Author:

Branka Marijan

Guerrilla Cyberwar Can Have Unintended Consequences

Posted on Branka Marijan

In the digital domain, the soldiers are hackers who may never have fired a gun

With the eyes of the world on Russia’s air, land and sea attacks on Ukraine, and the latter’s determined resistance, another front is opening up in the war–one poised to grow in both sophistication and strategic importance as the conflict unfolds: cyberwarfare.

In the cyber domain, the troops are hackers who may have never fired a gun. Although the attacks are virtual, their effects are anything but. And while the prospect of cyberattacks and warnings of “cyber doom” have been rightly criticized as exaggerated, it would be a mistake to underestimate the very real risks of damage from cyberattacks by and in response to Russia. This is especially true as more hacker groups seek to “take up digital arms.”

Russian cyberattacks, which have been a factor in this crisis for several months, featured modestly in the lead-up to the invasion and have not been as prominent as had been expected. A distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack against Ukrainian government websites was somewhat successfully countered after a temporary service disruption. In response, it appears that major Russian websites also came under a DDoS attack, including those of the military and the Kremlin. While it is not clear who was behind the counterattack on Russian websites, it seems plausible that it was a retaliatory attack by the Ukrainians.

At the same time, cyberattacks are continuing. Russia is believed to be behind the HermeticWiper, a new data-wiping malware that had likely been in preparation for months, infecting hundreds of computers and not just in Ukraine. The scale of the HermeticWiper is certainly not comparable to previous attacks attributed to Russia. Still, this malware, targeting organizations in defence, aviation and information technology, among other sectors, did spread to computers in Latvia and Lithuania. Both countries are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Read more

Canadian Pugwash Group Condemns the Russian Attack on Ukraine

Posted on editor

The Canadian Pugwash Group (CPG) strongly condemns the unlawful attack by the armed forces of the Russian Federation on Ukraine and staunchly supports the people of Ukraine in the defence of their homeland against this armed aggression.

CPG calls on the Russian Federation to cease all hostilities and to withdraw all its forces from the territory of Ukraine.

CPG further calls on the Russian Federation to uphold its obligations under the United Nations Charter, cespecially as a permanent member of the Security Council, to resolve all disputes through peaceful means and negotiations. Diplomatic engagement can yield a settlement of this dispute, but it must proceed on the basis of a recognition of the sovereign independence of Ukraine and free from armed coercion.

CPG welcomes and urges the continued efforts by the Secretary-General, UN Member States, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and other international and regional organizations, to support de-escalation of the current situation, and also the efforts of the United Nations and humanitarian organizations to respond to the humanitarian and refugee crisis that the Russian Federation’s aggression has created.

CPG encourages all European countries through the OSCE to further refine a European security architecture based on the respect of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of all States, the renunciation of force and resolution of disputes exclusively through peaceful means.

CPG calls on all parties to work constructively in relevant international frameworks, including in the Normandy Format and Trilateral Contact Group, towards the implementation of the Minsk agreements.

CPG expresses deep concern about the indirect threat of the use of nuclear weapons invoked by the Russian President and strongly affirms that nuclear weapons should have no place in international security given the catastrophic regional and global consequences of any use of nuclear weapons.

CPG reminds all concerned of the 3 January 2022 Joint Statement by the Leaders of the Nuclear Weapon States that inter alia affirms that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, recalling the affirmation from the 1985 Joint Soviet-United States Statement on the Summit Meeting in Geneva.

Canadian Pugwash (CPG) calls on the Government of Canada to continue its support for the people of Ukraine, to call on the Russian Federation to restore the status quo ante, and to renew through the OSCE cooperative security arrangements based on arms control and non-nuclear defence.

1 March 2022

Canada and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

Posted on editor

”Humanity remains one misunderstanding, one misstep, one miscalculation, one pushed button away from annihilation.”

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres issues this stark warning of the immediacy of the nuclear threat and the unacceptable catastrophic humanitarian consequences of firing any of the world’s 13,000 nuclear weapons. All nine states holding these weapons pursue the perpetual “modernization” of their arsenals–notably making a mockery of the disarmament commitments of the nuclear weapon powers party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and threatening to extend the nuclear weapons era indefinitely. More than ever, the world needs to hear a clear moral and legal call for the elimination and perpetual prohibition of these instruments of mass destruction.

Just such a call has come with urgency and authority in the January 2021 entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). In unequivocal language, the TPNW declares that “any use of nuclear weapons would be abhorrent to the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience.”

This historic treaty exposes and stigmatizes nuclear weapons and their use as standing outside the norms of international humanitarian law. It challenges nuclear weapon states to finally act on their NPT disarmament commitments. The TPNW reinforces the urgent need for nuclear weapon states to undertake and conclude nuclear disarmament negotiations, with non-nuclear weapon states also at the table.

Therefore, we the undersigned urge Canada to join the Treaty and call on the Government to begin the process by publicly welcoming the Treaty’s moral authority and legal mandate in the pursuit of a world without nuclear weapons. We also urge Canada to join Norway and Germany as observers at the first Meeting of States Parties, and to work at bringing NATO into conformity with the Treaty and the NPT.

We thus call on Canada to challenge the nuclear retentionist policies of NATO, by, as a first step, acting decisively on the still relevant 2018 recommendation of the House of Commons Committee on National Defence—that, “on an urgent basis,” the Government of Canada “take a leadership role within NATO in beginning the work necessary for achieving the NATO goal of creating the conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons.”

The overwhelming majority of Canadians support the abolition of nuclear weapons and look to their government for energetic and sustained leadership in helping to push the world back from the abyss of nuclear annihilation. Nuclear disarmament diplomacy must become a national priority. Emergency action is required.

This “Ottawa Declaration” emerged out of the conference of international experts initiated and convened by the Simons Foundation Canada and Canadians for a Nuclear Weapons Convention (CNWC) in Ottawa, November 29-30, 2021, on “Canada and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.”

The declaration is endorsed by the following individuals (conference participants, indicated by an asterisk, and CNWC supporters, all of whom are recipients of the Order of Canada). Affiliations are included for identification purposes only and do not indicate institutional endorsement.

Click here to view a PDF version of the Ottawa Declaration (provided by the Hill Times)

Ray Acheson*
Director, Reaching Critical Will of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

Carolyn Acker C.M.
Founder, Pathways to Education Canada

The Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, C.C.*
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Canada

Tom Axworthy, O.C.
Secretary General, InterAction Council; Chair, Public Policy, Massey College, University of Toronto

Christopher R. Barnes, C.M.
Professor Emeritus, Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria

Gerry Barr, C.M.
Former CEO of the Directors Guild of Canada; Former President and CEO of Canadian Council for International Cooperation

Adele Buckley*
Pugwash Council; Past Chair, Canadian Pugwash Group

Robin Collins*
Co-Chair, Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

Paul Copeland, C.M.
Criminal law, immigration law and national security law lawyer; Co-founder and life bencher of the Law Society of Ontario

Cathy Crowe, C.M.
Public Affiliate, Department of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University

Bonnie Docherty*
International Human Rights Clinic, Harvard Law School

Howard Dyck, C.M.
Artistic Director, Nota Bene Players & Singers; Former CBC Radio host of Choral Concert and Saturday Afternoon at the Opera

John English, 0.C.
Distinguished University Professor Emeritus, University of Waterloo

Ivan Fellegi, O.C.
Chief Statistician of Canada Emeritus

Nigel Fisher O.C.
Former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General

Peter Herby*
Consultant on humanitarian-based disarmament, Switzerland; Former head of the Arms Unit, Legal Division, International Committee of the Red Cross

Nancy Hermiston, O.C.
Head, UBC Voice and Opera Divisions; UBC University Marshal

Erin Hunt*
Programme Manager, Mines Action Canada

Cesar Jaramillo*
Executive Director, Project Ploughshares; Chair, Canadian Pugwash Group

Bruce Kidd, O.C.
Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto

Daryl G. Kimball*
Executive Director, Arms Control Association

Bonnie Sherr Klein, O.C.
Documentary filmmaker and disability activist

Anita Kunz, O.C.
Artist, writer, educator

Stephen Lewis, C.C.
Former Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations

Tamara Lorincz*
Ph.D. Candidate, Balsillie School of International Affairs, Wilfrid Laurier University

Margaret MacMillan, C.C.
Emeritus Professor of International History, University of Oxford

Peggy Mason*
President, Rideau Institute; Former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament to the United Nations

David Matas, C.M.
Lawyer specializing in international human rights, immigration and refugee law

Elizabeth May, O.C.
Member of Parliament, Saanich-Gulf Islands; Parliamentary Leader, Green Party of Canada

Paul Meyer*
School of International Studies, Simon Fraser University

Jock Murray, O.C.
Professor Emeritus, Dalhousie University

John C. Polanyi, C.C.
Nobel Laureate (chemistry, 1986); University Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto

M.V. Ramana*
Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security; Director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia

Tariq Rauf*
Former Head of Verification and Security Policy, International Atomic Energy Agency

Ernie Regehr O.C.*
Co-Founder and former Executive Director, Project Ploughshares; Senior Fellow, The Simons Foundation Canada

Catherine Robbin, O.C.
Associate Professor Emerita, York University; President, Art Song Foundation of Canada

Hon. Douglas Roche, O.C.*
Former Canadian Senator, Member of Parliament, and Ambassador for Disarmament

Clayton Ruby C.M.
Lawyer and activist specializing in constitutional and criminal law and civil rights

Peter H. Russell, O.C.
Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Toronto

Randy Rydell*
Former Senior Political Affairs Officer, United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs

Alicia Sanders-Zakre*
Policy and Research Coordinator, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear
Weapons

Tom Sauer*
Professor in International Politics, University of Antwerp, Belgium

Jennifer Allen Simons C.M.*
Founder and President, The Simons Foundation Canada; Founding Partner, Global Zero

Gérard Snow, C.M.
Jurilinguiste, anciennement de l’Université de Moncton

Setsuko Thurlow, C.M.
Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Survivor and Nobel Peace Prize Recipient on behalf of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, 2017

James Walker, C.M.
University of Waterloo

Jessica West*
Senior Researcher, Project Ploughshares

Salim Yusuf
Distinguished University Professor of Medicine, McMaster University; Past President, World Heart Foundation

Omicron To the Rescue: NPT Review Conference Postponed—Again!

Posted on Tariq Rauf

“The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is an essential pillar of international peace and security, and the heart of the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime. Its unique status is based on its near-universal membership, legally-binding obligations on disarmament, verifiable non-proliferation safeguards regime, and commitment to the peaceful use of nuclear energy”.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the NPT’s opening for signature, 24 May 2018, Geneva.

VIENNA (IDN) — The bedevilled Tenth Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) not unexpectedly has fallen victim again to the continuing COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, the Omicron variant has reached the United Nations in New York where the review conference was expected to convene from 4 to 28 January 2022.

The Chef de Cabinet of the UN Secretary-General informed President-designate Gustavo Zlauvinen, on 27 December 2021, that “I wish to advise you that the Secretariat will not be able to service an in-person meeting of the Tenth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in January 2022”.

Accordingly, on 30 December 2021, following consultations with delegations, President-designate Gustavo Zlauvinen informed that the review conference would not be held as envisaged this month and is postponed to a later date this year.

The tentative new dates for the tenth review conference in New York are 1 to 26 August 2022. Consultations will continue in the interim to examine other options for dates, failing that a formal decision on the dates shall be taken three months prior to the August dates—that is, probably by early May 2022.

In my view, in many respects, this is a welcome development not only because it spares many delegates from likely infection with Omicron in New York, but more importantly it forestalls an expected contentious and bad-tempered conclave of feuding States thereby rescuing the NPT review process from further ill-tempered discourse and another failed conference.

The cycle of postponement started in March 2020 now is repeating for the fourth time and into the third year. In light of this continuing saga of trying to convene the tenth NPT review conference, this opinion piece suggests possible alternatives for consideration.

One possibility could be for some NPT non-nuclear-weapon State to offer a suitable location to hold the review conference in 2022, preferably in April-May.

A more radical and likely controversial alternative could be to write off the tenth review conference and leapfrog to the eleventh review conference to be held as scheduled in 2025 but in Vienna (Austria) and not in New York.

I can already foresee howls of protest especially regarding the second option—this is discussed in some detail below.

Read more

The reason of prohibition must triumph over the might of nuclear weapons

Posted on John Polanyi

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-reason-of-prohibition-must-triumph-over-the-might-of-nuclear/
John Polanyi is university professor emeritus at the University of Toronto and won the 1986 Nobel Prize in chemistry. This article is based on a talk to the Conference on the Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), given in Ottawa on Nov. 30.

With 20 million killed in the First World War and 60 million in the Second World War, mankind showed it could mass-produce death. Then, A-bombs increased the power of weaponry a thousandfold. H-bombs a millionfold. The world took note and in a bold move reduced the number of nuclear weapons to a few thousand.

That is the good news. The bad news is that this residue can destroy civilizations.

How did this new world come into being?

It owes its existence to the power of modern science. But that is also good news; it testifies to the ability of the international community to co-operate while competing fiercely.

For science is highly competitive, while being supremely co-operative. Rarely today does a scientific paper have a single author. And when it does, the list of references makes clear its indebtedness to others.

Isaac Newton’s claim to be standing on the shoulders of giants was genuine. Science shows the ability of competitors to share. Applied to the world at large, that would be transformative.

But how do we combine competition with collaboration? This happens in societies linked by trust. Only occasionally can scientists stop to verify others’ findings. For the most part, they believe their colleagues.

The success of science shows that the trust is well-placed. The widespread desire for freedom to speak the truth also applies to science. We make the penalty for falsehood severe; it is life-long banishment from science.

The trust that exists between colleagues carries an important message: we are all valid observers. Testament to this came from the acceptance of Albert Einstein, a stateless patent clerk, as having the right to challenge science’s highest authorities. This affirmed the most fundamental of human rights: the right to be heard.

Tyrannies hold to a different ethic. For them the truth takes second place to utility. Accordingly, they prove inhospitable to science.

A century ago, German science reigned supreme. But within a decade the Nazis destroyed it. Characteristically, the science they put in its place – racial purity – was spurious. Communism’s false science was that of unending class struggle. Societies that elevate doctrine over truth soon lose sight of the truth.

That is why there is fear today of China. The fear extends to the possibility that it might blunder into war with Taiwan. President Joe Biden stated that U.S. support for Taiwan is “rock solid.” So, too, we are told, is President Xi Jinping’s claim to Taiwan.

Where will the world shelter if these nuclear powers come to blows?

The contending parties are bound by the UN Charter, making aggression a crime. In 1945, following two world wars and the Nuremberg trials, the world demanded an end to “might as the arbiter of right.”

For might is bereft of reason. Reason gave us science; laws of nature and some laws of man. From this came courts where laws are argued. There is a profound difference between that and drawing a gun.

To set aside the gun will, however, require an act of will, opposing the continual call for armaments. The rationale for arming is that others do it. This defies logic, since it is a race to no destination except war.

A turning away from war is evidenced by the decline in interstate violence over the past three-quarters of a century. Objectively, the peace movement is winning.

The aim must be to revitalize the peace movement by issuing a challenge to “ban the bomb” – not merely figuratively, but legally. The legislation exists. It is the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which came into force this year, backed by 122 states (but not yet by any nuclear-weapon states, or Canada).

Such laws have been proposed before, and laughed at. “Not so fast,” their proponents were told. But soon they found that “little by little” meant never. They needed to make a break with history.

One such break ended the burning of heretics, another ended murders sanctioned as duels, a third ended torture en route to slavery.

And then, as now, humanity cried out again for change.

Canadian-organized airlift needed to bring food, medical provisions to Afghanistan

Posted on Erika Simpson

A Canadian-organized airlift this winter of food and medical provisions for Kabul could save some of Afghanistan’s 40-million population and signal Canada’s support for global internationalism.

Afghan women, pictured May 7, 2012, lining up at a UN World Food Program Distribution Point in Herat, Afghanistan. The onerous 14-year military commitment by Canada to Afghanistan means we need to spearhead emergency solutions for Afghanistan’s bereft citizens, before millions of deaths occur this winter due to famine and mass starvation, writes Erika Simpson. 
Photograph courtesy of Flickr/United Nations/Eric Kanalstein

The well of human sympathy upon seeing Kabul’s international airport besieged has dried up too quickly. Pleas to heed the chorus of desperate Afghans are falling on deaf ears. Now U.S. President Joseph Biden’s problem is how to handle Trump-like criticisms, as he lurches toward the next election. While the United States and NATO discuss the lessons learned from the past and whether to stay out of the Central Asian area, we should take swifter action here in Canada.

The onerous 14-year military commitment by Canada to Afghanistan means we need to spearhead emergency solutions for Afghanistan’s bereft citizens, before millions of deaths occur this winter due to famine and mass starvation. And there are other reasons for Canada to act quickly.

Read more

NATO, nukes, and a time to act

Posted on Paul Meyer and Lloyd Axworthy
The Hill Times | Wednesday, November 24, 2021

Canada can be a leader in pushing NATO to drop its hostility towards the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Earlier this year, Nanos Research conducted a poll on Canadian attitudes on nuclear disarmament. The results of this poll highlighted that 80 per cent of Canadians believed the world should work to eliminate nuclear weapons. With new ministers of Foreign Affairs, Mélanie Joly, and National Defence, Anita Anand, the time is ripe to drive this popular policy forward. Unfortunately, the biggest hurdles in our path are the nuclear dogma of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and a lack of political will to push for change.

To describe NATO as a traditionalist institution would be an understatement. It seems at times to operate like a medieval monastic community where sacred texts are re-copied and periodically chanted by its 30-member choir. The chief of these sacred texts is the “strategic concept” which sets out the alliance’s tasks and operating doctrines. The most recent version of this concept was issued in 2010, so it is not surprising that NATO leaders last June called for a new concept to be developed. The updated policy will be submitted for approval at the next summit due to be held in Madrid in June 2022.

The likely content of this concept re-write was foreshadowed in a document titled “NATO 2030” prepared by a reflection group and issued in November 2020. This document noted that “NATO’s external security environment has changed dramatically since the 2010 strategic concept was published.” Yet, in spite of these dramatic changes, the group’s recommendations are best summed up as “stay the course”—boiler plate language from past communiqués, polished up and reused.

Read more

Opinion: An anti-satellite weapon test ban is necessary to preserve peace in outer space

Posted on Paul Meyer

Contributed to The Globe and Mail | 22 November 2021

Russia launched a Nudol missile this past week carrying an anti-satellite weapon, or ASAT, that intercepted Cosmos 1408, a defunct Soviet Union-era intelligence satellite.

This targeted collision of the 2,200-kilogram satellite immediately produced some 1,500 pieces of trackable space debris (fragments greater than 10 centimetres) and hundreds of thousands of smaller pieces. Given orbiting speeds of seven kilometres a second, these pieces can cause damage to any space object hit by them. As the intercept occurred at an altitude of 480 kilometres, much of this debris will remain in space for years to come.

As a result of Russia’s ASAT test, the crew of the International Space Station (including two Russian cosmonauts) had to retreat into the station’s escape capsules as a precaution. As this cloud of debris disperses, it will pose a further risk to the safety of space operations in low Earth orbit, exacerbating the existing problem of accumulated space debris amounting to some 25,000 pieces of trackable size.

Russia made its launch in the wake of similar tests undertaken by China in 2007, the United States in 2008 and India in 2019–with the Chinese test being similarly egregious for the high altitude at which the intercept occurred, thus ensuring enduring debris. Given that such deliberately created debris threatens everyone’s peaceful use of outer space as enshrined in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, destructive ASAT tests represent the apogee of irresponsible state behaviour.

The Outer Space Treaty’s Article IX stipulates that any state party to the treaty–there are currently 110 states, including the four mentioned above–has an obligation to initiate international consultations if a planned activity has the potential to cause “harmful interference” to the space activity of other parties. Russia did not undertake such consultations and has disingenuously claimed that its test did not represent a danger to any space object.

Although several states have issued criticisms of the Russian action, they have not cited the Article IX responsibility, which can have the detrimental effect of undermining the authority of the treaty. If states want to uphold international law, they have to be prepared to call out actions that violate treaty commitments and cite chapter and verse. There has been a troubling tendency of late for states to ignore or play down the Outer Space Treaty, as if to evade the constraints it represents for their own actions in space.

Indeed, the Russian test also points to a larger problem of an accelerating space arms race in which leading space powers accuse one another of “weaponizing” space–while rapidly developing “counterspace” capabilities that hold at risk the space objects of their adversaries.

Diplomacy has struggled to keep up with the threat of this space arms race, but the United Nations General Assembly recently adopted a resolution that will create a new diplomatic process to consider “reducing space threats through norms, rules and principles of responsible behaviours.” An open-ended working group is slated to get under way in Geneva, Switzerland, next year. A key aim of the group is to “consider current and future threats by states to space systems, and actions, activities and omissions that could be considered irresponsible.”

For many users of space, the destructive ASAT test conducted by Russia is a prime example of “irresponsible” state action.

Although Russia and China voted against the resolution creating the group (while India abstained), all states are free to participate in the group’s work and even the opponents are expected to do so. In a perverse but plausible explanation, it has been suggested by some experts that Russia carried out its test now to confirm the efficacy of its ASAT before any move to ban such destructive tests could emerge from the new diplomatic process.

Since a curb on debris-causing ASAT tests would benefit all space actors, a ban could represent an easy win for the new group.

An open letter to the UN General Assembly calling for such a ban was initiated by the Vancouver-based Outer Space Institute and has attracted the support of many international space experts. Given the rivalry among the leading space powers, it will be important for other stakeholders including “middle powers”–like Canada, which has been an early proponent of a ban–and the private sector to advocate for early action on an ASAT test ban if the international community wants to preserve outer space for peaceful purposes.

Paul Meyer is an adjunct professor of international studies at Simon Fraser University and a fellow of the Outer Space Institute.

John Polanyi, 2022 Andrei Sakharov Prize recipient

Posted on editor


2022 recipient of the Andrei Sakharov Prize
John C. Polanyi, University of Toronto

Citation:
“For seven decades of tireless activism for a nuclear-weapons-free world, for upholding human rights and freedom of speech globally, for public education on the essential role of science in society, and for a visionary approach to bringing about a hopeful, peaceful future.”

Background:
The Honourable John Charles Polanyi, P.C., C.C., F.R.S., F.R.S.C. John Polanyi, educated at Manchester University, England, was a postdoctoral fellow at Princeton University, U.S.A. and the National Research Council, Canada. Since July 2021 he has held the title Emeritus University Professor at the University of Toronto where he is actively publishing scientific papers and commentaries on public affairs. His research is on the molecular motions in chemical reactions in gases and at surfaces. He is a Fellow of the Royal Societies of Canada (F.R.S.C.), of London (F.R.S.), and of Edinburgh (F.R.S.E.), also of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Pontifical Academy of Rome and the Russian Academy of Sciences. He is a member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada (P.C.), and a Companion of the Order of Canada (C.C.). His awards include the 1986 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, the Royal Medal of the Royal Society of London, and over thirty honorary degrees from six countries. He has served on the Prime Minister of Canada’s Advisory Board on Science and Technology, the Premier’s Council of Ontario, as Foreign Honorary Advisor to the Institute for Molecular Sciences, Japan, and as Honorary Advisor to the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics, Germany. He was a founding member of the Committee on Scholarly Freedom of the Royal Society, and President of a further international human rights organization, the Canadian Committee for Scientists and Scholars. Additionally he was the founding Chairman of the Canadian Pugwash Group (1960-1980) being active for 40 years in International Pugwash. He has written extensively on science policy, the control of armaments, and peacekeeping. He is co-editor of a book, ‘The Dangers of Nuclear War’, and was a participant in the recent ‘Canada 21’ study of a 21st century defence posture for Canada. He was co-chair (with Sir Brian Urquhart) of the Department of Foreign Affairs International Consultative Committee on a Rapid Response Capability for the United Nations. URL: sites.utoronto.ca/jpolanyi

Selection Committee:
Laura H. Greene, Maglab, Florida State University Ian Jauslin, Institute of Advanced Studies, Princeton University Vasudevan (Vengu) Lakshminarayanan, University of Waterloo Saeed Pegahan, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Athena Sefat, National Institute of Standards and Technology Virginia Trimble, University of California, Irvine, Annick Suzor-Weiner, Université de Paris

EN / FR