Revolutionary Moderation

Close, but not quite



I think Linda McQuaig missed it here, in her critique of the American missile defense plan and Canadian participation in it. I don't happen to think the Americans really want to nuke other nations with impunity, without fear of retaliation. Rather, I think what is going on is that the American government, again, is forgetting that their security is best protected not by better weapons of greater variety, but rather by an international community that respects the rule of law. When the Americans toss aside international agreements for what seems like their own benefit, they are going to suffer.



The Americans as good as tore up an agreement in 2001 that would have strengthened the biological weapons inspection process. Are Americans safer for this? Did the US really need to hide away its biological weapons programme so badly that it was unwilling to take the steps necessary to check on North Korea's?



This is the same strategical error. On the surface, and from the American perspective, it looks like upholding the conditions of the ABM treaty makes the world more dangerous... the American government couldn't build a missile defense system to protect themselves. In fact, the opposite is true... the world is more dangerous, the United States is more dangerous, because of the hubris engendered by (over)confidence in such a system, and because of the world's increased alienation from a country turning into Charles Bronson on the world stage.



Canada would be no friend to the United States if we enable such dangerous behavior. Time for an intervention.