US embassy cable - 04OTTAWA3048

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 04 OTTAWA 003048 
 
SIPDIS 
 
NOFORN 
 
STATE FOR WHA/CAN AND P(HUNT) 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/22/2014 
TAGS: PREL, MARR, MCAP, PTER, PINR, CA, NATO, Barbara Martin, Missile Defense, Canadian Military 
SUBJECT: 214TH MEETING OF THE PERMANENT JOINT BOARD ON 
DEFENSE, OCTOBER 20-21, 2004 
 
Classified By: Political Minister Counselor Brian Flora.  Reason 1.4 (b 
) and (d). 
 
1. (SBU) SUMMARY:  At its October 21-22 meeting in Ottawa, 
the U.S.-Canada Permanent Joint Board on Defense (PJBD) 
 
-- recommended expeditious negotiation of an agreement to 
replace the current NORAD agreement expiring May 2006, with a 
further recommendation that the new Agreement have no 
termination date; 
 
-- recommended that the functions of the Bi-National Planning 
Group (BPG) be made permanent under a bi-national entity and 
that the U.S. and Canada explore the future placement of 
those functions during the NORAD renewal negotiations; 
 
-- recognized the need for enhanced bi-national maritime 
defense cooperation and recommended defining avenues to 
achieve that goal.  Both governments were invited to provide 
a progress report at the next PJBD meeting; 
 
-- recommended that the long-term requirements of the North 
Warning System be actively considered, inviting the North 
Warning System Office and the Air Defense Responsibility 
Sharing Working Group to update on developed options at the 
next PJBD meeting; 
 
-- supported the efforts of the Canadian Government "to 
identify specific problems arising from insufficient 
information sharing" and encouraged both governments to 
"consider ways to improve information sharing"; 
 
-- agreed to expand its membership to include U.S. Northern 
Command and the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff on a permanent 
basis. 
 
2. (SBU) Representatives from the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) and Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness 
Canada (PSEPC) participated in meetings for the first time as 
observers and briefed the Board on the structure and mandates 
of their respective agencies.  Canada's new co-Chairman, M.P. 
Judi Longfield, officiated for the first time.  She voiced 
great appreciation for U.S. co-Chairman Jack David's service 
and regret that this was his last meeting. 
 
CO-CHAIRMEN'S REMARKS 
 
3. (C) Hon. Judi Longfield, in her debut as Canada's 
co-Chairman and host of the meeting, spoke of the 
"indivisible cooperation and security" between the U.S. and 
Canada that she witnessed at first hand on her introductory 
visit to NORAD in September.  She welcomed the August 5 
signing of the Amendment to sanction NORAD's air warning 
functions (ITW/AA) in support of missile defense as 
reinforcing NORAD's vital role in defense of the continent. 
Mrs. Longfield provided assurances that formal approval of 
the BPG extension would be forthcoming very soon.  She cited 
other benchmarks relevant to shared defense, including 
Canada's April 2004 rollout of a comprehensive national 
security policy and the Canadian government's commitment, 
over several years, of C$8 billion in support of security 
objectives.  Similarly, she highlighted the presence of DHS 
and PSEPC representatives at the PJBD as a noteworthy 
development. Longfield added that the new government's pledge 
to increase Canadian armed forces by 5,000 active duty and 
3,000 reserves, and C$7 billion to modernize the military, 
was another manifestation of Canada's commitment to 
continental defense and security and the desire to be more 
effective overseas.  She alluded to the government's ongoing 
defense and policy review which may identify other areas for 
improvement. 
 
4. (C) U.S. co-Chairman Jack David welcomed first-time U.S. 
participants to the PJBD.  He commended the successful 
conclusion of ISAF V under the leadership of Lieutenant 
General Hillier and the Canadian contributions to 
stabilization efforts in Haiti.  Alluding to the excellent 
work of the Bi-National Planning Group (BPG), Mr. David said 
the U.S. and Canada have a historic opportunity to transform 
NORAD.  With reference to the "long-overdue review" of 
Canada's defense capabilities, the U.S. co-Chairman hoped 
that the review would provide Canada with resources to 
"project power to the farthest reaches of the globe."  On the 
topic of missile defense, he said the U.S. is open to 
Canadian participation, but recognizes it is a decision for 
Canada alone to make and is "not pushing" on this; the U.S. 
would press ahead to meet necessary deadlines regardless of 
Canadian participation.  At the same time, he concluded, the 
missile defense concept "makes sense for Canada and 
continental defense." 
 
MISSILE DEFENSE 
 
5. (C) Barbara Martin, Acting Foreign Affairs Canada (FAC) 
Director General for International Security, expressed 
appreciation for the U.S. co-Chairman's comments on missile 
defense.  Acknowledging that political momentum for a 
Canadian decision on the U.S. missile defense program had 
slowed considerably due to domestic political developments, 
Martin thought that a parliamentary debate (the third this 
year) and non-binding vote later this Fall nonetheless would 
likely produce a favorable outcome.  At the same time, Martin 
concluded, the political environment for the minority 
government at this time was "complex and difficult." 
 
6. (C) Martin cited the January 2004 letter of intent to 
explore missile defense cooperation with the USG and the 
August 2004 NORAD Agreement amendment as two important 
milestones for Canada.  She asserted the current government's 
rejection of Canadian opponents to MD that the program is 
merely "Star Wars" under another name, that the ABM Treaty 
prohibits establishment of national defense systems, or that 
a missile defense system will stimulate an arms race.  Though 
the Canadian government continued to oppose the 
"weaponization of space" as a core belief, Martin concluded, 
Canadians also supported collaboration with the U.S. in the 
defense of North America. 
 
NORAD'S ROLE IN MISSILE DEFENSE 
 
7. (C) Lt. Col. Doug McCarty presented a briefing on NORAD's 
role in missile defense which reviewed the operational impact 
of the January 2004 Letters of Intent and the NORAD Agreement 
amendment.  Though the amendment did not explicitly enable 
Canadian operational training (for ITW/AA) alongside the 
U.S., a separate OSD policy memo subsequently paved the way. 
Lt. Col. McCarty noted that integration worked well up to the 
point of a "defendable missile event."  In such a situation, 
a Canadian Command Director (CD) at NORAD,s Combined Command 
Center must defer to the senior U.S. officer on duty, who 
would then relay assessments to USNORTHCOM.  A U.S. 
NORAD-assigned CD can recommend action to USNORTHCOM.  State 
Department Representative Terry Breese reminded that missile 
defense execution for North America is assigned to USNORTHCOM 
by POTUS but questioned the interpretation given the NORAD 
Agreement amendment with respect to a CD's advising 
USNORTHCOM.  He undertook to review the issue in Washington. 
 
ENHANCED NORTH AMERICAN SECURITY AND NORAD RENEWAL 
 
8. (C) Presentations by Lt. Col. Creig Rice, from the Joint 
Staff, Col. Mike Hache of the Department of National Defense 
(DND) and NORAD Plans Director, Major General William 
Hodgkins, USAF, set the stage for discussion of enhanced 
North American security and NORAD renewal.  From the Canadian 
perspective, issues to discuss in the renewal process 
included information sharing, maritime surveillance and 
control, land surveillance and control, defense support for 
civil authorities, military assistance to civil authorities, 
and information operations. 
 
9. (C) Col. Hache and Major General Hodgkins noted the 
importance of establishing and sticking to milestones in the 
NORAD renewal process.  Assuming extension of the Bi-national 
Planning Group mandate to May 2006, the expiration date of 
the current NORAD Agreement, milestones would include: 
 
-- government mandates to negotiate by December 2004 
-- bilateral negotiations January-July 2005 
-- U.S. and Canadian internal government reviews in Fall 2005 
-- final NORAD Agreement ready by December 2005. 
 
ENHANCED MARITIME SECURITY COOPERATION 
 
10. (C) In the lively discussion of options for enhanced 
maritime security cooperation, Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) representative Mr. Matthew Broderick argued 
that much work would be needed for Washington to agree, by 
Fall 2005, to give to NORAD responsibility for maritime 
defense threat warning and control, similar to its role in 
aerospace defense.  While NORAD had demonstrated an 
unprecedented level of U.S. collaboration with a foreign 
government, he said, it remained unclear that this type of 
fusion necessarily was "desirable" in the maritime domain. 
Moreover, in his view an incoming vessel that posed a threat 
was more "homeland security" than "defense."  Colonel Hache 
and others noted that there clearly was need to better 
monitor the maritime domain because the vulnerability existed 
and some form of bi-national cooperation was needed to 
address the vulnerability. 
 
BI-NATIONAL PLANNING GROUP 
 
11. (C) In her introductory remarks on the Bi-National 
Planning Group briefing, Ms. Longfield regretted the delay in 
Canada's formal agreement to the BPG extension.  The document 
was "in the works," she said, awaiting the signatures of the 
Foreign Affairs and Defense Ministers.  USAF Col. Lauri Cross 
and CF Col. David Fraser provided an update on 
accomplishments within the Enhanced Military Cooperation 
Agreement mandate of the BPG.  These included establishment 
of the Bi-National Document Library; improved conference 
procedures; updated basic security document (and interim 
adoption pending completion of Canadian Defense Policy 
Review); progress on the blueprint for bi-national mil-to-mil 
support to civil authorities; ongoing work to update and 
further develop the existing plan for the combined defense of 
the CANUS region, such that it accounts for the current and 
future security environments and allows for synchronization 
across multiple domains; a range of activities in support of 
the mandate; and the BPG Interim Report, which captures ideas 
for enhanced military cooperation and identifies 42 
additional areas for study. 
 
12. (S) Col. Fraser added that the BPG was "mapping" U.S. and 
Canadian organizations to find gaps in the flow and 
coordination of information between/among them.  In the 
ensuing discussion, Maj. Gen. Hodgkins noted that 
"releasability" was the biggest impediment to the flow of 
information, and that bureaucratic inertia must be overcome. 
OSD Representative Jim Townsend observed that not all 
classified information qualified as "intelligence."  He noted 
that whereas the BPG had done its job in identifying gaps in 
the information sharing process, it was up to each of the 
different "communities" to implement the remedy.  The BPG 
position was that each of the different communities needed 
incentives or directives to help them find remedies for 
sharing, not just within their communities but across 
agencies and the border, from senior leadership to action 
officers. 
 
13. (C) Mr. Victor Tise, of the BPG, guided Board members 
through a table top exercise designed to increase awareness 
of CANUS bi-national challenges and issues that can be 
expected while confronting asymmetric threats.  His notional 
scenario centered on two events in the Puget Sound area:  the 
sinking of a ferry with 2,500 passengers on board by an 
explosive-laden fast boat, and the attack on a nuclear 
submarine at Bangor Submarine Base by two seaplanes.  Within 
this context, the Board discussed the likely response, both 
by civilian and military authorities; measures for ensuring 
that necessary intelligence/information sharing was available 
for Dod and DND elements to act; and a responsive public 
affairs strategy to calm fears and ensure that Canadian and 
American national authorities send the same or complementary 
messages to the public related to these acts of terrorism. 
 
 
CANUS THREAT ASSESSMENT 
 
14. (C) Yves Levesque, DND Directorate of Strategic 
Intelligence, briefed on the cruise missile threat to North 
America, arguing that cruise missiles today pose the greatest 
missile threat to the continent.  He noted that there is 
little difference in the technology for a 1000-KM cruise 
missile and that of a short-range missile; and while there 
are more than 200 documented types of UAV in some 85 
countries, only 22 of those countries are members of the 
Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).  Moreover, most of 
the MTCR controls are geared to ballistic missile 
proliferation.  Though the MTCR covers the guidance systems 
used for cruise missiles, monitoring and control of the 
latter poses a serious challenge due to ready availability of 
components.  Levesque said that the future asymmetric threat 
to the continent lay in the use of unconventional platforms 
for missile launches, proliferation behavior by state and 
non-state actors, and dual use technologies. 
 
Visit Canada's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/ottawa 
 
CELLUCCI