On prosecuting genocide, will Canada fail the Uyghurs as it has failed the Rohingya since 2017?

By Fareed Khan 

On February 22nd Canadian Members of Parliament voted 266 to zero in favour of a motion to designate the crimes being committed by the Chinese government against its Uyghur Muslim minority as genocide.  Unfortunately, 72 MPs (mostly Liberal), including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his entire cabinet, chose to abstain from voting on the motion.

On March 8th the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington D.C. and the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights issued a comprehensive report which examined the Uyghur genocide and China’s breaches of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.  The report supports a finding that China is committing genocide against the Uyghurs in breach of each and every action which defines genocide under the Convention.

The report was authored by 24 prominent and respected human rights and genocide scholars.  Included among them were former Canadian cabinet ministers Lloyd Axworthy and Irwin Cotler, former Canadian ambassadors to the United Nations Yves Fortier and Alan Rock.

Despite the release of this report and its findings the prime minister and his cabinet have made no public statements about the Canadian government taking action on the Uyghur genocide motion in light of the damning evidence presented in the report about China’s multiple genocidal crimes.

Under the Genocide Convention any one of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group is classified as genocide:

(a)   Killing members of the group;

(b)   Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c)   Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical  destruction in whole or in part;

(d)   Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e)   Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The last time Parliament voted on a genocide motion was in September 2018 when both the House of Commons and the Senate decided in two unanimously supported motions that the atrocities committed by Myanmar against its Rohingya minority was genocide under the Genocide Convention.  The motions came a year after atrocities against the Rohingya were instigated by Myanmar, and the House of Commons motion was supported by the prime minister and his cabinet.

However, if the Trudeau government’s lack of subsequent action in response to those two motions is an indication of the government’s efforts at follow through, then Canada will very likely fail to live up to its international legal obligations in response to Parliament’s Uyghur genocide declaration.

Since the two 2018 motions MPs and Senators, along with Canadian human rights organizations, have called on the Canadian government to file a case against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on multiple occasions.  These calls for action were repeatedly ignored.

When the West African nation of Gambia filed a genocide case against Myanmar at the ICJ in November 2019, there were calls by Parliamentarians and human rights activists for Canada to join the case.  But those calls were also ignored by the Trudeau government.

Overwhelming evidence in the form of media reports, satellite photos, and eyewitness testimonies has shown that China is committing genocide against the Uyghurs.  This evidence justifies Parliament’s declaration, and it puts to shame the decision by the prime minister’s and cabinet to abstain.

Some of the crimes that China is alleged to have committed include:

●       imprisoning more than a million Uyghurs in concentration camps;

●       abducting Uyghur children from their parents and putting them in state run indoctrination camps to strip them of their faith, language and culture;

●       forcibly sterilizing Uyghur women, and forced abortions of pregnant Uyghur women;

●       the systematic rape of Uyghur women by concentration camp personnel;

●       the use of Uyghur slave labour to produce goods for export;

●       summary executions of Uyghur prisoners in order to harvest their organs;

●       the destruction of thousands of mosques, including some dating back many centuries; and

●       the bulldozing of hundreds of Muslim cemeteries.

On January 27th – International Holocaust Remembrance Day – Justin Trudeau put out a statement about preventing the sorts of crimes that resulted in the death of 17 million people in Nazi concentration camps.  He intoned the mantra "never again" as he has done every year on that date since becoming Prime Minister.

However, "never again" is a meaningless slogan when uttered by the prime minister if he and his government fail to recognize the Uyghur genocide, and fail to take action to prevent further genocidal crimes.  The decision to abstain on the vote by Trudeau and his ministers insults the memory of Nazi genocide victims, and repeats Canada’s failure to act on Canada’s last genocide motion relating to Rohingya Muslims.

If the Trudeau government is not willing to recognize the worst crime imaginable under human law, when overwhelming evidence shows it is occurring, then Canadians need to question the government’s moral commitment to defending human rights, and Trudeau’s often repeated claims that his government is a defender of the international rule of law.

If there was ever a case where the term genocide needed to be applied and action taken to prevent further genocidal crimes, it is in the case of the Uyghurs.  One can only hope that Canadians see the need to take action and pressure the Trudeau government to act so that Canada doesn’t fail the Uyghurs as it has failed the Rohingya.

© 2021 The View From Here.  © 2021 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

DIVERSITY DIALOGUE / DIALOGUE DE LA DIVERSITÉ – Tom Woodley, President / Président, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East / Canadiens pour la justice et la paix au Moyen-Orient

By Fareed Khan 

Diversity Dialogue is a conversation series with prominent people who work in the area of human rights and anti-racism.  It is hosted by Fareed Khan.

For this edition we are speaking with with Tom Woodley, president of the Montreal based NGO Canadiansfor Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME).

Tom has a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from Carnegie-Mellon University and a master’s degree in the same field from the Stevens Institute of Technology in New Jersey.  He also has a Master’s in Public Administration from Indiana University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs.  Tom has considerable experience in the public sector having worked for the federal government for a number of years.  In addition, he has a long history working in the NGO and volunteer sector, having volunteered for several international NGO’s in Africa and the Middle East.  Tom has been involved with CJPME since its founding in 2004.

The topics covered in this conversation include: the Israeli occupation and oppression of Palestinians; Canada's approach to addressing justice for Palestinians; efforts by Israel's allies to pressure western governments to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, which includes defining as anti-Semitism any legitimate political criticism of the government of Israel and its treatment of Palestinians; racism and Islamophobia in Canada and Quebec; and Canadian society and culture in terms of racism, human rights, equality of citizenship, and the place of minority communities in the country.

*********** 

Dialogue de la Diversité est une série de conversations avec des personnalités qui travaillent dans le domaine des droits de la personne et de la lutte contre le racisme animée par Fareed Khan.

Pour cette édition, nous discutons avec Tom Woodley, président de l'ONG montréalaise Canadiens pour la justice et la paix au Moyen-Orient (CJPMO).

Tom est titulaire d'un baccalauréat en génie électrique de l'Université Carnegie-Mellon et d'une maîtrise dans le même domaine du Stevens Institute of Technology du New Jersey. Il est également titulaire d’une maîtrise en administration publique de l’École des affaires publiques et environnementales de l’Université de l’Indiana.  Tom possède une expérience considérable dans le secteur public, ayant travaillé pour le gouvernement fédéral pendant plusieurs années. En outre, il travaille depuis longtemps dans le secteur des ONG et du volontariat, ayant fait du bénévolat pour plusieurs ONG internationales en Afrique et au Moyen-Orient. Tom est impliqué dans CJPME depuis sa fondation en 2004.

Les sujets abordés dans cette conversation incluent: l'occupation et l'oppression Israéliennes des Palestiniens; l'approche du Canada en matière de justice pour les Palestiniens; les efforts des alliés d'Israël pour faire pression sur les gouvernements occidentaux pour qu'ils adoptent la définition de l'antisémitisme de International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), qui comprend la définition d'antisémitisme toute critique politique légitime du gouvernement d'Israël et de son traitement des Palestiniens; le racisme et l'islamophobie au Canada et au Québec; et la société et la culture canadiennes en termes de racisme, de droits de la personne, d'égalité de citoyenneté et de place des communautés minoritaires dans le pays. 

© 2021 The View From Here.  © 2021 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

Canadian political leaders paying lip service to fighting hate, as Canadian Muslims mark fourth anniversary of mosque shooting

By Fareed Khan 

Yesterday Canadian Muslims marked a sombre anniversary.  On January 29, 2017 a man radicalized to believe in the ideology of Islamophobia and white supremacy, fuelled by the toxic racism and bigotry coming from online sources, walked into the Islamic Cultural Centre in Quebec City and went on a shooting spree targeting Muslims who were worshipping.  By the time it was over six men were dead and 19 were injured, some critically.

During the subsequent weeks anti-Muslim demonstrations and Islamophobic acts occurred across the country.  On social media bigots and racists vented their hate towards Muslims, rejoicing in the trauma of the Canadian Muslim community.

Canadian politicians were quick to condemn the massacre, as they have done on other occasions when violent incidents of hate have occurred.  But if actions are any indication then they are paying lip service to fighting hate in any meaningful way, and Muslims and other racialized communities that are paying the price.

 Canadians gather in Montreal on January 30, 2017 to support the Muslim 

community as it mourns the victims of the Quebec City mosque shooting.

 

Since the shooting, politicians have demonstrated their lack of conviction when it comes to decisively tackling hate, racism and bigotry.  One of those occasions occurred following the Quebec City shooting when a Parliamentary debate on a motion to fight Islamophobia (M-103) elicited Islamophobic reactions from Conservative Party MPs, even though days earlier they had been standing with Canadian Muslims in vigils to remember the victims of the shooting.

Muslim organizations and anti-racism groups have repeatedly called on the federal government over the last four years to take an aggressive national leadership role in fighting Islamophobia and other forms of hate.  But the government’s actions have been inadequate.  When there has been occasional progress, like funding for anti-racism programs announced in the 2019 federal budget, the responsibility to lead a national anti-racism effort has been left to small community organizations without the experience or resources to take on the role.

In 2017, after winning the Conservative Party leadership, Andrew Scheer claimed that the Conservatives were a “big tent” party.  But he then proceeded to appoint as a senior advisor (and later as Conservative Party election campaign manager) the co-founder and former director of Rebel Media, a website with a well-documented history of promoting Islamophobia.

Scheer became the focus of criticism again in June 2019 when he failed to live up to his words that bigots and racists were not welcome in the Conservative Party.  On the day that Scheer was delivering a speech with an anti-racism message, Conservative MP Michael Cooper attacked the presentation of a Muslim witness at a Justice Committee hearing by quoting from the white supremacist manifesto of the New Zealand mosque shooter.  This was considered so racially insensitive and egregious by other committee members that his statement was stricken from the record.  For this act Cooper received nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

Federal leaders again demonstrated a lack of conviction to opposing racism during the 2019 federal election.  When they were asked if they would take action to oppose Quebec’s Bill 21 “secularism” law if they formed government – a law deemed to be racist and unconstitutional by lawyers and human rights experts – Justin Trudeau, Andrew Scheer and Jagmeet Singh said they would not act while the law was being challenged in Quebec courts, despite the fact that the process could take years and affect thousands of Quebecers before it reached the Supreme Court.

In the wake of the murder of George Floyd by a US police officer and the resulting anti-racism demonstrations that erupted across North America, some federal and provincial politicians denied the existence of systemic racism, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  In addition, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois recently was roundly condemned for committing an anti-Muslim and racist smear against MP Omar Alghabra (a Syrian-Canadian Muslim) following his appointment as Transport Minister.

In the province of Quebec, Premier Francois Legault says Islamophobia is not a problem in the province.  He made this comment in response to a request by provincial and national Muslim groups to declare January 29th a day of remembrance for the victims of the Quebec City shooting, and a day of action against Islamophobia.  According to Legault, since it isn’t a problem in Quebec there is no need to designate a special day to high light the issue.

The Quebec government’s attitude towards racism in general is also less than enlightened.  Quebec Immigration Minister Nadine Girault refused to attend a ministerial meeting on human rights because the issue of systemic racism was on the agenda, a problem which Legault has refused to acknowledge exists in Quebec.

In addition, recently Bloc Quebecois leader Yves-Francois Blanchet was roundly criticized by the prime minister and other federal party leaders for what’s been referred to as a drive by Islamophobic and racist smear targeting Canada’s newly appointed Transport Minister Omar Alghabra, who is a Muslim of Arab background.  Apparently Blanche took issue with the fact that Alghabra had been the president of the Canadian Arab Federation (a secular advocacy organization) before he became an MP.

There have been ample opportunities for federal and provincial leaders to shelve political platitudes about hate and racism in favour of meaningful and decisive actions in the years since the Quebec City mosque massacre.  Despite widespread media reporting and social media coverage of hate motivated incidents against Muslims, Black people, Indigenous Canadians, and others, politicians seem apathetic to the need for immediate and decisive action to tackle the rise of hate in Canada.  Moreover, when politicians make statements that deny the existence of Islamophobia, systemic racism or other forms of hate, or worse end up behaving in a way that is deemed to be racist or bigoted, they give fuel to hateful elements in society.

To quote 18th century statesman Edmund Burke, all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing.  Hate is growing in our society, and its perpetrators have been emboldened over the last several years.  Doing nothing fight this evil is not an option if Canadians want to erase hate bigotry and racism from our society and have the inclusive and accepting society we all desire. Therefore, it is up all political leaders to help make that a reality, and the time to do that is now.  For Canada’s racialized and minority communities words are cheap and they are no longer enough.  Action speaks louder! 

© 2021 The View From Here.  © 2021 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

 

DIVERSITY DIALOGUE – Interview with Valerie Peay, Founder and Director of the International Observatory of Human Rights

By Fareed Khan

Diversity Dialogue / Dialogue de la Diversité is a conversation series with prominent people who work in the area of human rights and anti-racism.  It is hosted by Fareed Khan.

For this edition we are speaking with Valerie Peay, Founder and Director of the International Observatory of Human Rights – a media NGO located in London in the United Kingdom, which focuses on human rights issues.

Valerie attended the University of Glasgow where she graduated with an MA in English, Film and Television.

***********

Diversity Dialogue / Dialogue de la Diversité est une série de conversations avec des personnalités qui travaillent dans le domaine des droits de la personne et de la lutte contre le racisme animée par Fareed Khan. 

Pour cette édition, nous nous entretenons avec Valerie Peay, fondatrice et directrice de International Observatory of Human Rights – une ONG médiatique située à Londres au Royaume-Uni, qui se concentre sur les questions des droits de l'homme. 

Valerie a fréquenté l'Université de Glasgow où elle a obtenu une maîtrise en anglais, cinéma et télévision.

 https://youtu.be/Y4elV_DFKPk

© 2020 The View From Here.  © 2020 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

Sweden can teach Canada how to build a fighter jet for its own air defence needs

By Fareed Khan

The process to replace Canada's aging CF-18 Hornet jet fighters is now well into its second decade.  The aircraft, which first entered into service in 1982, are currently programmed to be phased out by the mid-2020s when the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) is supposed to take delivery of replacement aircraft from one of the aircraft manufacturers currently competing for the lucrative contract with the Canadian government. 

 

CF-18 Hornet

 

CF-105 Avro Arrow

Since it began, the debate surrounding which company should replace Canada’s fighter jet fleet also raised questions about whether this country has the ability to design and manufacture a jet fighter suited to Canadian air defence needs, the way it once did in the 1940s and 50s.  The last Canadian designed and manufactured fighter jet was the ill-fated Avro Arrow which was abruptly cancelled in 1959 by the Conservative government of John Diefenbaker.

In 2012 a Canadian company proposed an updated version of the legendary Arrow as a Canadian-made alternative to the purchase of American or European designed fighter jets.  One of the proponents of that proposal was retired Canadian Armed Forces Maj.Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, who noted that the Arrow’s basic design and platform still exceeded any current fighter jet, and that it was perfect for Canada’s needs.  The proposal was rejected by the Conservative government of Stephen Harper.
 

This proposal was evidence that Canada does have the knowledge and resources to design and build a fighter jet to meet its needs, as well as the entrepreneurial spirit and business acumen required for such a venture.  The only thing that seemed to be lacking was political will.  

If Canadian politicians and those who advocate a Canadian-made solution to this nations air defence needs are looking for a template on how to take on such a venture successfully then it should look no further than Sweden.  This small nation has been able to create a robust domestic military aviation industry based on the needs of the Swedish Air Force (SAF) for a fighter jet.

The Saab conglomerate has been the supplier of front line fighter jets to the SAF since the late 1940s.  Its success is built on a foundation of aviation technology, a commitment to innovative research and development, a political commitment to the company by all political parties that have held government in that country, and a realization that as a small nation with an official policy of neutrality in the great conflicts of the 20th Century, it could not depend on other nations to defend its air space or territory.  As a result Saab has been the main supplier of front line fighter jets for the SAF for decades.

Sweden is a country with a population of more than 10.1 million people (27% of Canada's population), a geography that is 4.5% the size of Canada's, and a GDP that is 32.5% of Canada's (2018 International Monetary Fund figures).  Yet for almost seven decades this small nation has managed to produce jet fighters to equip its own air force that matched or exceeded the performance of other top line fighter jets produced in the West and by the Russians.  These planes were supplied to the SAF in numbers that were and are two or three times greater than the number of front line jets that have equipped the RCAF over the past half century.

The decision by Diefenbaker's Conservative government to cancel the Avro Arrow, which was apparently made on the basis of the program's cost (but some say was a vindictive political move against a Liberal project), was one of the biggest blunders in industrial policy in Canadian history.  That decision resulted in more than 15,000 well-paid and highly educated Canadian workers immediately losing their jobs with another 25,000 jobs lost in the supply chain, in spin-off and support industries, and in businesses that depended on the buying power of those aviation industry workers.  In addition, the cancellation resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of potential future jobs that would have been created through further innovation and evolution of the technology developed by Avro.
    

CF-101 Voodoo

The replacements for the Arrow -- the Bomarc missile, CF-101 Voodoo, and the CF-104 Starfighter -- not only did not meet the performance specifications that the RCAF had for the Arrow, but also ended up costing significantly more in the long run than if Canada had purchased the Arrow for the RCAF.

Squadron of CF-104 Starfighters

One of the reasons often given by critics as to why Canada can't design and build jet fighters for the RCAF today is that Canada does not have the technological capacity or deep enough pockets as a government to finance a fighther aircraft from design to production to operation.  This is despite the fact that Canada's aerospace industry was ranked third in terms of revenue and fifth in terms of civil aircraft production in the world in 2018.  In addition, Canada's largest aerospace company -- Bombardier -- has been on the leading edge of innovative aircraft design when it comes to civil aircraft for years, despite setbacks in recent years resulting from over extending itself financially to design and build the C-Series passenger jet, which was eventually sold to Airbus.  Furthermore, Canada's economy was ranked 9th in the world compared to Sweden which was ranked 22nd.  Given these realities it begs the question, if Sweden is able to design and build their own fighter jets with a much smaller economy, tax base and aerospace sector than Canada, then what is stopping Canada from doing the same?  The simple answer seems to be political vision and will.
     

Bombardier C-Series 100

 

The 138 CF-18 Hornets that Canada purchased in 1982 were intended to defend the second largest geography in the world and meet Canada's NATO commitments.  By comparison, the SAF had over 300 front line jets operational in its arsenal during the same time period to defend a nation with a tiny fraction of Canada's geography.  Either Sweden wasted tax dollar on defence of its air space or Canada didn't spend enough on defence of its territory.

Now Canada is looking at buying even fewer replacement aircraft -- 88 to be precise -- to replace the CF-18s to defend its geography and meet its NATO obligations.  Based on Canada's NORAD and NATO defence requirements, as well as requirements to defend Canada's sovereignty from the air over the vastness of the Arctic, a fleet of only 88 aircraft is totally inadequate, and is a signal that Canadian politicians do not take defence of Canadian sovereignty over its vast territory seriously.  In addition, in a controversial decision, Canada has committed to purchasing 25 used F-18 Hornets from Australia in the interim to meet a "capability gap" resulting from the wear out, crashes and retirements of older CF-18s, which have resulted in a severely depleted RCAF fleet.

Sweden's first jet fighter was the single-engine Saab 29 Tunnan -- a single seat fighter similar in design to the Russian MIG 15 and the American F-86 Sabre.  More than 660 Tunnan's were built (some for export) and they served with the SAF from 1950-76. 

The first supersonic fighter deployed by the SAF was the single-engine, Mach 2 capable, Saab 35 Draken interceptor, which was able to operate from public highways and roads, and could be refueled and rearmed within 10-15 minutes by relatively untrained conscripts.  Canada's Avro Arrow and the French Mirage III were aircraft that were comparable.  The SAF equipped its squadrons with 474 of these jets which served with the SAF well into the 1990s.  The replacement for the Draken was the Saab 37 Viggen -- a single-engine, single seat jet capable of Mach 2.1 designed for air superiority, ground attack and reconnaissance.  This jet saw service in the SAF from 1971-2005 with over 329 being produced.
 

Saab Draken                                                                                                     Saab Viggen

 

The current front line fighter jet serving with the SAF is the Saab JAS 39 Gripen -- a single-engine, multirole jet fighter comparable in performance to the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Dassault Rafale and the MIG 29.  Over 240 Gripens have been built, and it is one of the planes in the running to replace the RCAF's fighter jet fleet.  The Swedish government has also been working aggressively with Saab to market Gripens to other European nations as well as to Brazil, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Mexico and the Philippines.

  

Saab Gripen

 

Given Canada's unique air defence needs and its vast geography, and since Canada already has a robust and competitive aerospace sector that could design and build fighter jets to meet RCAF needs if called upon, one has to question why Canada can't take a page from Sweden and follow their example of creating an industry, the main purpose of which would be to provide for its domestic air defence needs, while creating jobs and contributing to Canada's GDP in a significant manner.

Those who criticize Canadian governments for supporting a domestic aerospace industry demonstrate their lack of confidence and vision in the capability of the Canadian aerospace sector, and an unwillingness to take advantage of the innovation and ingenuity resident in Canada.  Critics also fail to realize or are unwilling to admit that Canada's air defence needs are very different from those of its allies, and therefore requires a tailor made approach.

Since there are vast areas of Canada's geography where sovereignty can only be exercised from the air, there is no excuse for Canada not producing its own fighter aircraft to equip the RCAF to meet its unique air defence needs, particularly when it has the talent, ingenuity and technological capability to do so.  Canada use to do this and the Avro Arrow was the last time that Canada took an independent approach to air defence procurement.  Had the Arrow gone into service it would have been able to exceed the performance of most of the front line jet fighters of its allies and adversaries well into the 1970s.  In addition, advances in design and technology would likely have meant that it could have continued to be a superior jet fighter into the 1980s, 90s, and possibly into the 21st century.  The absolute folly of the Diefenbaker government's decision to cancel the Arrow program is evident by the fact that the government spent far more in the subsequent decades on aircraft and missiles for Canada's air defence than the original Arrow program would have cost.  By doing so Diefenbaker seriously damaged the Canadian economy, Canada’s technological and industrial capacity, and in the process diminished the ability of Canada to defend its sovereignty.  The repercussions of that decision are still being felt more than 60 years later.

The knowledge to design, build and equip RCAF fighter squadrons in numbers that would cover Canada from east to west to north is present today and would only succeed if the federal government, supported by all political parties, and Canada's aerospace sector, came together to make this project a national priority, not only to meet Canadian defence needs, but also to create well paid, value added, high tech manufacturing jobs.

Canada suffered a huge loss in terms of industrial capability, innovation, research and development, and jobs when the Arrow was cancelled in 1959.  The impact of the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, the money that was taken out of the economy, and the talent, knowledge and ingenuity that was lost to the US and the UK aerospace sectors when engineers and designers left Canada, was incalculable.  Who knows where Canadian industry (particularly the aerospace sector) would be today if Canada had proceeded with outfitting the RCAF with the Arrow as planned?

 

The evolution of aerospace technology would have seen the Arrow evolve into something that could have gone toe to toe or even surpassed the stealth jets which are the front line fighters of the US, Russia and China.  Concepts for a 5th generation Arrow have been floated for the past decade in many social media forums, and concept designs like the illustration below could have become reality if there had been political vision to support the ingenuity of Canadian aerospace designers and engineers, and adopt a build and buy Canadian policy for the RCAF.

 

However, an opportunity exists again for Canada to be the master of its own destiny when it comes to air defence.  But only if it follows the example of Sweden, instead of being subservient to the defence priorities of the US government and the American military-industrial complex.  

Committing to designing and building a Canadian-made fighter jet would be a way to exercise sovereignty in defence procurement based on Canadian air defence needs.  It would unleash innovation that would not only benefit the defence sector but would have economic spin offs for the non-defence sector as well.  It would also instill a sense of national pride among Canadians, particularly those who know the story of the Arrow.  Finally, it would create tens of thousands of new jobs both within and outside the aerospace sector that would boost the aviation industry and the high tech sector in ways that hasn’t happened since the days when the Avro Arrow was the height of technological achievement.

Canada shouldn't turn its back on the potential that is possible if this nation does as Sweden did, and charts its own course for Canada's air defence priorities.  It has little to lose and much to gain.

© 2020 The View From Here.  © 2020 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.