Testing Weapons and Friends

By Kenneth W. Banta

Cruise missiles meet unexpected turbulence north of the border

U.S. officials are all too familiar with the deep divisions that NATO'S plan to install new nuclear missiles in Western Europe has caused on the other side of the Atlantic. Few Americans, however, expected the controversy to excite passions in a NATO country that is thousands of miles from the planned deployment sites. But, as Vice President George Bush learned during a 14-hour visit to Ottawa last week, the decision to deploy missiles in Europe has become a highly emotional issue in Canada, too. Although Bush had come prepared to talk about bilateral problems ranging from trade to tourism, the nuclear debate overshadowed all other matters. Demonstrators spattered the Vice President's limousine with eggs as he headed for an appointment with Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Standing in the 5DEG F cold, they chanted and waved placards that read REFUSE THE CRUISE.

In his 90-minute meeting with Bush, Trudeau addressed the issue that concerns Canadians most: whether the U.S. will test the low-flying, turbofan-powered cruise missile in northeastern Alberta. The Prime Minister repeated his personal view that the U.S. should be allowed to conduct the tests on Canadian soil, but he told the Vice President bluntly that the full Cabinet had not yet given its consent to the project. Eager to defuse any tension, Bush later declared that President Reagan has "a driving, motivated desire" to achieve strategic arms reductions with the Soviets. He also acknowledged that Canada's agreement with the U.S. did not specifically obligate Canada to aid in the cruise tests. But the U.S., said Bush, "made no secret of our hope" that the Canadians would eventually give their permission.

The problem began last April, when U.S. officials asked the Canadians for permission to test unarmed cruise missiles at the Primrose Lake test range in northeastern Alberta. The Pentagon argued that the region's vast stretches of snow-covered wasteland made it similar to Siberia and thus a suitable proving ground for the missile's sophisticated terrain-reading equipment. Trudeau tentatively agreed to the proposal. But the news was leaked to a Canadian reporter in Washington, and it ended up on the front page of newspapers across Canada. In the uproar that followed, Trudeau hastily denied any binding commitment to the cruise decision.

Many Canadians oppose the missile idea. A January Gallup poll showed 52% against cruise testing, and only 37% in favor. In Ottawa, 15,000 demonstrators marched at an anticruise rally in October. Operation Dismantle, one of Canada's largest antinuclear groups, claims to have tripled its membership, to 2,000, in the past year. The 2 million-member Canadian Labor Congress pledged last week to support the anticruise movement, while last December leaders of five major national churches met with Trudeau to express their "deep concern" over the idea of bringing the missiles to Canada. Some of the protests have been violent. A group called Direct Action claimed responsibility for a bomb that exploded last fall outside a plant near Toronto that manufactured the guidance system for the cruise, injuring seven employees and causing $5 million in damages.

The critics' primary goal is to keep the cruise out of Canada. George Ignatieff, a former Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations, argues that the testing of cruise missiles will make Canada "more susceptible to an attack from the Soviets." Edward Broadbent, leader of the socialist New Democratic Party, says that on moral grounds alone, Canada "should not be party to tests aimed at improving the technological capacity for nuclear war." Lately, however, the antinuclear opposition has begun to extend its horizons beyond Canada. Jim Stark, president of Operation Dismantle, has been organizing opposition to the deployment of cruises in Western Europe because, he says, their size and portability make verification of nuclear arsenals impossible and "lock us into a permanent, totally uncontrollable arms race." Resistance was further stiffened last month when the U.S. and Canada quietly signed a five-year "umbrella" agreement to allow testing of American weapons on Canadian soil. Despite government denials, many Canadians believe it amounts to approval of the cruise tests.

Canada's growing cruise-missile debate has become a political liability for Trudeau, who has often been a leading figure at international discussions on disarmament. At a special U.N. session last June, he repeated his call for "nuclear suffocation," meaning further limits on nuclear testing and cuts in spending on new strategic weapons. But as a faithful NATO partner, the Prime Minister has endorsed the December 1979 decision to deploy 464 cruise and 108 Pershing II missiles in five West European countries beginning late this year. Recently, he has been advocating a firm NATO stance to "show the Soviet Union we can match them gun for gun, if necessary."

In Parliament, Trudeau faces opposition not only from the small but vocal 33-member New Democratic Party but from some members of his own Liberal Party. A recent survey found that of 146 Liberal M.P.s, six opposed the cruise tests and another 115 refused to state their position. The opposition Progressive Conservatives support the tests. Whether Trudeau can get his ministers to go along with him may depend on what is decided in Washington. Trudeau has indicated that he can win the Cabinet's approval if the U.S. shows its willingness to negotiate in Geneva by adopting a less rigid position than the current "zero-zero" option. Under that proposal, NATO would forgo deployment only if the Soviets dismantle all 613 of their intermediate-range missiles, most of which are aimed at Western Europe.

At a dinner in Bush's honor last week, Trudeau declared that Canada would be "a pretty poor partner of the alliance" if it did not agree to a U.S. cruise-missile test request. For his part, Bush refused to speculate on the consequences of a Canadian refusal. Said the Vice President: "I learned long ago not to go into what would happen if a frog had wings." The friendly exchanges did nothing to mask the warning contained in the continuing Canadian debate. When it comes to nuclear weapons, the U.S. cannot take allied unity for granted, even on its own side of the Atlantic. -- By Kenneth W. Banta. Reported by John Ferguson/Ottawa

With reporting by John Ferguson/Ottawa This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.