The federal environmental panel studying the effects of military low-level flight training in Labrador and Quebec finally released its long-awaited report at the beginning of March. The panel concluded that there was insufficient evidence of adverse environmental impacts to justify either stopping current training activities or cancelling plans to increase the training. [More on the panel report.] What the panel did not - and could not - rule on is whether it is right for the project to continue.

At the time of writing, the decision about how to proceed was still in the hands of the Ministers of the Environment and National Defence. There is little doubt, however, that the expansion will be approved, as the government persists in examining the issue far too narrowly.

Ostensibly about military preparedness and economic development, the military flight training issue is really about competing ideas of security. To weigh properly the costs and benefits of proceeding, the Ministers would have to look beyond the environmental review panel's terms of reference and the conclusions of its report, and consider factors not taken into account by the panel, such as the need for low-level flying and the rights and interests of the Innu people, the main aboriginal group in the area where the training takes place. The Innu have persistently opposed the flights and insisted that their aboriginal rights be recognized. For the past decade and a half, however, the federal government's position has been fly now, settle later.

What are the benefits of low-level flight training? Flying high-performance military aircraft at near treetop levels is dramatic and daring. But is it the essential military tactic its proponents claim? A recent study by American defence analyst Alan Bloomgarden, published by Project Ploughshares (Working Paper 94-2), raises questions about the need for this training.

The original reason for low-flying was to improve NATO's ability to conduct air attacks deep inside Warsaw Pact territory, as part of the alliance's broader effort to deter or defend against an invasion of Western Europe. Low-level tactics were considered essential to enable NATO's aircraft to underfly the dense Warsaw Pact air defence system.

Today, however, the case for low-flying is much less convincing. Neither the Gulf War nor any other recent war has required extensive low-flying. The Iraqi air defence system was one of the most capable in the world outside the Soviet Union, but it presented almost no obstacle to the Coalition air forces during the Gulf War. Some low-level missions were flown at the beginning of the war, but most operations were conducted at medium to high altitude, and low-flying was abandoned quickly as both unnecessary and unduly risky.

Technological trends such as the continued development of "smart" bombs and stand-off weapons like cruise missiles suggest that the military importance of low-flying will decline even further in the future.

We may, in fact, be undermining our security by continuing training that is now useful only for a war against the former Soviet Union. There is a real danger that NATO's continued preparation to fight the last Cold War will contribute to a resurgence of militarism in Russia that helps start a new Cold War.

This counterproductive possibility highlights the necessity of considering low-flying in a broader context than that of simple military tactics. Where does low-flying fit in the overall context of Canadian and global security?

Ultimately, security results from conditions of justice. In its brief to the recent parliamentary review of foreign policy, the Canadian Council of Churches suggested as one aim of Canadian foreign policy a focus on "enhancing the self-reliant social and economic development of local communities based on social justice and cultural respect." This statement was made in the context of Canada's development assistance program, but it could be directed with equal validity to the situation in Labrador.

Canadian security relies on the creation of a peaceful and just world order, one which arises from a global culture of respect for international law and for human rights, including the rights of indigenous peoples. Our security, and not just the Innu's, would be enhanced by recognition of the Innu's right to self-determination in their own homeland. Recognizing that right would demonstrate Canada's commitment to high standards of human rights and social justice applied fairly, without respect for economic and political power, and would contribute to the development of a global community that demands equally high standards for all.

We must also recognize that the concerns of the people of Happy Valley-Goose Bay for their community are legitimate and must be addressed. Many understandably see low-flying as the key to their economic future. But a military-driven resurgence of Happy Valley-Goose Bay would be temporary at best. Just as the community's fortunes plummeted when US medium-range bombers were replaced by longer range aircraft stationed further south, and then fell again when a similar evolution reduced the base's importance for air defence, hard times will return when the declining military importance of low-flying eventually takes its toll. Labrador cannot build a sustainable economy on the whims of military fashion.

The existing international memoranda of understanding which permit low-level flight training, and which expire next year, should not be renewed. Aboriginal land claims should be dealt with before there is further industrial or other development in the region. The community of Happy Valley-Goose Bay should be assisted in developing a sustainable basis for its economy. And the social and cultural tensions around the low-level flight training dispute should be addressed and mitigated.

By opting, instead, to encourage low-level flight training in Labrador and Quebec, the Canadian government has chosen a path that intensifies rather than reduces cultural conflict, and that undermines rather than builds security.

Peter Chapman is the Coordinator of the Canadian Friends Service Committee, the peace and service arm of Quakers in Canada; Bill Robinson is on staff at Project Ploughshares.

Environmental panel report: Green light for low-flying

Nine years and $18-million after it began, the Environmental Assessment Panel Reviewing Military Flying Activities in Labrador and Quebec released its report on March 2nd. ``There are almost no cause-and-effect research studies on the impact of low-level flying in the region,'' the report stated. Nonetheless, as expected, the panel gave the Department of National Defence (DND) the green light to proceed with efforts to more than double the size of the flight training program.

The report recommended that the government

• commit itself to the early settlement of native land claims;
• establish the Labrador Institute for Environmental Monitoring and Research to study the effects of low-flying;
• set up a joint caribou management board for the George River caribou herd (the caribou considered most likely to suffer ill effects from the training); and
• accept DND's ``Option B'' to expand and reconfigure the existing Low-Level Training Areas (LLTAs) from two zones totalling 100,000 square km to a single LLTA of 130,000 square km.

The Cabinet is expected to respond favourably to the panel's recommendations sometime during March, after which DND will receive the formal go-ahead to proceed with the expansion.

Canada, Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands currently participate in the low-flying program. Potential new participants include Belgium and Italy, which have agreed already to conduct trial deployments to Goose Bay this year; and France, which may send some aircraft. In addition, a number of American aircraft are expected to train at the base during April.

Ultimately, DND hopes to expand the number of training flights from 6,000-7,000 low-level flights per year to as many as 15,000, with another 3,000 higher altitude air-to-air combat training flights. DND would also like to build a second practice bombing range.

The International Campaign for the Innu and the Earth (ICIE), which is co-sponsored by Project Ploughshares, has denounced the panel's report and calls on the government to end the low-flying program. Opponents of the program are encouraged to write letters to Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Minister of the Environment Sheila Copps, and Minister of National Defence David Collenette (House of Commons, Ottawa K1A 0A6, no postage required). ICIE has declared April the ``National Month of Action for the Innu and the Earth.'' To find out more about the campaign and how you can participate in April's activities, contact ICIE at 602 Markham Street, Toronto, M6G 2L8, (416) 531-6154.