As we predicted in this column a month ago on Jan. 26, following the come-from-behind victory of Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party in the Canadian general election, the new government has moved quietly but quickly to boost its strategic ties with the United States in general and with the Bush administration in particular. And O'Connor made clear Thursday that this would include talking about possible future cooperation in ballistic missile defense.

O'Connor, a former brigadier-general in the Canadian armed forces, did not even say it in an formal speech or statement to the Canadian Parliament, or in any formal speech at all. He was replying to reporters' questions after delivering a speech to a military conference in Ottawa, the Canadian capital.

O'Connor certainly did not commit his new government to the expensive and visionary BMD programs of the Bush administration. But he signaled a cautious but very clear willingness to test the waters and explore the possibility of launching such a partnership.

First, the U.S. government would have to request the opening of formal negotiations with Canada, O'Connor said. And then, the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa would have to formally approve any agreement that was eventually reached.

That, of course, would be the real obstacle. Harper made clear during his confrontational election clashes with defeated Prime Minister and Liberal Party leader Paul Martin that he favored participating in BMD with Washington. Martin held to the traditional Liberal and previous consensual position among the major Canadian political parties that Canada should stay out of BMD and anything else that would add to the weaponization or militarization of space.

O'Connor on Thursday signaled that he personally shared Harper's enthusiasm for BMD. "In principle I don't have difficulty personally with ballistic missile defense," he told the group of reporters.

The problem will certainly not be in launching any non-binding dialogue with Washington. President George W. Bush, who already holds Harper in very high personal regard, is likely to respond to any request to start one with open arms.

The real political battle will be on the floor of the House of Commons, the main chamber of the Canadian Parliament. For Harper's Conservatives do not have an absolute majority there, only a plurality. And they are the only one of Canada's five major political parties anywhere to the right of the political spectrum in U.S. terms, and in favor of missile defense. As a result, there has been a general tendency to assume that Harper will be unable to have a significant impact on long-term Canadian policies and that he will, in particular, be unable to or even unwilling to fulfill his pledge to make Canada a partner in ballistic missile defense with the United States.

However, as we noted in BMD Watch a month ago, "Conventional Wisdom as usual is wrong. Harper's victory is likely to have very rapid significant consequences for the development of hemispheric ballistic missile defense, with a far greater longer-term strategic potential for Canadian-U.S. relations."

Harper will not need a binding approval vote in Parliament to open non-binding talks with Washington on BMD. But once that first decision is taken, his government is likely to try and shift the terms of debate in the Canadian media by seeking to popularize the very striking successes the U.S. Missile Defense Agency has had with its programs over the past year and the practical ways in which these could contribute to Canadian security.

Harper is already convinced that BMD is relatively popular with the Canadian public and that it helped to get him elected, ending a nearly two decade period in the political wilderness for his Conservative Party. His decision to break the longstanding political consensus in Canada to steer clear of BMD in the election campaign was a bold and high risk one, and he would almost certainly have been booted out of the party's leadership had it failed, but it didn't.

Now, the Conservatives' isolation on BMD from the other major Canadian parties, the Liberals, the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Quebecois, and the Greens, may play into Harper's hands and serve his longer term political calculations.

For Harper knows that no modern Canadian government has survived for many years in the kind of semi-minority status his now has. Historically, such periods of coalition or minority government rule have been transitional periods until either the Liberals or the Conservatives manages to persuade the Canadian public mainstream that they should be trusted with the country's future, and one that happens, periods of political dominance tend to last for at least a decade at a time, if not even longer.

Further, as we noted a month ago Harper admires President Bush personally and has made clear that in may respects he wants to emulate the U.S. leader's political style. He has closely studied how effectively Bush pursued the strategy after he was first elected on only a plurality vote in November 2000 of governing boldly and confidently, sitting high in the saddle and acting as if he had broad popular majority support for his policies. That paid off when the president was reelected to a second term four years later with more votes than any other president ever received in American political history.

A month ago, we predicted in this column, "Taking a bold stand on BMD cooperation with the United States in the cause of protecting the Canadian people offers the same kind of payoff for Harper." O'Connor's statement Thursday suggests the new Canadian prime minister is indeed prepared to implement this strategy.

Related Links
-