.

What’s more, those 2.4 million barrels represent a 20 per cent increase over 2002 levels, while more traditional suppliers like the Saudis and Venezuela have seen their export numbers dip. The implication is clear: ever since invading Iraq, the US has turned increasingly to Canada. And, considering almost two-thirds of Canada’s oil comes from the tar sands, to Alberta in particular: we have become, increasingly, America’s gas tank.

And that’s not about to change any time soon. Though the US government recently announced it was going to look for less carbon-intensive oils for its own purchasing needs—that would be the military and the post office—few believe such pronouncements will have any real effect. If anything, according to Doucette, the only thing that can stop, or at least slow down, the machine that’s been started is Albertans.

“If you go back to the 1970s and the two OPEC crises and the price increases that were seen then, the US said they wanted to become less dependant on imported oil: their percentage is more or less the same now as it was back then,” Doucette explains caustically. “Policy pronouncements by politicians for things like energy dependence are well and good, but it’s a lot harder to do than might be thought.

“From here ... it will be local and domestic issues that decide how the oil sands move forward,” he adds. “At some point, I think Albertans will demand our government be more proactive on managing the issues surrounding our oil sands.”

WAR

It is one of the more unfortunate ironies of the Iraq War that, even though Canada isn’t involved, our soldiers have still been touched by it.

Canada was among the first nations to go into Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, the stated goals of our government at the time being to defend our national interests, ensure leadership in world affairs and to help Afghanistan rebuild—the stated goals of the US, which led the mission, were to drive out the Taliban regime that was harbouring Osama bin Laden, the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Though elite, for the first part of the war our role was limited: the majority of the mission was centered around Kabul, which had been secured since the first months of the invasion.

That was to change in Jan 2006. As part of the International Security Assistance Force, Canada took a more prominent role in the southern provinces, stationed out of the southern city of Kandahar. That increase in responsibility was linked directly to decreased US troop presence in the county, which in itself was linked directly to increased US troop presence in Iraq: the four months prior to the announcement marked the highest level of sustained presence in the country until the fall of last year.

The mission in Kandahar coincides with a massive upsurge in Canadian troop fatalities. Of the 79 Canadian soldiers killed, just eight happened pre-2006; of the 21 Edmonton casualties, 17 have perished since 2006. These are lives that have been lost, at least in part, because of reduced American activity, and the attendant upswing in Canadian action.

The effect this more prominent role—and the attendant increased danger—has had on the soldiers, though, is surprisingly mixed. According to Scott Taylor, a former professional soldier who founded and has spent the last 20 years editing Esprit de Corps, a magazine devoted to the Canadian Armed Forces, the chance to get into a combat mission is almost an affirming one for a soldier.

“As some commanders have said, it’s what they’ve always been waiting for,” he explains. “That sounds crazy: people are being killed. But, finding a purpose and having a clear-cut mission—that’s what a soldier wants.

“There was a lot of confusion in the peacekeeping generation, in the early ‘90s, because nobody was clear on the mission—it changed almost daily,” he continues. “Now, it’s, ‘We’re there; we’re in Afghanistan; we’re conducting counter-insurgency operations.’ These guys are soldiers.”

That sentiment is echoed by Major Trevor Gosselin, a tank squadron commander who recently returned from a six-month tour of Afghanistan with Lord Strathcona’s Horse. He spent the ’90s on various missions in Bosnia, Kosovo and the West Sahara, and to him, Afghanistan is preferable, even if that sense of mission comes at a cost.

“Soldiers join armies, unfortunately, for a purpose that we wish wasn’t there, but we know in the world that there are things that armies need to do,” he explains. “The threat is much more significant over there, but ... it’s certainly much easier to look at the cause of Afghanistan and know what we have to do to help this failing state. In our situation in Bosnia and Kosovo, it was really hard to tell who were the real bad guys—here there’s no question. It’s much easier to tell your soldiers, ‘This is the enemy; here’s what we do to help out in Afghanistan.’”

Though the sense of mission helps a soldier, there’s no getting around the fact that many of them will have to experience the death of a comrade. That, and the other hazards of being in a war zone, have a well-documented, profound effect on young men, something we’re already beginning to see take its toll: a recent Veteran Affairs study revealed that incidents of post-traumatic stress have tripled among veterans since Canada first deployed troops to Afghanistan—and as Taylor expects, we’ve likely only seen the beginning.

“When you lose a good friend—and I’ve had that happen—it still doesn’t hit you, and you just soldier on. That’s part of the creedo: you press on,” he explains. “That’s not necessarily a bad thing, because the mission is still ongoing, and you can’t fall to pieces. Once they come home, that’s when things start to happen.”

Sgt Major Jeff Bamford, who served on the same tour as Gosselin, eerily echoes that sentiment. When asked how they dealt with the recent death of Trooper Michael Yuki Hayakaze, who died on Mar 2, just before the squadron’s return, Bamford responded stoically, though also revealingly.

“You have to carry on with the mission, the mission doesn’t just stop,” he explained, sternly. “Everything carries on—everything. Once you get back out to a safer area, then you can calm down, relax, take a breath, be glad you made it, sort out your buddies, sort out your soldiers and shed a few tears. That’s how we did it.”

One can only imagine what will happen as more soldiers get a chance to take a breath and reflect on what has happened. Unlike the tar sands, the trickle-down effects of Iraq on our soldiers have yet to make themselves obvious: when they do finally rear their head, though, we’re not going to like what we see.

Time for Us to Say 'No More Oil for War' To US

jessie — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:43:58 -0800

Time for Us to Say 'No More Oil for War' To US

Ricardo Acuna, January 17, 2008, Vue Weekly -- There are few things we progressive Albertans enjoy more than the opportunity to take a holier-than-thou attitude towards the United States.

Take, for example, how smugly we like to criticize the US media for refusing to publicly acknowledge the quest for oil as one of the major reasons for the US invasion and occupation Iraq. Likewise, we are quick to judge the people of the US for the degree to which the question of war for oil is absent from public dialogue and discussions, and does not register at all on political platforms during elections.

The sad reality, however, is that this smugness and criticism are misplaced. How much media coverage and public discussion have we seen in this province about our role in the war, or the fact that we are benefitting from it? Ultimately, we are doing no better than our neighbours to the south in addressing or even acknowledging these truths. And they are truths.

In 2002, the Project for a New American Century (an ultra-right US think-tank which boasts the likes of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz among its members) formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Even a cursory look at this committee’s terms of reference is enough to show that it could more aptly be named the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq’s Oil.

Their idea, which was actually formulated before the 9/11 attacks, was simple: the US invades Iraq and topples Saddam Hussein; the US government then hands Iraq’s oil fields and infrastructure over to the likes of ExxonMobil, Chevron and Total; the US gets a secure supply of oil; the growing US demand for oil is sated; and the companies involved make a healthy profit. This was the idea upon which the US government based their invasion of Iraq.

Unfortunately, the Iraqis had other ideas. Their continued resistance to the US invasion, and their ongoing targeting of the country’s oil infrastructure, have made the big US oil companies reluctant to put their personnel on the ground and carry out their part of the plan.

In the meantime, as a result of ever-increasing demand, shrinking supply, and the failure of Iraqi oil to come online, the world price of oil has continued to go through the roof. It was this sustained increase in price that helped the oil companies realize that they were overlooking another potential source of ‘new’ oil—one that had a reserve of over a trillion barrels, was already under US control, and which would be given to them for next to nothing.

Thus was born Alberta’s new oil boom. It was not the result of anything we in Alberta did, but rather the result of disrupted access to cheap oil which jacked up world prices making our tar sands, which the US has unfettered access to through NAFTA, viable and profitable. Imagine how much better we will do if the US proceeds with plans to invade Iran, further disrupting world oil supplies.

But there is also another, perhaps more disturbing, aspect to our complicity in the occupation of Iraq.

The United States military is the largest single consumer of oil in the world. According to the US Defense Energy Support Center Fact Book 2004, in fiscal year 2004 US military fuel consumption increased to 144 million barrels. This amount translates to about 395 000 barrels per day, almost as much as the daily energy consumption of Greece.

The Department of Defense now has about 27 000 vehicles in Iraq—and every one of them gets lousy gas mileage. To power that fleet the Defense Logistics Agency must move huge quantities of fuel into the country in truck convoys from Kuwait, Turkey, and Jordan. Every day some 2000 trucks leave Kuwait alone for various locales in Iraq. These convoys have, in turn, become a favourite target of the Iraqi resistance.

The US has no choice but to continue fortifying its vehicles with armour and pumping imported fuel into, for example, the Bradley fighting vehicle which gets less than two miles per gallon and the M1 Abrams tank which gets less than one mile per gallon.

It's a vicious cycle: attacks on convoys produce a need for more armour, which produces a need for more fuel, which produces larger convoys, which produce more targets for attack.

The result is that the amount of fuel being consumed by US forces in Iraq is increasing every day, with no end in sight to these increases.

As such, both the current US energy strategy and the US defence strategy both explicitly prioritize the availability of oil for the military over its availability for consumers at home.

As the single largest supplier of oil to the US, this is where Alberta’s tar sands come in. We are currently shipping some 750 000 barrels per day south of the border—it would be incredibly naïve to think that this is not helping to fuel the killing of Iraqis by the US military. The bottom line is that the US is a self-destructive sociopathic addict, and we in Alberta are its dealer and pusher.

Even though we may be reluctant to admit it, the reality, because of what is fuelling our growth and what our tar sands are fuelling, is that there is blood on our boom. And unless Albertans acknowledge this publicly and loudly, and make it an issue, it will only get worse. It’s time to stop enabling, and it’s time for Albertans to say, “No more oil for war.” V

Ricardo Acuña is Executive Director of the Parkland Institute, a non-partisan public policy research institute housed at the University of Alberta.

Alberta crude may be too dirty, U.S. law says

jessie — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:55:11 -0800

Alberta crude may be too dirty, U.S. law says

Martin, Mittelstaedt, January 15, 2008, Globe and Mail -- Alberta's oil sands are taking a hit from new U.S. energy legislation passed last month that has an unusual wrinkle suggesting that Canadian crude might be too dirty for the U.S. government.

The legislation won't allow any U.S. federal agencies to buy vehicle fuel derived from non-conventional sources unless the life cycle of its greenhouse-gas emissions is the same or less than that of conventional petroleum.

The sticky bitumen in Alberta's tar sands is considered one of the world's biggest potential sources of energy, but it's also one of the dirtiest in terms of carbon dioxide emissions because it takes so much power to wring it out of the soil in which it's trapped, putting it in the crosshairs of the new rules.

The directive could have a financial impact on the oil patch because the U.S. government is one of the world's largest and most voracious consumers of energy, and it follows similar moves by many states, including California. The legislation, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, was signed by President George W. Bush in December.

SEC takes fresh look at oil sands reserves
Elizabeth Martin-Perera, climate policy specialist at the New York-based Natural Resources Defense Council, says the provision covers new contracts for all government operations, including the military and the postal service, which together operate thousands of vehicles and are considered the No. 1 and No. 2 vehicle fuel users in the country.

The action is part of a growing move to take into account all greenhouse gases caused by the production and use of gasoline and other fuels. It puts unconventional petroleum, such as the synthetic crude from Canada's oil sands at a disadvantage compared to easy-to-harvest oil from the wellhead.

"It's another market signal to tar sands producers that, increasingly, consumers are looking to move away from high-carbon fuels," says Dan Woynillowicz, a spokesman for the Pembina Institute, an environmental think tank.

The fuel requirement is in Section 526 of the new law, which runs for about 800 pages. Its main provisions deal with increasing the fuel efficiency of the U.S. vehicle fleet and increasing the use of biofuels. The part affecting non-conventional oil hasn't received much notice.

Syncrude Canada Ltd., the largest oil sand producer, declined to comment, and referred questions to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

Association president Pierre Alvarez played down the procurement policy, saying the Canadian industry will defend itself by arguing that long-distance shipping of oil from the Middle East and elsewhere also carries a substantial environmental price tag. "In fact, Canadian fuels don't appear all that bad," he said. "It's distance that's a big-ticket item."

An estimate by the Canadian Centre for Energy Information that used figures supplied by Syncrude, among others, said the emissions from oil sands fuel are about 7.6 per cent higher than the average of all North American crude imports. However, independent experts say the oil sands emit about 20 per cent more greenhouse gases than conventional sources.

Worries over climate change are driving the new rules.

"Canada's oil sands will face large-market risk unless the Canadian government, or the Alberta government, take this challenge seriously," said Hal Harvey of the California-based William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, which helped develop a low-emission fuel standard in California.

Is Canada becoming a subnation of the US?

jessie — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:25:30 -0800

Is Canada becoming a subnation of the US?

Jim Miles, January 14, 2008, Malaysia Sun -- Canadians have always prided themselves on the “goodness” if not the “greatness” of their country.

Sitting north of the United States, Canadians struggle with an ideal that rejects many American ideas, yet accommodates in one way or another most of those ideas – more so currently than in the past. From medical care to military purpose Canadians view themselves as essentially different from their southern neighbours, who remain for the most part steadfastly ignorant of us. There is very much about Canada, however, that indicates that we are not quite as independent of thought and action as the average Canadian realizes. This statement by itself would not bother many Canadians, but on specific issues there is opposition to current policies.

Viewed externally, Canada does not rank so well as one interviewee said, “Canada is still considered and referred to as a subnation and only in relation with the U.S. It has still to develop an identity of its own.” In reality, while dealing with foreign affairs, the environment, military matters (part of foreign affairs), and other aspects involving international treaties and agreements, Canada very decidedly falls under the category of a ‘subnation’ to the United States.

What follows is a brief overview of some of the positions Canada has or has not taken that give definition to our country as a subnation. We may believe otherwise, but we are highly integrated into American life styles and policies.

Aboriginal Policy

One of the international agreements that Canada sides strongly with the U.S. is the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The four countries that voted against the declaration - Canada, the U.S., New Zealand, and Australia - are the four main British colonial countries in which ethnic cleansing and genocide were most clearly successful. Their success as British colonies turning into peaceful democratic ‘western’ nations under the British mould can be attributed in large part to that feature, especially if one compares it to the struggles engendered by the British in South Africa, and India/Pakistan/Afghanistan/Iraq/Palestine - generally the whole Middle East.

Article 26 of the UN declaration states: 'Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.' Chuck Strahl, Canada’s representative “said the government is moving ahead on 'making an actual difference' in improving the daily lives of aboriginal Canadians, instead of offering 'empty promises and rhetoric.' His arguments for that “cited Tory initiatives such as including First Nations peoples in the Human Rights Act, improving water quality on reserves and providing a compensation package for victims of residential schools.”

Nice. Here’s some money for destroying your culture through the residential schools, and we’ll give you clean water, but we’re not letting you have any rights to your aboriginal land and its resources, although it is a legally determined right in part through the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the BNA Act, the Constitution, and various legal settlements.

Afghanistan, NATO, et al

The rise in Canadian militarism may be insignificant as compared to the rest of the world, but it is becoming more and more worrisome to Canadians themselves. Under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, Canada has adopted the rhetoric of their American leaders to the south. Adding to the “we are not going to cut and run” mentality is the belligerent positioning of Canada’s claiming and strengthening its attitude within global affairs. Translated, we have become the bully’s sidekick, the weakling runt that yells support from the side while feigning a few punches at the victim. Our vision of ourselves as peacekeepers, starting from Lester B. Pearson’s plan to establish a UN peacekeeping force, originating from the Suez Crisis of 1956, has been altered to adopt the “war on terror” language used by the U.S. We are now “peacemakers”, the folly of which is evident in Canada’s role in Afghanistan.

While there may have been minor ‘successes’ within Afghanistan – a road built here, a school built there – we are still tied and incorporated into the overall American strategic plan that looks to control the resources of the Middle East and block the emergence of any entity – Russia, China, a Caspian Basin alliance – that might contest that. As a result we are fighting an American imperial war under the auspices of NATO and the UN. I have dealt with the NATO position before and will shorten it here to say that NATO is now acting as an independent (of the UN and other international organizations) global military governance body under the command of the United States, a role the U.S. has unilaterally determined for itself.

Currently the majority of Canadians are against the effort in Afghanistan, not by a large number, but an increasing number. Harper’s view is 'Ultimately, where we need to make progress is not turning Afghanistan into (somewhere) as law abiding as (Ottawa). It's to really put in a situation where the Afghan government is capable of managing the security threats itself ... I think we're a couple of years away from being where we need to be.'

In sum under the larger picture, Canada is supporting a puppet government of the U.S. consisting of war lords and drug lords (probably one and the same), a government that wishes to bring the Taliban into the discussions of the country’s future, and acting as a subsidiary military force to the American strategic plan for south Asia. Security is the least of the American desires, other than strategic security, and the people be damned.

Kyoto and Beyond

Canadians are one of the largest creators of greenhouse gases in the world, ranking 25th out of 29 OECD countries for greenhouse gas emissions (and 27th out of 29 on a per capita basis) with only the U.S., Great Britain, Japan, and Germany creating more. Canada’s initiatives sound wonderful:

Canada signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, and pledged to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. In 1997, Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol, formally committing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6% below 1990 levels by 2010.

Intentions need to be followed by action:

However these international efforts to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions have failed to bear fruit, as countries have been unable to agree on means to calculate reductions. Canada, along with the United States, Australia and Japan, has been criticized for blocking these international efforts.

The most recent exercise in rhetoric has been the Bali conference. Before Bali even started, Canada was being sidelined and criticized for its fawning role to the U.S. and its “lame duck” aspirations. Canada has never lived up to its previous agreements and Harper has sidestepped all issues, looking towards Bali to provide “aspirational” goals. In a fully contradictory statement, Environment Minister John Baird told a House of Commons hearing, “It is just foolish to try to exempt the big polluters from taking meaningful action. It is a guaranteed recipe for failure.'

Baird was referring to places like China and India and other ‘third’ world countries, but taken on a per capita basis and overall tonnage within the OECD, Canada has no grounds on which to criticize other governments. In George Monbiot’s foreword to the Canadian edition of Heat – How to Stop the Planet From Burning, he indicates that Canada emits 19 tonnes of carbon per capita, only one tonne less than the Americans, and well above his calculated “permissible” limit of 1.2 tonnes per person globally. Events within Canada speak enormously towards Canada’s evasion of climate change responsibility.

First and foremost, apart from the physical aspect, is the rhetoric coming from Ottawa that is half and half denial and obfuscation. The line borrowed from the U.S. is that of “carbon intensity” a phrase that simply means that richer countries get to pollute more, as “A reduction in intensity under this act means, in reality, an increase in emission….As all economies tend to use less energy per unit as they mature, Mr. Harper’s proposal for tackling climate change amounts to doing nothing.” The previous touted “carbon credit” scheme has the same fault, that emissions will not stop, and the credits, like with the mortgage based derivatives, will become another means for money traders to make more money without helping the environment.

Another feature of the government’s view is that of the “denial machine” or the “denial industry”. In Monbiot’s work, he examines how the scientists and PR firms that played a major role in trying to deny that cigarettes and tobacco cause lung cancer are the same scientists who are now working with Exxon, the U.S. government, think tanks and others to deny global warming. Taken further, the CBC reported that these same people, the same firms, the same rhetoric was now being used to provide the Canadian government with their own rhetoric of denial.

Much more could be said about Canada and its own dereliction towards the environment: the Alberta tar sands and the enormous amounts of energy required to extract the oil and the impact on the environment and indigenous cultures (hmm, see aboriginal rights above, it all circles together); the NAFTA Chapter 11 clause giving the U.S. corporations rights to sue the Canadian government over financial losses (real or imagined) caused by our laws (environmental included); and the NAFTA requirement that the U.S. gets our resources first in event of a shortage (oil, gas, and probably later water).

The amount of time devoted here to the environment reflects from my perspective what the American Empire is all about – the consumption of resources and energy, the drawing to the American heartland of all the wealth and power it can control from the hinterland, which today is truly the whole globe. Canada’s economy, our environmental rhetoric, rests firmly in the hands of the U.S. government and its affiliated military-industrial network in being part of this extraction of wealth.

Consumption and Debt

On a similar note, our consumer economy reflects that of the United States, and while our dollar is currently strengthening against the U.S. dollar, there are signs that Canada’s economic trends could well follow those of the Americans.

I often shake my head when reading American media reports about the “indoctrination” of whomever by whatever evil government they are railing against. What is not generally recognized is that North Americans from birth are highly indoctrinated into our societies consumptive habits and debt purchasing from the very moment our children can focus their eyes on the television screen. It is a kinder, gentler form of propaganda, and much, much more successful.

The American economy is undergoing a shakedown of its debt structures now, as the housing market bubble, based on ever increasing debt and financial trading structures that no one seems to really comprehend, is deflating rather rapidly. American debt is huge, whether it is credit cards, mortgages, national or international, with, ironically, the Chinese and Japanese being able to control the markets as they own much of America’s foreign debt, essentially money lent to the U.S. to keep the economy consuming.

Canada, while still well behind this level of debt, shows some discouraging signs. The average Canadian household debt is $69,450 with the overall household debt through personal loans, lines of credit and mortgage debt equalling $731 billion. That is well short of the American debt of $8.4 trillion, but given the population factor of 10, it is about equal per capita. The debt to income ratio is currently 105 per cent, in simple terms saying we are spending more than we are earning (in 1983 it had been about 55 per cent.)

In addition, the Canadian tax scheme is more and more becoming similar to the American with income taxes. It is noted that countries with fewer social benefits tend to have higher disparities in income and greater tax advantages for the rich. This pattern is becoming more evident in Canada. The top 1 per cent paid a lower tax rate than the bottom 10 per cent in 2005. Marc Lee, a senior economist with CCPA, says, “Canada’s tax system now fails a basic test of fairness. Tax cuts have contributed to a slow and steady shift to a less progressive tax system in Canada.” A combination of federal and provincial tax cuts have effected this shift, with “the poorest 20 percent of taxpayers, [paying] three to five percentage points more in taxes.”

Accompanying this are the increases in “user fees”, a form of regressive taxation, the incremental incursions of a two tiered medical system with the encroachment of private medical groups along the American model, low corporate taxes with many subsidies (as per the Alberta tar sands project above), and an as yet low but increasing military budget, set to double in the next five years.

Subnation Status

In foreign affairs, in domestic spending, domestic taxation, in our environmental laws, in our increasing belligerence as an aggressor nation, Canada is very rightly to be considered as a “subnation” to the United States. Our internal identity is hockey and beer with a bit of French thrown in to prove we are not American, but in all our consumer habits, our spending habits, our changing attitudes towards the environment and the military, our denial of international norms that accompany this – along with the norms for indigenous rights – it becomes a fair argument that Canada has not yet determined – and indeed is undermining – its own sovereignty. If the rest of the world no longer sees Canada the way a majority of us would still wish to be seen, the reasons are becoming more evident and stronger with each new development by the provincial and federal governments. The corporations are winning, the people are losing, a subnation we shall remain.

- Jim Miles is a Canadian educator. His work is presented globally through various Web sites and news publications, including this one.

U.S. Lawmaker Pleads for Energy Savings

jessie — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:15:18 -0800

U.S. Lawmaker Pleads for Energy Savings

William Matthews, January 14, 2007, Defense News -- It was 2005 when Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., began warning that the world is running out of oil. At the time, petroleum cost $40 a barrel.

Earlier this year, the price hit $100 a barrel, and there are other signs of oil-fired trouble ahead.

China is buying into oil companies around the world, Bartlett told an audience at a conference on energy alternatives for the U.S. military Jan. 9.

“When I asked the State Department why the Chinese are buying up oil around the world, they said the Chinese don’t understand the market system,” Bartlett said. “The Chinese don’t understand the market system,” he repeated as the room filled with grim chuckles.

China also is building a blue-water Navy, Bartlett said. At the rate warships are being built in China and the United States today, it won’t be too many years before China has the larger Navy, said Bartlett, who is the senior Republican on the House seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee.

Chinese submarines are of particular concern, he said. They could give China control of the Taiwan Strait.

One solution Bartlett and Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., pushed through Congress last year was a requirement that all new large U.S. Navy ships be nuclear-powered.

There are two problems with that: One, the Defense Authorization bill that contains the requirement was vetoed by President George W. Bush because of unrelated language involving Iraq. Bartlett said he is confident the bill will be amended and signed soon.

Two, nuclear-powered ships cost more to build, although less to operate in the long run than conventionally powered ships. Where will the money come from? Bartlett suggests selling a contemporary equivalent of war bonds.

Building nuclear-powered ships is just one step the U.S. military must take. The Army estimates it will need $85 billion to refurbish or replace equipment being worn out or destroyed in Iraq. Don’t do it, Bartlett pleads.

“A refurbished Humvee is still a Humvee” — that is, a fossil-fuel-guzzling battlefield vehicle, he said. “We should be more aggressive and innovative and actively pursue current and near-term technologies” that will reduce oil consumption.
Consider these Bartlett statistics:

Daily fuel consumption per deployed troop in combat has increased from 1.7 gallons during World War II to 27.3 gallons during the second Persian Gulf war.

Fuel accounts for 70 percent of war-fighting logistics supplies by weight. Convoys of tanker trucks are needed to keep combat vehicles, support vehicles and operating base generators running. Protection for fuel convoys diverts troops from combat operations. Convoys create operational vulnerabilities, and reliance on convoys constrains force movement.
Ultimately, in a world with shrinking oil supplies, the United States will probably have to reconsider how it uses its military, Bartlett said. Keeping U.S. troops in 100 countries around the world requires an extraordinary amount of energy, he said.
And it is clear to Bartlett, a medical school professor, inventor, scientist and business owner before entering Congress in 1992, that oil is running out.

“Most of the world’s authorities believe we have discovered 95 percent of the oil that will be discovered,” he said. And recent big discoveries, such as those in Latin America and the Gulf of Mexico, lie beneath miles of ocean and rock and would be enormously difficult and costly to tap.

At best, substitutes for oil, such as ethanol made from corn and other crops or liquefied coal and natural gas, can replace about one-third of today’s oil, Bartlett said.

But they have major drawbacks. The push to make ethanol from corn has already doubled the price of corn on the world market, prompting the United Nations to declare the practice of converting food crops into energy “a crime against humanity,” Bartlett said.

And converting coal to liquid fuel, as the U.S. Air Force is considering, releases twice as much global-warming carbon as burning petroleum-based fuel, he said.

Efforts to produce energy from fusion are about as likely to succeed as playing the lottery. Making oil from tar sands and oil shale consumes more energy than it produces. Hydro, solar, wind, geothermal and ocean energy can help on the margins, he said.

“Conservation is absolutely essential to buy us time” to develop new energy solutions, Bartlett said.

And because of its enormous buying power, the U.S. military “has a huge potential role” in pushing promising solutions, he said. As the nation’s largest single energy consumer, the military can create a market for energy solutions that would otherwise falter for lack of an assured market.

Climate change 'likely to cause wars'

jessie — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:45:23 -0800

Climate change 'likely to cause wars'

Charles Clover, December 10, 2007, The Telegraph -- Climate change is likely to aggravate old conflicts and trigger new tensions that could spill over into war or violence in many parts of the world, a report for the United Nations Environment Programme said.

Areas at risk of greater insecurity include northern and southern Africa, central Asia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, China, parts of the Caribbean and Andean and Amazonian regions of Latin America.

The report, by German and Swiss academics, says that the population of North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean is estimated to grow by 40 per cent by 2025 at the same time as rainfall and agricultural production will be in decline.

Entitled Climate Change as a Security Risk, the report suggests that the climate change-induced causes of conflict are likely to be: degradation of freshwaters; decline in food production; increase in storm and flood disasters and environmentally-induced migration.

It identifies vulnerable states and societies as those that are in political transition and have a low level of economic activity with often large population or high population densities.

The regional hotspots identified are:

North Africa. It says this could be at particular risk of rising interstate conflicts including ones that might affect the region and beyond. Some countries in North Africa have recently suffered internal unrest and tensions including Algeria and Morocco.

In addition, many countries here are "characterised by poverty, high youth unemployment, wide social discrepancies and scanty state social security networks".

Aggravating pressures will be the likelihood of increased migration to the north by people living in the Sahel region and increased rural to city migration.

"As usable land and water resources become increasingly scarce, and use of non-sustainable methods of agriculture continues, desertification will cause further impoverishment and the risk of water and land-related conflicts at regional and local level will increase throughout North Africa," says the report.

After 2025-2030, water conflicts between Egypt and other countries cannot be excluded and could trigger insecurity that is 'felt far beyond the region".

The experts believe that the political and institutional structures of southern Europe will be able to cope with environmental changes such as drought and heat waves. But it notes that migration from countries of North Africa to EU countries could have violent consequences.

Central Asia. Above-average warming and glacial retreat will exacerbate water and agricultural problems in a region already characterised by political and social tensions and civil war, (Tajikistan).

India, Pakistan, Bangladesh. The retreat of glaciers in the Himalayas will jeopardise the water supply for millions. Changes in the monsoon will affect agriculture.

China. Climate change will intensify existing environmental stresses from air and soil degradation. Cyclones and sea level rise will affect the populous south coast. The report says that the government's capacity to cope could be overwhelmed by the rapid pace of modernisation, social and environmental crises and climate change.

Hans Schellnhuber, a lead author of the report, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and a visiting professor at Oxford university, said:" Without resolute counteraction, climate change will overstretch many societies' adaptive capacities within coming decades. This could result in destabilisation and violence jeopardising national and international security to a new degree".

Countering Oil Rogues: Target the Price or Volume?

jessie — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:25:07 -0800

Countering Oil Rogues: Target the Price or Volume?

Robert Haddick, TSC Daily -- "Oil rogues," fattened by gluttonous revenues, are again tormenting the United States. The global price of crude oil now exceeds $90 per barrel, surpassing on an inflation-adjusted basis the price recorded in the early 1980s after the chaos caused by the Iranian revolution. Iran is using its bounteous oil revenue to finance a very pricey nuclear-industrial complex. In Russia, President Vladimir Putin intends to use his oil windfall on "grandiose plans" to rebuild Russia's military power. In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez intends to use his oil revenues to organize and lead an anti-American bloc.

For American policymakers, the problems presented by the new "oil rogues" run from the merely irritating (Mr. Chavez) to the truly destabilizing (Iran as a nuclear weapons state). Future American policymakers will rightfully be reluctant to resort to military force to address such problems. The alternative is economic sanctions, which ultimately means drying up the oil rogue's revenue, his oil windfall.

Revenue equals price times volume. In the past, sharp declines in the price of crude oil have done the trick, crippling oil rogues and their ambitions. The crash in the price of oil in the 1980s was enough to break up a mighty empire, the Soviet Union.

But what if there is no prospect of engineering another collapse in the price of oil such as occurred in the mid-1980s? And would a crash in the price of oil even be desirable to the U.S. and other oil importers?

If price is no longer a usable tool, then volume is the only other way to go after an oil rogue's revenue. Are the U.S. and the West ready to target an oil rogue's crude oil production when a barrel of oil costs nearly a $100?

Why the Soviet Union collapsed

Between 1991 and 1994, right after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Mr. Yegor Gaidar was acting prime minister and minister of economy of Russia. In April 2007 the American Enterprise Institute published a presentation delivered by Mr. Gaidar based on his book about the collapse of the Soviet Union. Drawing on his personal experiences and his access to Soviet archives, Mr. Gaidar concluded that the collapse in the price of crude oil between 1981 and 1986 resulted in a financial crisis inside the Soviet Union.

Starting in the 1970s, the Soviet Union became a large hydrocarbon exporter. The Soviets used this revenue, greatly boosted at the time by large oil price increases in 1973 and 1979, to pay for necessary grain imports, aid to Soviet client states, and, most importantly, the massive Soviet military-industrial complex.

But the oil price crash in the mid-1980s resulted in a financial crisis for the Soviets. Through the end of the 1980s, the Soviet Union was able to paper over its financing shortfall with credit extended from the West, mainly Europe. But when the Soviets reached their credit limit, Mr. Gorbachev no longer had the leverage to maintain central Europe under Soviet military control. The game was over. According to Mr. Gaidar, the 1980s oil price collapse brought down the Soviet Union.

1980s not kind to Iran either

Compared to the 1970s, the 1980s were not kind to Iran either. During and after the 1979 Islamic revolution, Iran suffered a 75% decline in oil production. Production crept upward a bit during the 1980s, but as mentioned previously, the global crude oil price simultaneously crashed. It is very likely that the collapse in Iranian oil revenues during the 1980s contributed to its decision to terminate its long war with Iraq. Certainly it wasn't the only factor; by the mid- to late-1980s, Iraq was receiving battlefield intelligence support from the U.S., Iraq was bombarding downtown Tehran with ballistic missiles, and Iraq was receiving generous financial support from other Sunni countries to help finance its side of the war (squabbles over those loans later contributed to Iraq's decision to invade Kuwait in 1990). But the collapse of Iranian oil revenues in the 1980s surely punctured Iran's post-revolutionary ambitions.

The role of Saudi Arabia

In his presentation, Mr. Gaidar asserts that it was a change in Saudi Arabian oil production policy beginning in 1985 that caused the global oil price to crash, which in turn resulted in so many critical geopolitical consequences. In 1985 the Saudi government had much to fear. The Soviet army was on the offensive in Afghanistan, perhaps on its way to the Arabian Sea. Meanwhile, Iran seemed to be winning a war of attrition against Iraq, not far from Saudi Arabia's own eastern oil fields. Although an oil price crash would cause much pain inside Saudi Arabia, the Saudi government must have concluded that it would hurt its enemies even more. According to Mr. Gaidar, in 1985 Saudi Arabia had the spare oil production capacity to bring down the price of oil and it did so.

Today's potential Iranian nuclear threat would seem to be even more of a problem for Saudi security than the events in 1985. So why doesn't Saudi Arabia repeat what it did in 1985 and use its spare oil production capacity to bring down Iranian oil revenues, and thus dry up the financing for Iran's nuclear program?

It does not appear that Saudi Arabia has, at least in the short-term, sufficient unused production capacity to repeat the dramatic plunge in prices it engineered in 1985. The International Energy Agency's report on global crude oil supply for September 2007 indicates only 2.7 million barrels per day of effective OPEC spare capacity, of which 2.2 million barrels per day is controlled by Saudi Arabia. This compares to daily global crude oil output of 85.1 million barrels per day. Extra Saudi production could reduce prices at the margin. But after this marginal increase was taken up by ever-expanding global demand, the elimination of any effective spare capacity could result in much higher prices as oil traders came to realize that no production overhang remained.

Might high oil prices be a good thing for the West?

As a national security issue, nearly all analysts in the U.S. would welcome a reduction or elimination in America's dependence on crude oil imported from the Middle East. Such a circumstance would greatly simplify American defense planning while also sweeping away many other diplomatic and political burdens. For now, such a state of affairs remains only a dream.

Yet high oil prices are the only way to make progress on greater energy independence. The oil price crash of the mid-1980s killed the then-embryonic alternative fuels industry. It wasn't until the last few years that prices have returned to a level that would make very deep drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, oil sands in Alberta, oil shale in Colorado, coal-to-liquid technology, various bio-fuels, and many other ventures economically feasible. For those interested in escaping from geostrategic responsibilities in the Middle East, one should be glad that Saudi Arabia no longer has the power to bust the price of oil and by doing so wipe out new energy industries.

Sanctions on volume

In the meantime, what should the U.S. and the West do about Iran, Russia, and other potentially troublesome oil rogues? With oil demand continuing to climb and output struggling to keep up, targeting oil rogue production would seem at the very least an act of economic masochism.

What has surprised economists is how little this decade's dramatic jump in oil prices has affected either global economic output or core (excluding food and energy) inflation. Perhaps oil-induced economic trouble is just around the corner, but if so it remains well hidden. In any case, the absence of a broader economic effect from the current oil price surge could give policymakers more confidence to use sanctions against oil rogues.

Economic sanctions targeting an oil rogue's production used to be an unthinkable policy option. Deliberately reducing global oil output was thought to be self-defeating and indefensible.

But when other sanction options have proved ineffective and a military option may be unwise, attacking the volume factor in the revenue equation through sanctions aimed at the rogue's oil industry may be all that is left. And if "sanctions on volume" help encourage energy independence in the West, that would be a welcome bonus.

FLASHPOINT IN THE FLATHEAD; US-Canada War Looms Over Energy, Water

jessie — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:51:00 -0800

FLASHPOINT IN THE FLATHEAD; US-Canada War Looms Over Energy, Water

Bill Weinberg, November 1, 2007, WORLD WAR 4 REPORT -- Washington's new tensions with its northern neighbor and largest trading partner appear to be over perceived Canadian reticence to support US imperial adventures in the Middle East. But the vast resources of Canada itself—made more critical both by instability in the energy-rich Mideast and by shortages of such basic commodities as water brought on by climate change—may be providing a long-term source of conflict between the two giants of North America. While on the economic front all talk is currently of integration and falling trade barriers, battles are already being waged by the grassroots both sides of the border against resource plunder and mega-development schemes. These could eventually mean war between the two longtime allies if a populist government comes to power in Ottawa and tries to turn off the spigot of south-bound resources—and the Pentagon has already drawn up plans for this contingency. Rumbles are already being felt in such unlikely places as the rolling farmlands of upstate New York, the grizzly-haunted pine forests of Montana's wild Flathead Valley, the windswept high plains of northern Alberta, and the remote passages of the Arctic Sea.

Middle East Oil Wars and the Northwest Passage

This summer, global warming for the first time opened the long-sought Northwest Passage, as area covered by sea ice in the Arctic shrank to its lowest level since satellite measurements began 30 years ago. The normally ice-bound passage was now navigable to commercial ship traffic—and will likely become more so in the years to come. A new study from the National Center for Atmospheric Research finds that the Arctic Ocean could become nearly devoid of ice during summer as early as 2040.

A navigable route between the Atlantic and Pacific as an artery for trade and resource exploitation had been sought for centuries, and was the elusive goad of the Lewis & Clark expedition. Now that it has been opened—if inadvertently—it will mean easier access to the Arctic and its resources, including oil. Ironically, it could thereby exacerbate global warming. It will likely also exacerbate the geopolitical struggle over the far north. Russian authorities have already announced they will open new ports on the Arctic Sea as major petroleum hubs for the 21st century.

This development comes just as Canada has been asserting sovereignty over Northwest Passage—in an unsubtle message to Washington.

The US Navy has for years sent its nuclear submarines under the ice through the Arctic Sea passage—a route that passes hundreds of Canadian islands, through straits as narrow as 20 kilometers. But when Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper took power in Ottawa last year, he immediately announced it must stop. The US said no dice.

Parliamentary Secretary Jason Kenney said: "Any foreign government should ask permission before entering our territorial waters." Sean McCormack of the US State department retorted: "We believe it is an international strait. It's a longstanding policy of the US government."

Ottawa announced it was dispatching troops to the Arctic to assert tis sovereignty claim: up to 52 soldiers in five snowmobile patrols to cover 4,500 kilometers, building airstrips on the sea ice, installing electronic sensing equipment, and laying the groundwork for two High Arctic bases. Harper's government also proposed to build a new deep-water port for three armed icebreakers on the Arctic Sea.

Ottawa's rift with Washington has been little abated by the switch from a Liberal to Conservative government last year. Canada has 2,500 troops in Afghanistan under NATO command—where they have sustained more than 70 fatalities, including one in a "friendly fire" incident when Canadian positions were strafed by US jets in Kandahar last September, leaving dozens more wounded. But Ottawa has declined to join Washington's "coalition of the willing" in Iraq. And Canada is considering withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan, according to an interim report by the Canadian Senate committee on national security and defense. The report demands more money for the operation and a bigger commitment from other NATO countries within a year. If these demands are not met, Ottawa should reconsider its mission, the head of the Senate committee Colin Kenny said upon release of the report. He asked: "Are Canadians willing to commit themselves to decades of involvement in Afghanistan, which could cost hundreds of Canadian lives and billions of dollars with no guarantee of ending up with anything like the kind of society that makes sense to us?"

President Bush angered some northern neighbors this February when his speech calling for an all-out allied effort against the Taliban failed to mention Canada. Bush singled out for praise the UK, Denmark, Norway, Poland, Turkey, Greece and Iceland. While the Foreign Affairs ministry was conciliatory ("I'm certain it's just, maybe, a little error," said Minister Peter MacKay), opposition leaders were far less sanguine. "Maybe with Harper leading Canada, he thinks it's become the 51st American state," said Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe. "That might explain it."

In 2005, Liberal PM Paul Martin declined to participate in the missile defense system the US is building for North America. "This is our airspace, we're a sovereign nation and you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission," Martin said. Paul Cellucci, the outgoing US Ambassador to Canada, saying he was "perplexed" by the decision, made clear that the US would not respect Canadian airspace in the event of an attack: "We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty—its seat at the table—to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming towards Canada."

A joint US-Canadian "Americas Command" proposed by the Pentagon after 9-11 has also failed to come into fruition, with Ottawa accusing Ambassador Cellucci of undue pressure on Canada to raise its defense budget.

Pressure from below was definitely felt in Ottawa in these matters—and especially from Canada's increasingly restive First Nations. For over six months in 2001, the Dene Suline Indians of Cold Lake, Alberta, reoccupied their traditional territory at the Primrose Lake Air Weapons Range in protest of the NATO bombing of their territory. The Dene established a camp at the main entrance of the weapons range, accusing the Canadian government of illegally holding the land in violation of an expired 20-year lease—with Dene burial sites, and hunting and fishing grounds destroyed by daily bombing practice runs, and the Dene reduced to poverty in their own land, with alarmingly high rates of alcoholism and suicide. In June 2001, the Dene Suline also blocked an Alberta Energy Corporation (AEC) access road in the area and established a camp there, re-asserting their title to their homelands under the 1997 Delgamuukw Canadian Supreme Court decision, which affirmed the inherent rights of Native peoples. AEC is exploiting oil in the area, and has access to the Weapons Range, while the Dene do not.

In July 2007, First Nations activists held protests across Canada over the Canada Day holiday weekend in a National Day of Action against the Conservative government emphasizing land claims and other disputes. In Ontario, camouflage-clad Mohawks, some reportedly armed, blocked Highway 401 between Belleville and Napanee for more than 10 hours June 29 and also halted passenger and freight train service along the Canadian National Railway's busiest corridor. Rail service between Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa was shut for several hours.

Energy Wars

On the face of it, tensions notwithstanding, the trajectory since NAFTA has been all towards integration—in both the economic and military spheres.

This August, Harper, Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon met in Montebello, Quebec, for a third session on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP, or ASPAN in Spanish), an agreement increasing military and police cooperation between the three NAFTA partners. About 5,000 protesters, some dressed as clowns or guerrilla fighters, chanted "Bush go home!" near the Chateau Montebello, where the three leaders were meeting. Riot police, used tear gas, pepper spray and club to drive the protesters back at the gates.

In June, several were arrested at a protest in Halifax, Nova Scotia, against a conference to promote the "Atlantica" free trade zone proposal, with police using pepper spray and electric stun- guns. The Atlantica project, officially known as the International Northeast Economic Region (AINER), envisions new ports, transmission lines and superhighways to integrate Canada's Maritime provinces with New England and upstate New York.

Massive new energy transfers are already planned—and are meeting local opposition both sides of the border.

The US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman Oct. 3 finalized designation of two controversial Mid-Atlantic Area National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor. Canadian power developers had been awaiting the Washington's approval to supersede almost unanimous New York and Pennsylvania state and local objections to the corridors. The move was immediately protested by New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell. "This designation will allow the federal government to pre-empt New York's legitimate oversight and process for reviewing and siting transmission projects within our state borders," Spitzer said in a statement.

Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Secretary of Energy has the power to designate National Corridors, under which the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) can issue permits for new transmission facilities over the heads of state and local authorities.

At immediate issue is the New York Regional Interconnect (NYRI), a proposed 190-mile 1,200-megawatt line of 130-foot pylons linking Marcy to New Windsor, NY, following the Delaware Valley, to deliver Canadian power to the New York City metropolitan area. NYRI Inc., which proposes to build the lines, is a secretive group of private investors headed by a Canadian entrepreneur, R. Muddiman. Much of the right-of-ways for the line are to be seized by eminent domain. NYRI Inc. has threatened to sue New York State over legislation signed by outgoing Gov. George Pataki last year limiting NYRI's use of eminent domain.

When the Marcy Line, the first major link between the New York and Canadian grids, was built in the 1970s following the first big thrust of hydro-electric development in northern Quebec, there were angry protests—especially at the Akwesasne Mohawk reservation straddling the New York-Canadian border of the St. Lawrence River, where Indians blockaded construction equipment. But critics point out that the NYRI would cut far closer to towns and homes than the Marcy Line did.

Also at issue in the Corridor is a plan by Allegheny Power of Pennsylvania to build a 37-mile line through the west of the state, delivering power from its coal-fired generators to out-of-state markets.

The Energy Department additionally approved a Southwest Area National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor, which will allow a 230-mile transmission line to connect Arizona’s Palo Verde nuclear plant to the California grid—over the veto of Arizona state authorities.

But it is in the northern Rockies of Montana and British Columbia that acrimony over planned energy transfers and resource exploitation have resulted in a government surveillance scandal—and alarmingly bellicose cross-border rhetorical sniping by local politicians.

Surveillance Scandal Hits the Heartland

A front-page story by reporter Jessie McQuillan in the Oct. 11 issue of Montana's weekly Missoula Independent reveals that members of the Alberta Energy Utility Board (EUB) this year hired four private investigators who infiltrated meetings and eavesdropped on conversations of landowners and their attorneys as they discussed opposition to proposed new international transmission lines in the region.

The project in question is a new Calgary-Edmonton line proposed by Altalink, Canada's largest electricity transmission company. Altalink says the new transmission capacity is needed to supply Calgary’s power in coming years, but critics believe the line—to be built with taxpayer money but owned entirely by Altalink—would be used primarily to export power to the United States. Opponents have teamed up with other landowners who are organizing against another transmission line—proposed by Montana Alberta Tie Limited (MATL)—that would link Lethbridge, Alberta, to Great Falls, providing the first Canadian link to the Montana grid and a possible connection to the Altalink line.

Landowners had suspected that someone was spying on them during numerous hearings in spring 2007, but both Altalink and the EUB denied it. Finally, activists obtained documents under Canada’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) that revealed that a private EUB investigator posing as a concerned landowner had (at least) joined a conference call between Albertans and Montanans opposed to the Altalink project.

One of the legitimate callers, Katrina Martin, who lives on a farm near Dutton, MT, along MATL's proposed route, told the Independent: "The fact that a quasi-judicial agency would hire agents to do intelligence gathering on citizens engaged in an open, public process is scary and appalling. Obviously that board has decided who the enemy is, and that the people who have audacity to question these issues should be infiltrated and spied upon."

Joe Anglin, president of the 800-member Lavesta Area Group in Alberta that's fighting Altalink's proposal, is among those who filed for the documents under the FOIP. He told the Independent: "We knew they were infiltrating our group from the beginning because we knew everyone in our group... in the middle of a bunch of grandmothers sat some 300-pound ex-RCMP-looking guy eating all the cookies!"

The EUB insists it hired the spies to help ensure security at tense public meetings—at one of which an elderly woman swung (and missed) at an EUB commissioner. But two separate investigations by the Canadian government concluded the EUB's actions were illegal and "repulsive." In September, the scandal resulted in the appointment of a new EUB chairman, William Tilleman, and the disbanding of the agency's security unit. But farmers say EUB commissioners themselves should be held accountable—and on Sept. 30 chairman Tilleman announced it was voiding all the proceedings on the Altalink line. The review process that began in 2004 will start fresh once Altalink reapplies to construct the project.

"This EUB decision is the equivalent of granting a mistrial," Tilleman said in a statement. "Albertans must be confident that this Board acts fairly, responsibly and in the public interest. Mistakes have been made on this file, and I believe the only way to re-establish public confidence is to go back to square one on this process."

Hearings on the MATL line, meanwhile, opened in October at Lethbridge, Alberta—attended by wary activists from the local Citizens for Responsible Power Transmission. Said Lethbridge llama rancher Margaret Lewis: "It will be very difficult for us going into this hearing to forget what happened and to believe we’re having a fair hearing."

And there will be plenty of opportunities for more such political battles in the years to come if the continental energy planners get their way. Energy giant TransCanada is planning a new massive series of power lines collectively known as NorthernLights, to facilitate future power transfers. The NorthernLights project envisions three new 3,000-megawatt arteries: one linking Montana to Los Angeles across the Rockies, a second stretching from northern Alberta down the West Coast to California, and a third connecting the oilfields of northeast Wyoming to Las Vegas, with possible extensions to LA and Phoenix.

While the MATL is being built ostensibly to export wind power, Canada's vast hydrocarbon resources play explicitly into the NorthernLights plan—despite the boast on its website of "environmentally attractive" electricity. The Alberta leg of the NorthernLights project would start in the oil sands boomtown of Fort McMurray. Planned massive expansion of Canadian hydrocarbon exploitation provides another source of trans-border tension.

The Battle for the Flathead

Canada is the USA's largest foreign supplier of energy. In 2006 Canada exported south 2.3 million barrels per day of oil and petroleum products (11% of U.S. supply); 3.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (16% of US supply); and 41.2 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity (1% of US supply).

The biggest chunk of Canada's energy resources sit directly north of Montana, in Alberta—including 80% of its natural gas and the bulk of its crude supply. The crude, sunk deep in the tar sands below northern Alberta's subarctic boreal forests, were long considered too difficult and expensive to access. But recent soaring oil prices have changed this.

The tar sands contain a thick substance called bitumen—a mix of oil, sand, water and clay—and the northern forests of Alberta are being rapidly razed to get at it. The process means scooping up two tons of tar sands for every barrel of oil that will finally be produced. The process also requires two to three barrels of clean water for each extracted barrel of bitumen, which then must be further refined. Much of the water needed for bitumen extraction is being drained from the Athabasca River. Alberta's Pembina Institute boasts that oil sands production more than doubled to 1.1 million barrels per day between 1995 and 2004. The Alberta government anticipates oil sands production will grow to three million barrels per day by 2020 and five million barrels per day by 2030.

While development of the oil sands centers in Alberta's far north, Montana's Gov. Brian Schweitzer has proposed a series of seven new bitumen refineries for the state to process the imports.

Additionally, where coal is concerned, Alberta's new thrust of energy development is sparking yet another cross-border imbroglio. Gov. Schweitzer himself is aggressively pushing a big expansion of the coal industry within Montana's borders, but a proposed new coal mine just above the Montana line in Alberta is causing controversy—because of its proximity to Glacier National Park, and potential impact on a scenic river that flows south into US territory.

US and Canadian officials met this October in Paris to discuss how the international park on their border could be protected from a proposed coal mine nearby. Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park was designated by the UN as a World Heritage site in 1995. The mine, proposed by Canada's Cline Mining Co., would be north of Montana's Glacier National Park, which abuts Waterton Lakes National Park in Alberta, where the province meets British Columbia. The two parks make up the international park—and topped the agenda at the World Heritage Convention that convened in Paris Oct. 24-25.

Montana Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester have urged that Washington work to add Waterton-Glacier to the UN's list of endangered World Heritage Sites. Of some 850 World Heritage Sites, about 30 are classified as endangered. In a letter to the US Interior Department on the matter, Baucus and Tester said the mining could "contaminate one of the park's most pristine rivers, destroy the habitat of endangered species, and compromise the natural character that makes the peace park a world treasure."

Locals are especially worried about the impacts of the mining on the Flathead River, which flows from British Columbia into Montana. The wild Flathead Valley lies adjacent to Glacier National Park on the west. South of the park it broadens to make up the heartland of the Flathead Indian Reservation, which protects some of the USA's last native bison range. South of the reservation, the Flathead meets the Clark Fork River, a tributary of the Columbia.

Cline Mining is currently seeking British Columbia's approval for a mountaintop mine just above the headwaters of the Flathead's North Fork. The mine would produce an annual 2 million tons of coal per year, to be shipped to China.

Cline is nearly done with the first step in British Columbia's permitting process, outlining the issues that have to be addressed in a formal application. The state of Montana, the US Interior Department, State Department and Environmental Protection Agency have all commented, voicing concerns about potential downstream impacts—but "most of the comments were not included in the [permit] document," according to Rich Moy, chairman of the nonprofit Flathead Basin Commission. That omission prompted Montana's Gov. Schweitzer to draft a letter to the Canadian government calling for a more extensive environmental assessment.

Meanwhile, the grassroots is mobilizing. The towns of Whitefish, MT, and Fernie, BC, are currently considering a joint resolution urging Gov. Schweitzer and BC Premier Gordon Campbell to meet and discuss "trans-boundary issues"—specifically, potential threat to the Flathead River by coal-mining upstream in Canada.

There are indications other, bigger corporate players could be following BP into the Flathead. This year, BP opened an office in Fernie, with an eye towards exploring for oil and coal in the valley.

In February 2007, British Columbia's top mining minister Bill Bennet stepped down amid outrage at his anti-American sentiments—and Montanans who had been negotiating with the province over the controversial coal project were openly happy to see him go. "Mr. Bennett's resignation may clear the way for a more constructive government-to-government discussion," said Whitefish state senator Dan Weinberg, whose district adjoins Bennett's, with only the international boundary separating the two.

In January, Bennett, a provincial lawmaker and who then held the Cabinet-level post of BC minister for mining, received an e-mail from a Fernie constituent, Maarten Hart—a veterinarian, hunter and president of the local Rod and Gun Club—who expressed concern about the coal project, charging that the BC government "bows to the almighty dollar and faces east three times each day (not to Mecca, but to Wall Street.)"

Bennett shot back cybernetically: "Let me be very direct with you, as you were with me. It is my understanding that you are an American, so I don't give a shit what your opinion is on Canada or Canadian residents."

Bennett's response focused on the fact that Hart, as a "landed immigrant," was once a US citizen. He called Hart a "fool," "dumb" and a "self-inflated, pompous, American know-it-all." Bennett wrote he was "not about to take that kind of bullshit from someone who, for all I know, is up here as an American spy who is actually interested in helping the US create a park in the Flathead."

When news of the e-mail was leaked to the Vancouver Sun, Bennett resigned his Cabinet post. Premier Campbell called Bennett's e-mail "unacceptable," and even Bennett admitted it was "stupid and wrong," attributed his "earthy" response to a rough life of bar brawls and knife fights, and of never finishing high school. But Hart responded that Bennett's tirade was inappropriate—especially "for a man who is charged with representing sensitive mining and environmental negotiations with Americans."

Bennett has championed the proposed mine, and repeatedly launched verbal assaults on lawmakers—including Sen. Baucus, who he once said was not welcome in Canada. Weinberg—who went camping in the contested wilderness last summer with a group of Canadian lawmakers—put a positive spin on the flame-out, saying he remained encouraged that "we have a great deal more in common than we have disagreements."

He insisted that recent meetings between Montana and BC officials "showed that an overwhelming majority of local residents agree that the transboundary Flathead Valley is a great place that should not be mined."

But the incident betrays the passions that can be unleashed when fortunes are to be made. And the conflict is likely to be even more impassioned when the resource in question is one which is necessary for life itself: water.

Water Wars

Water levels in the Great Lakes, a key artery for cross-border trade, are dramatically falling, with Lake Ontario about seven inches below where it was a year ago and levels in all five below long-term averages. For every inch of water that the lakes lose, the ships that ferry bulk materials across them must lighten their loads by 270 tons. As a result, more ships are needed, adding millions of dollars to shipping companies' operating costs, experts in maritime commerce estimate.

The International Joint Commission, which advises the US and Canada on water resources, is conducting a $17 million, five-year study to determine whether the shrinking of the Great Lakes is a result of climate change.

With almost a third of the Southeast now covered by an "exceptional" drought—the worst drought category—the notion of trans-border water transfers from Canada is likely to be floated once again. This idea, a perennial of Western water-brokers and engineering giants, has for decades been dismissed as technically unworkable—only to be revived in times of water crisis.

In July 2001, President Bush told reporters the United States would be interested in piping Canadian water down to the thirsty Southwestern states and that he would raise the issue with then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien at the upcoming G8 Summit in Genoa. The Canadian government immediately responded by insisting bulk exports of water from Canada weren't on the table.

The Council of Canadians, which has led the campaign against water exports with the support of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) and the Canadian Environmental Law Association, expressed outrage at Bush's statement. The Council's chair Maude Barlow accused Chretien of being willing "turn the tap"—despite his denial. "Canadians wanted bulk exports banned and the Liberals are opening the floodgates," she charged.

Judy Darcy, CUPE's national president, raised the prospect of a mass privatization of Canada's water resources. "What is more fundamental to democracy than control over the water we drink?" she asked. "Access for all Canadians to a basic source of life is what's at stake. Multinational corporations are trying to privatize water services in hundreds of Canadian municipalities and turn our water resources into an export commodity. They can't buy the air we breathe, so now they want to buy and control the water we drink. What we are saying is simple: No water for profit."

Journalist Philip Lee, in a series on the global water crisis for the Ottawa Citizen, noted that several Canadian politicians continued to openly push for water exports. A company called McCurdy Enterprises was seeking to export 49 billion liters of water a year from Newfoundland's Gisborne Lake—with the support of the province's Premier Roger Grimes

A California company, Sun Belt Water Inc., took Canada to court to force British Columbia to sell bulk water to the US, and claimed millions of dollars in damages for the business it says it has lost through Canada's refusal to adhere to what it claims are the terms of NAFTA.

The great-grandfather of such proposals was the North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA), designed by the Southern California engineering firm Parsons in cooperation with the provincial utility BC Hydro in the 1960s. NAWAPA called for reversing the flow of British Columbia's Fraser River and diverting it into the Columbia system, and thence via a series of tunnels and canals to California and the Southwest.

An eastern branch of the scheme was devised in the '70s by then-Quebec premier Robert Bourassa, whose massive James Bay hydro-electric complex was then under development. Bourassa's proposal, dubbed the GRAND (Great Replenishment and Northern Development) Canal, called for damming the mouth of James Bay—a vast southern inlet of Hudson Bay, 100 miles across—and turning it into a giant fresh-water reservoir, fed by the rivers that Hydro-Quebec was already damming for power to be exported to the US Northeast. The GRAND Canal would divert the James Bay water into the Great Lakes, and thence (via a miracle of mega-engineering) into the Missouri River and points west.

The conventional wisdom is that the tide has turned against such hubristic schemes. In 1998 when Ontario granted the private Nova Group approval to export millions of liters of Lake Superior water by tanker to Asia, there was an immediate outcry on both sides of the border. The following year, the Canadian government announced a water export prohibition policy, introducing amendments to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to bar bulk-water removal from the Great Lakes.

The Canadian and US governments asked the International Joint Commission—established by the Boundary Water Treaty of 1909—to prepare a report on the bulk exports issue. After holding public hearings, the commission's report recommended that governments "should not permit any new proposal for removal of water from the Great Lakes Basin to proceed unless the proponent can demonstrate that the removal would not endanger the integrity of the Great Lakes Basin." The commission said there should be "no net loss" of water from the lakes—and argued that the era of major water diversions and transfers had passed, with dams across the American West being dismantled in the interests of ecological restoration.

The NAWAPA idea was kept alive by such fringe organizations as the far-right Lyndon LaRouche cult. But Bush's 2002 comments indicate the resiliency of the concept in the corridors of power.

Another ominous sign is the revival of mega-scale hydro-electric development in northern Quebec—the so-called "James Bay II" project. The first series of hydro-dams on the rivers feeding James Bay under Bourassa in the 1970s provided the power for export to Con Edison and other Northeast utilities that necessitated construction of the Marcy Line. When Bourassa returned to power in 1984, he immediately announced the next phase of development, which called for damming all the remaining rivers flowing into James Bay, and lined up new contracts with Con Ed for the provincial utility Hydro-Quebec. As Bourassa's book Power From the North made clear, his envisioned next phase would be the GRAND Canal project.

But the contracts were canceled (before the "grace period" ran out) in 1991 following an activist campaign both sides of the border. This was undertaken in solidarity with the Cree and Inuit indigenous inhabitants of the James Bay region, whose traditional lands were inundated in phase one of the project. The Cree had signed on to the first phase in return for economic benefits after the Canadian courts had ruled they could not stop the project, and the provincial government claimed that agreement also covered phase two. The Cree disagreed; the campaign was launched, the contracts axed, and James Bay II put on hold. Now Quebec, under Premier Jean Charest, has announced a downsized version of James Bay II, which calls for diverting the flow of the Rupert River a hundred miles north into the system of phase-one hydro-dams already built on the Eastmain River. While the Cree Grand Council has signed off on the project, the proposal has bitterly divided the Cree nation.

Meanwhile, the already-existing dams and reservoirs conceived as arteries of NAWAPA are sources of cross-border conflict. Lake Koocanusa, behind the US Army Corps of Engineers' Libby Dam on the Kootenai River, a Columbia tributary, straddles the BC-Montana border, and was envisioned by NAWAPA's architects as a key link in their ultra-ambitious scheme. The Kootenai is the next major river to the west of the Flathead, some 50 miles away over the Salish and Whitefish mountains—and also a source of US-Canada tension.

The Columbia River Treaty, negotiated to apportion waters to be affected by the Libby Dam in 1960, had already expired when the dam came online in 1975. Now, with environmentalists demanding sufficient water levels downstream to maintain threatened trout species, British Columbia has complained about insufficient water in the north end of the lake. BC Hydro has even threatened to divert the Kootenai River (spelled Kootenay in Canada) over the divide at Canal Flats into the Lake Columbia, the source of the Columbia River proper—which would leave Lake Koocanusa, the Kootenai and the Libby Dam dry.

Since the signing of NAFTA, Canadian energy exports to the US cannot fall below 1993 levels. Does that include water? Legal scholars argue that once any Canadian water is exported south, it would become a commodity subject to the provisions of the trade agreement. NAFTA guarantees equal access to natural resources on either side of the US-Canadian line. So once the faucet is turned on, it may be impossible to turn it off: it could be a treaty violation and cause for war.

Once infrastructure—and therefore subsistence and survival in a highly organized society—is dependent on imported water, Canadian water resources become a US national security issue. Whether it is oil, electricity or water, any future Canadian effort to re-assert sovereign control over resources could be challenged by Washington as NAFTA-illegal—and, ultimately, a casus belli.

Real Wars

The Canadian press has already reported secret Pentagon contingency plans to use upstate New York's Ft. Drum as a springboard for a US invasion of Quebec. Details were also revealed in the Washington Post of Dec. 30, 2005, in an article amusingly entitled "Raiding the Icebox." It revealed a 94-page document called "Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan—Red," with the word SECRET stamped on the cover. The document calls for a Naval force to capture the port of Halifax, blockade Vancouver and secure the Great Lakes, while a land invasion starts by seizing the Canadian power plants near Niagara Falls. Army columns are then to advance on three fronts—marching up the shores of Lake Champlain to take Montreal, and across the Great Plains to take the railroad center at Winnipeg and the strategic nickel mines of Ontario.

War Plan Red was actually designed for a war with Great Britain. In the 1920s, US military strategists developed plans for a war with Japan (code name Orange), Germany (Black), Mexico (Green) and England (Red). Military theorists imagined a conflict between the US (Blue) and UK over international trade: "The war aim of RED in a war with BLUE is conceived to be the definite elimination of BLUE as an important economic and commercial rival."

Since then, the plan has been repeatedly updated to changing political circumstances—most recently to a War on Terrorism context.

A 2002 study by a Toronto think-tank, the C.D. Howe Institute, warned that the US could use the military to seal the Canadian border if officials fear national security is threatened by loose Canadian immigration policy and policing. Said military historian J.L. Granatstein, author of the report: "Although terrorism poses a real threat, it is not the most serious crisis. The danger lies in wearing blinkers about the United States when it is in a vengeful, anxious mood... The United States is deadly serious about homeland defense. The Americans will act, alone if necessary."

The US has already deployed specially-trained customs agents to detect explosives and unconventional weapons at Canada's three busiest ports: Halifax, Montreal, and Vancouver—an unprecedented undertaking that media accounts openly said "would have been unthinkable prior to Sept. 11." US troops have been assigned to northern border posts, and military helicopters patrol what was once hailed as the world's longest undefended border.

Canadian intelligence services warn that at least 50 international terrorist groups—from al-Qaeda to Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers—operate in Canadian cities, and officials on both sides of the border now warn Canada is unprepared. "Montreal has a large multiethnic population into which it is easy for North Africans and other Muslims to disappear, but the real attraction is its location right on the Great Satan's doorstep," said David Harris, former chief of strategic planning for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and now chief of consulting firm Insignis Strategic Research. "Until Canada deals with an out-of-control immigration and refugee situation, the situation will deteriorate. We are heavily penetrated...forcing [the US] to take ever more defensive measures at the northern border."

But as in Afghanistan and Iraq—where the facade of opposing "terrorism" and "weapons of mass destruction" has crumbled to reveal a naked grab for strategic oil reserves—designs on Canada’s vast natural resources may be the real imperative that underlies the tensions, militarization and war plans.

U.S. Military World’s Leading Gas Guzzler

jessie — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:11:08 -0700

U.S. Military World’s Leading Gas Guzzler

Graham Saul, June 18th, 2007 -- The U.S. Department of Defense is the world’s leading consumer of petroleum, sucking up about 340,000 barrels of oil every day, more than the total national consumption of Sweden or Switzerland.

Michael Klare, in an article for TomDispatch.com, looks at the results of a recent study conducted for the Department of Defense which concludes that U.S. global military strategy is “unsustainable” from an energy perspective due to rising energy prices and looming oil peak.

Will the Pentagon go green, and maintain its expansion and preemptive policies by relying on a more “sustainable” energy base?

Or, as Klare suggests is more likely, will the American military continue to transform itself into a “global oil-protection service”.

Klare writes: “To ensure itself a “reliable” source of oil in perpetuity, the Pentagon will increase its efforts to maintain control over foreign sources of supply, notably oil fields and refineries in the Persian Gulf region, especially in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. This would help explain the recent talk of U.S. plans to retain “enduring” bases in Iraq, along with its already impressive and elaborate basing infrastructure in these other countries.”