Do we know where we're going? (Defence).

An American invasion of Canada would be over pretty quickly. A few brave souls might try to beat them back with hockey sticks and maple syrup buckets, but resistance would be futile.

The U.S. military is so much bigger than Canada's that no meaningful comparison can be made. So, Canada's only sensible defence strategy is to be friends with the U.S. There's a problem with that strategy though; it means giving up some of Canada's independence in yet another area.

One of the proudest accomplishments of the Canadian nation and one for which it is admired almost everywhere in the world is peacekeeping. Canada invented the concept through the United Nations and has been a major contributor to almost every peacekeeping mission in history.

That changed after 9/11.

In our haste to please our American friends who had suffered so grievously in the terrorist attacks we rushed to take up arms against their enemies. Was that the wisest choice, given our peace-keeping history? Former Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy thinks not. In a speech in 2002, Mr. Axworthy said he would rather have seen Canadian action in Afghanistan take a different course.

"What I regret is the opportunity lost to burnish our standing as peacemakers working under UN mandate to help in the restoration of peace, order, and good government for the people of Afghanistan.

"I was in the region in November [2001 ], visiting the camps, talking to Afghan volunteers, trying to arouse support for the humanitarian tragedy that was taking place. There was a heartfelt cry for help, not for more combat soldiers but for builders and peacekeepers.

"There was a chance for Canada to have taken a lead in helping to define the nature and role of an international presence, to use our scarce resources not as [aid to the] U.S. military capacity, of which there is more than enough, but to be there as a major player in the post-war reconstruction in a country, which today is verging on anarchy.

"An opportunity lost to exercise a vocation long cherished by Canadians to be peacemakers, but one that we seem increasingly reluctant to fulfill.

"At a recent meeting I attended a veteran Canadian public servant, now serving in an international office, lamented that we no longer are seen as being engaged with the UN on vital issues of nation-building--our ranking as a peacekeeper is now number twenty four."

When it comes to defence of the North American continent, Canada again seems to be turning its back on its traditions. The United States is pushing for a security wall to be erected around the continent, an integral part of which is the proposed missile defence shield. This shield would lead to the militarization of space, something that Canada has opposed for many years, but now seems ready to accept.

Also, the whole idea of retreating into some sort of North American fortress as a defence against terrorism runs counter to Canada's foreign policy ideals. Canada has always stressed the importance of attacking the root causes of terrorism--poverty and inequality. Strong support for the United Nations and other multilateral organizations has been at the core of our attempts to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.

To join the United States behind the barricades as it circles the wagons would seem to be against Canada's humanitarian instincts.

Some are calling for the integration of Canada's forces under a unified North American command. One of these is historian Jack Granatstein. In a speech to the C.D. Howe Institute in July 2002, Mr. Granatstein said Canada has "no choice" but to support the Bush administration's military priorities. These include the weaponization of space, invading Iraq, and reserving the right to attack first. If Canada doesn't offer its support to the U.S. it risks economic retaliation, says Mr. Granatstein.

Canadian Michael Byers watches developments of this kind closely and he says informal talks have been going on quietly. Mr. Byers is Director of International and Comparative Law at Duke University in the United States. In the early spring of 2002, he completed a report on defence for Vancouver's Liu Institute for Global Issues. The U.S. has already set up a Unified Command Plan. Mr. Byers calls this a logical first step "to an expansion to include Canada and Canadian forces. As well, the joining of the new command with the U.S. command of NORAD, while perfectly sensible, draws Canada partially into the new structure, whether it likes it or not.

"The creation of this U.S.-led integrated command will reshape fundamental aspects of Canadian sovereignty and foreign policy."

By December 2002, Canada had gone a step further. An agreement was signed to establish a Canadian-U.S., joint-planning group. This group will co-ordinate the defence of North America and allows for American troops to operate in Canada, but only by invitation. Canadian troops could operate in the U.S. under the same conditions.

Defence Minister John McCallum says this is not a slippery slope toward a loss of sovereignty, because "we control the slope." Others are less sure, and note that each step taken moves Canada closer to integration.

Given the huge imbalance between our two military establishments there are no prizes for guessing which nation would be in charge of an integrated force. But, if it came to pass whose rules would apply?

Canada has signed many international agreements that the U.S. has not. The landmines treaty is an example. What does a Canadian soldier do if asked to handle land mines on Canadian soil, in contravention of our treaty undertakings? What if we capture someone considered a war criminal under the International Criminal Court. U.S. law would prevent them being turned over to the Court, but Canadian law would require it.

All this is not just a bunch of academics blowing smoke. Look at what happened in January 2002. Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan were placed under U.S. command. When our special-forces personnel captured some terrorist suspects they were ordered to hand them over to American authorities. The U.S. military refused to treat the captives as prisoners of war, in apparent violation of Canada's commitments under the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

It begins to looks as though every Canadian soldier going into battle should be accompanied by a lawyer.

Integration would also hamper Canadian efforts to have an independent foreign policy. Bloc Quebecois MP Michel Guimond questions whether a Canada with closer ties to the U.S. could pursue its goal of complete nuclear disarmament. Another Bloc MP, Stephane Bergeron, wonders if Canada would be pushed into far higher defence spending. The answer is probably. Canadian weapons would have to be interchangeable with U.S. arms. That would mean a considerable and very expensive upgrade for Canada. Just matching U.S. levels of arms spending, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, would add $16 billion a year to Canada's defence budget.

Such an added expense would mean cuts to foreign aid and fewer resources available for peacekeeping.

Each step along the path to integration and harmonization may make perfectly good sense. But, the effect of adding those steps together may take us to a place we don't really want to be.

To borrow an old Chinese saying: "If you don't change direction, you wind up where you're going."

United States defence budget for 2003: $486 billion Cnd.

Canadian defence budget for 2003: $11.8 billion Cnd.

"Colonel Francis Wiercinski, commander of U. S. forces in southern Afghanistan, said yesterday that he intends to use the 750 Canadian troops assigned to his base as if they are Americans." Globe and Mail report, 18 January 2002

The man most likely to become prime minister when Jean Chretien retires in 2004 is Paul Martin. He has said he favours the establishment of a North American security perimeter.

"Maximum spectrum dominance" is a buzz-phrase currently popular in Washington to describe U.S. foreign policy objectives.

Under the Ogdensburg Agreement of 1940, the U.S. assumed responsibility for the military protection of Canada that a weakened Britain could no longer supply.

Department of National Defence http://www.dnd.ca

Liu Institute for Global Issues http://www.ligi.ubc.ca/cir.htm

Office of Homeland Security--http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/

Public Policy Forum http://www.ppforum.com/

Unified Command Plan--http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/unifiedcommand/

RELATED ARTICLE: Terrorist haven?

Since the terrorist attacks of September 2001, Americans have spoken often about Canada as though it is some sort of back door that terrorists use to get in to the U.S. There's no evidence that this is so, but it seems to be the perception at the highest level of American authorities. They forget that at any given time there are an estimated six million illegal aliens living in the United States. None of the 19 hijackers involved in the September 11 atrocities had entered the United States from Canada.

Since the dreadful events of that day, Canada has been bending over backwards to reassure Washington that its security is tight. That hasn't been enough to calm the fears.

In December 2002, there was a major panic. Half a dozen terrorist suspects were supposed to have slipped across Canada's border into the United States. U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton went ballistic. Here was the evidence that Canada was a sanctuary for bad guys; nests of the most evil people imaginable were lurking in the great northern Dominion ready to whiz across the border and slit the throats of innocent Americans in their beds at night.

Oops Ms. Clinton. It turns out the whole thing was a hoax. That didn't seem to concern Senator Clinton. She still referred to "real deficiencies in security along our northern border." It seems many Americans are so convinced that Canada is harbouring vicious assassins that they don't want to let facts get in the way of a widely believed myth.

Canada's Immigration Minister Denis Coderre asked Ms. Clinton for an apology for tarnishing Canada's image; he didn't get one. As Mr. Coderre said: "The issue is this: We need to be sure we are dealing with facts and not spinning our wheels chasing down misperceptions. The time has come to stop fuelling myths."

But, the U.S. still doesn't trust us. Its leaders keep pressing for a common security perimeter around the whole continent. In other words, Canada has to harmonize its border controls with those of the United States. Writing in The Toronto Star, Richard Gwyn calls this a surrender of national sovereignty on Canada's part. "At least where potential terrorists are concerned, Washington now has an effective veto over whom we allow into our own country."

RELATED ARTICLE: Our little Arctic problem.

The United States does not accept Canadian sovereignty over the Arctic. If we get close to the Americans in a North American Homeland Command defending our claims to the Arctic will become harder.

In April , the U.S. established a Unified Command Plan. Take a peak at its website and there doesn't appear to be a border between Canada and the United States on its map. Does that mean the U.S. will feel free to send warships into Arctic waters without asking Ottawa's permission?